Church Governance

Question:

Do some first-hand research on different forms of church governance. You may want to interview a minister, priest, or lay-member from a Christian tradition different from yours—Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic. How do you understand authority in the church? Where does authority reside to decide between conflicting understandings of Scripture or theology? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of being ruled by a bishop who is empowered to make a final decision? Compare this to a congregational or representative form of government. What can you learn from this different perspective that will enhance your appreciation for the variety of ways that the church governs itself?

I recently attended an Episcopal Church and talked with the priest. He was Anglican and was now in charge in an Episcopal church. One striking difference was that this was a "Protestant" church but still provided a communion and a Sunday "Eucharist". I asked the priest about this and he told me that since he was an ordained Angelican priest he could claim Apostolic succession. Since he could claim Apostolic succession, he could properly and rightfully provide the "Eucharist". Since I attended Roman Catholic high school (I am non-denominational) I knew that even this supposed close tie to Apostolic succession was not recognized in the Roman Catholic Church. As far as my education went, when England split from Rome, all Apostolic succession ended when that split occurred and thus all other churches and denominations were "anathema" or not recognized. A bishop still approves decision in this denomination and thus still tries to follow the succession of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church. It was interesting that titles were more important than what was taught through sermons or bible study. To me the authority resides in the Holy Spirit and those who obviously have the Spirit and teach through Scripture. Authority seems to reside in the top hierarchy of the particular denomination such as Episcopal, and individual priest do not have the ability to teach as the Spirit shows them but only as the the governing councils have agreed to. The advantages of such a form of governance is that off the wall and "unorthodox" biblical teaching would be eliminated and that the sermons stayed the same as they have for hundred of years. The disadvantages included the inability to grow with changing times and a type of close mindedness when it came to biblical exegesis. This form of governance is like a pyramid and is a popular business management model that is still in use today. The pope or bishop is at the top and like a triangle or pyramid, all lower levels of management are influenced and in the control of the levels above them. In college, we used to use the Roman Catholic church as an effective management hierarchy because something works well if it has worked for 2000 years. However, that is not how the Holy Spirit works...it may work well as a business management model but my experience proves that the Spirit cannot be confined to a "model". What I can learn from this perspective is that even a Protestant denomination like the Anglican and Episcopal churches, find the Apostolic succession to be very important and crucial in church authority and doctrine.

The Meaning of Christmas

Christmas has nothing to do with giving people plenty of material possessions as "gifts". These gifts are self-centered and meaningless unless the true meaning of Christmas is told and celebrated. Material possessions are of this world and will be destroyed with this world. Giving "gifts" is not uniquely Christian, and other religions give gifts, heck, Wiccan's give each other gifts. In this time that can easily become nothing more than material and self obsession amidst retail insanity , let's remember the true meaning of Christmas.

LOVE - that's the true meaning of Christmas. John 3:16-17 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

Philippians chapter 2, verses 6-11, as paraphrased in The Message, records, "Jesus had equal status with God but didn't think so much of Himself that He had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, He set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, He stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn't claim special privileges. Instead, He lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death - and the worst kind of death at that: a crucifixion. Because of that obedience, God lifted Him high and honored Him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth - even those long ago dead and buried - will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that He is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father."

The true meaning of Christmas is God's becoming a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ. Why did God do such a thing? Because He loves us! Why was Christmas necessary? Because we needed a Savior! Why does God love us so much? Because He is love (1 John 4:8)! Why do we celebrate Christmas each year? Out of gratitude for what God did for us, we remember His birth by giving each other gifts, worshipping Him, and being especially conscious of the poor and less fortunate.


The true meaning of Christmas is LOVE. God loved us so much that He wanted to provide a way for us to spend eternity with Him. He gave His only Son to take our punishment for our sins, He paid the price in full! We are free from condemnation when we accept that free gift of LOVE. "But God demonstrated His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us"
(Romans 5:8).

(Thanks to GotQuestions.org)

A message to the doubter...

There has been one TV preacher that I have learned from and respect, and believe me that is rare. The Holy Spirit has obviously come out of this man and here is one of his best teachings...


CLAIMS THAT JESUS MADE

Regardless of the source, the only Jesus in history will be found
making one or more of the following claims.

a)Jesus spoke that He would be killed but would rise on the
third day. (Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 20:19)

b)He spoke that He had been sent to save the world and
salvation came only from believing in Him. (John 3:16-18)

c)Something was wrong with the whole world that could only
be set right by his death being a "ransom". (Matthew 20:28)

d)He spoke of God as His Father and that men should honor
the Son as they honored the Father. (John 5:23)

e)He spoke that those who believed in Him would have
everlasting life. (John 14:6)

f)He claimed to be the Son of God. (John 9:35-37)

g)He spoke that no man could come to the Father except
through Him. (John 14:6)

h)He spoke in His teachings of heaven and eternity from
the inside. "I saw Satan cast down." (Luke 10:18)
And, "Before Abraham, I was." (John 8:58)
And, "There is joy in heaven by the angels when a
sinner repents." (Luke 15:10)

i)He spoke that He was to be the judge of all things
including man. (John 5:22)

j)Jesus thought of Himself as perfect by presuming himself
adequate to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6) and be the redeemer and
Savior of mankind (Matthew 16:16-17).
It doesn't matter whether he was perfect,  he thought he was
and it is not man's nature to accept someone who thinks of
himself as perfect.  Mankind certainly does not make saints of
people who think they're perfect.

So from the claims that Jesus made one can only conclude that:

a) Jesus was a liar and a fraud or
b) He was who and what He claimed to be.
c) A GOOD AND WISE TEACHER

Some say that Jesus was a "good and wise teacher". One can be wise
and be a liar which only makes him a "good" liar. One can be good
and lie without the realization that he is lying in which case he
cannot be wise.

Therefore, one cannot call Jesus both "good and wise" without
accepting that He was what He said He was.

CAN JESUS BE "JUST" A PROPHET

The claims that Jesus made suggest that He considered Himself more
than a prophet. A mere prophet from God would never make the
statement that he "should be afforded the same honor as the one (God)
who had sent him" and mere prophets do not claim that they can forgive
sin. Therefore, if one is to afford Jesus the status of being one
of "God's prophets" then all the other claims that Jesus made should
be accepted as well.

THE RESURRECTION IS THE KEY

One of the qualifications of a prophet is his predictions must be
verifiable by witnesses. We tend to focus on the "long term"
prophecies of the Prophets of old as these are the ones most
relevant to us.
Short term prophecies, those that can be verified during the "time"
of the prophet, are important because they serve to identify him
immediately as a prophet and thus give credibility to his longer
term predictions.

The following verse in the Gospel of Mark obviously qualifies
as a "short term" prediction or prophecy from Jesus. One that could
be verifiable in His "time".

(Mark 9:31) For he taught his disciples, and said unto them,
"The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall
kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day."

The portion of this prediction of significant importance is Jesus'
claim that after being killed He would "rise on the third day".
It's obvious that a miracle from God must occur for this prediction
to come to fruition.

Thus, the Resurrection is the key to determining whether the claims of
Jesus were just a bunch of lies or if He was who He said He was.

THE FACTS

To argue His resurrection one must begin with some general assumable
facts. i.e. we can't argue a resurrection took place unless
we first assume "a life and a death were present" prior to the
resurrection. The following not only are recorded in the scriptures
but are easily backed up by the writings of historians of the period.
(i.e. Josepheus).

1)Jesus lived.
2)He was crucified and considered dead.
3)He was buried in a known accessible tomb.
4)The tomb was found to be empty on the third day.
5)It was preached (by the disciples) that He had was raised up
and had ascended to Heaven.
6)The Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion would
be most interested in disproving the resurrection even more
than we would today.
7)The early Church leaders (the disciples) were persecuted for
preaching the resurrection message.
8)The tomb was found empty.

COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST RESURRECTION

1)The disciples stole the body of Jesus.
2)The Romans stole the body.
3)The Jewish leaders stole the body.
4)The women went to the wrong tomb.
5)He (Jesus) wasn't really dead when he was placed in
the tomb and He resuscitated
6)Everyone was hallucinating.
7)The disciples made the whole thing up and were lying
when they preached the resurrection.
8)It's all true. The disciples are telling exactly what
they saw and experienced.

a)Had the Romans or the Jews stolen the body (arguments 2 & 3),
they could easily have disproved the Resurrection and expose Jesus
as a fraud by simply producing the body if they were in possession of it.

b)Had the women gone to the wrong tomb (argument 4) they would have
simply kept looking until they found the right one.

c)No one ever survived a Roman crucifixion (argument 5).
Further, John reports (John 19:34) that Jesus was pierced with a
Roman spear as a final gesture to assure His death.

d)Hallucinations are temporary and do not change reality.
If it had just been hallucinations, there would have been a body in
the tomb. (argument 6).

e)The only arguments remaining center on the disciples.
Specifically, the disciples were either telling the truth when they
preached the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus or they were
preaching lies.

A LOOK AT THE DISCIPLES

Prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus the disciples were
disorganized in their understanding of the teachings of Jesus.
Peter was unstable in his faith as evidenced by his three denials
of Jesus. (Matthew 26:70-75). John was harsh and selfish to an extent
that Jesus actually referred to John and James as "the sons of thunder"
(Mark 3:17). Thomas was always filled with doubt.

Cowards, fearing for their own lives, all the disciples with
the exception of John, deserted Jesus when He was arrested and carried
away to be crucified. It appears that John was the only disciple that
was present at the crucifixion.

The disciples underwent cataclysmic changes after the Resurrection. They
show consistency in their understanding and preaching of what Jesus had
taught them. Peter became the epitome of stability within the Church.
John's ways were transformed from selfishness to loving and Thomas became
a full believer never to doubt again. Thomas preached in India which was
probably the most difficult "assignment" of all. Their cowardice was
transformed to that of courage as they preached throughout the "then known"
world.

THE FINAL ARGUMENT

Finally, to answer the question, "Were the disciples preaching lies or
were they telling what they knew to be the truth concerning the death and
Resurrection of Jesus".

The disciples were scattered throughout different countries as they
preached the Gospel. They preached alone not knowing if they would ever
see their fellow disciples again.

All the disciples, with the exception of John, were tortured, persecuted
and eventually put to death for preaching the resurrection. (The following
compilation is taken from Fox's Book of Martyrs by John Fox)

1)Peter was crucified in Rome.
2)Andrew was crucified in Edessa.
3)James was killed by the sword in Jerusalem.
4)Philip was crucified in Heliopolis, Phyrgia.
5)Bartholomew was beaten and crucified in India.
6)Thomas was speared by idolatrous priests in Parthia, India.
7)Matthew was axed to death in Nadabah, Ethiopia.
8)James (the son of Alphaeus) was clubbed to death in Jerusalem at the
age of 94.
9)Thaddaeus was crucified in Edessa.
10)Simon "Zeolotes" was crucified in Brittainnia.
11)Stephen was stoned to death and was the first to be martyred.
12)Paul (an apostle) was beheaded in Rome.
13)Matthias (an apostle) was stoned and beheaded in Jerusalem.
14)Mark (an apostle) was dragged to death in Alexandria.
15)Luke (an apostle) was hanged by priests in Greece.

Any of the disciples could have saved his own life by simply admitting
that he was preaching lies. Most likely none of the other disciples would
have ever known of such an admission since they were separated from the
others. Each of the disciples died alone.

Yet, not a single disciple retracted his story! They preached the death
and Resurrection of Jesus Christ even unto their own deaths. They preached
what they knew had happened. They were witnesses to the events that Jesus
had predicted. Jesus came out of the tomb as He said He would and since He
did then Jesus has to be everything He claimed He was.

Who was Jesus? Why is He unique??

Technorati:jesus,christ,muslim,islam,buddhist,buddha,hindu,hinduism,history

Middle Eastrern Empires

VIEW THE FLASH PRESENTATION OF THE

EMPIRES OF THE MIDDLE EAST

This is an amazing, constantly changing map of the Middle East region, illustrating how various "empires" have risen and fallen in the past 3000 years--in just 90 seconds. Enjoy and share

Technorati:politics,christian history,christian-history,history,learn from mistakes

U.S. History, Christianity, and Politics PART 2

Vasco de Balboa

This is a new series that will reflect on the rich history of the United States and the part Christianity, politics, corruption, racism, and persecution has played before and after this great nation began. It is important that we remind ourselves of the factual history of the United States and the important role Christianity has in this country today as well as to remember the hardships endured by the people of the past. Some of the actions of "Christians" have not been Christian like at all, and by reviewing history, we hope that mistakes are not repeated again. We will first cover the history leading up to the founding of the United States of America.

The Spanish Conquistadors

To conquer the Americas, the Spanish monarchs used their powerful army, led by independent Spanish adventurers known as conquistadors. At first the conquistadors confined their attentions to the Caribbean islands, where the European diseases they unwittingly carried with them devastated the local Indian populations, who had no immunitites against such diseases.

After about 1510 the conquistadors turned their attention to the America mainland. In 1513 Vasco Nunez de Balboa crossed the isthmus of Panama and became the first European to see the Pacific Ocean. The same year, Juan Ponce de Leon explored Florida in search of gold and the fabled fountain of youth. He found neither but claimed Florida for Spain. In 1519 Hernando Cortes led his dramatic expedition against the Aztecs of Mexico. Aided by the fact that the Indians at first mistook him for a god, and armed with firearms, armor,horses, and (unknown to him) smallpox germs all previously unknown in America, Cortes destroyed the Aztec empire and won enormous riches. By the 1550's other such fortune seekers had conquered much of South America.

In North America, the Spaniards sought in vain for riches. In 1528, Panfillo de Navarez led a disastrous expedition through the Gulf Coast region from which only four of the original 400 men returned. One of them, Cabeza de Vaca, brought with him a story of seven great cities full of gold, (The "Seven Cities of Cibola") somewhere to the north. In response to this, two Spanish expeditions explored the interior of North America. Hernando de Soto led a 600-man expedition (1539-1541) through what is now the southeastern United States, penetrating as far west as Oklahoma and discovering the Mississippi River, on whose banks de Soto was buried. Francisco Vasquez de Coronado led an expedition (1540-1542) from Mexico, north across the Rio Grande and through New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Some of Coronado's men were the first Europeans to see the Grand Canyon. While neither expedition discovered rich Indian civilizations to plunder, both increased Europe's knowledge of the interior of North America and asserted Spain's territorial claims to the continent.


CREDIT: "Our Great Nation" Resources for Teachers, 2002.

Technorati:us history,us-history,politics,christian history,christian-history,history,learn from mistakes

U.S. History, Christianity, and Politics Part 1

This is a new series that will reflect on the rich history of the United States and the part Christianity, politics, corruption, racism, and persecution has played before and after this great nation began. It is important that we remind ourselves of the factual history of the United States and the important role Christianity has in this country today as well as to remember the hardships endured by the people of the past. Some of the actions of "Christians" have not been Christian like at all, and by reviewing history, we hope that mistakes are not repeated again. We will first cover the history leading up to the founding of the United States of America.

1500-1763 The Colonial Period

The Age of Exploration

Excited by the gold Columbus has brought back from America, Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian member of a Portuguese expedition to South America whose widely reprinted report suggested a new world had been found. Ferdinand and Isabella, joint monarchs of Spain, sought formal confirmation of their ownership of these new lands. They feared the interference of Portugal, which was at that time a powerful seafaring nation and had been active in oversees exploration. At Spain's urging the pope drew a "Line of Demarcation" 100 leagues west of the Cape Verde Island dividing the heathen world into two equal parts--the east of the line for Portugal and the west of it for Spain.

Because the line tended to be unduly favorable to Spain, and because Portugal has the stronger navy, the two countries worked out the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), by which the line was moved farther west. As a result, Brazil eventually became a Portuguese colony, and Spain maintained claims to the rest of the Americas. As other European nations joined the hunt for colonies, they tended to ignore the Treaty of Tordesillas.

CREDIT: "Our Great Nation" Resources for Teachers, 2002.

Technorati:us history,us-history,politics,christian history,christian-history,history,learn from mistakes