A good book

Signs of the Times

Re: Michael Patton's question, What makes two people married or divorced?

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/07/what-makes-two-people-married-or-divorced/#comment-37731

Living together, sex, and having children are things common to people who “hook up” for periods lasting anywhere from a week to a few years.

Clearly what is important is intent. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees tempt Jesus with the question, “‘Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?’

8. He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.”

They were splitting hairs with the Lord, like a bunch of lawyers, trying to maneuver him into a corner. But he made it clear. God puts up with our machinations because of our hardness of heart.

The fact that God allows us to violate his ordinance should not be seen as consent.

Joel Osteen Always Good for a Laugh

Watching Joel Osteen Sunday night. His message was from the passage in which Jesus turned water into wine. Osteen used this story to say that God is going to "accelerate the blessings in your life. It goes like this:

Jesus took a process that normally takes years (the production of wine) and did it instantly. God will do the same thing with your dreams and goals. He will make your dreams come true faster than you ever thought they could. Just believe.

There is at least one major problem with this application. Water does not normally turn to wine. You can stare at a jug of water as long as you like and it will still be water (minus some evaporation). Jesus didn't speed up a process. He did the impossible.

Why Are The Begats Important?

Matthew opens his account of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the most boring part of the Bible. The family tree of Jesus. To a person who has never read the Bible, the begats are the point at which that person, especially a young person, begins to wonder just how long it is going to take to get to the exciting part. The first family line is in Genesis. So right away, we run into a long list hard-to-pronounce names. There is a point, however to the family lines in the Bible. One of Matthew's main purposes is to present Jesus Christ as The King. From beginning (the lineage) to end (Matt 25), Christ is portrayed as the expected King. Jesus is not merely the King because he is God. He is the earthly king of the Jews as well.

While it is true that the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as king (John 19) It is also true that Jesus family tree shows his royal pedigree. The King had to come from the line of King David. Look at the list in Matthew's Gospel and you will see that his line runs from Abraham through David through his adopted father Joseph. Notice verse 16 says "16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah." The verse does not say Joseph was the father of Jesus. We know Mary was a virgin.

You might ask how Jesus is qualified to be king if Joseph is not his biological father. It is true that adopted children in Jewish society had all the rights of biological children. And later in his life Jesus was referred to as the son of Joseph so he was recognized that way. But there is even a better answer.

Mary was in the royal line as well. There is a fork in the road at David. Joseph's line came through Solomon. Mary's came through David's other son Nathan. So Jesus is doubly qualified. This is also important because in Joseph's line there is a man named Jeconiah. Jeconiah was put under a curse by God (Jeremiah 22:30). His ancestors were forbidden from taking the throne. So if Jesus were only in line through Joseph, that would have actually disqualified Jesus from being king. Another interesting thing about Jesus family tee is who is included in it. There are gentiles, women (even a harlot) and some rather unsavory people.

The point of this is that God uses whom he chooses. No one is chosen by God because of any special righteousness or qualificatiosns. In fact, the people God chose for His puproses were sinners. Just like us.

Matthew-First Installment

Background: Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were employed as contractors by Roman senators. The senators would bid amongst themselves to auction off the rights to collect the taxes from particular territories of the Roman empire. The senator would pay the tax for say, Jerusalem. Then he would collect the tax plus a mark-up. The tax collectors would pay the senators and collect the tax plus the senators fee plus something for themselves. By the time the citizen paid the tax it was much more than what was actually paid to Rome, depending on just how much the senator and the tax collector were trying to extract for themselves. There was a fair amount corruption in the whole system. The Jews considered Rome to be an evil occupying force. Tax collectors were considered just above prostitutes in the social structure. Some (not all) tax collectors were ruthless. Zacchaeus was the tax collector who Jesus found in a tree (because Zacchaeus was short, he climbed up to see Jesus) (Luke 19) along his path and called him down to spend time at his home. Zacchaeus was so moved that he vowed to pay back everyone he had defrauded four-fold and give half of his belongings to the poor. This came AFTER he had been called by Jesus. Salvation came first. Charity and restitution second. Apparently, Matthew felt no such compulsion. Or he simply did not say so. Matthew may have been a relatively honest tax collector. Taking only a reasonable commission. This would not change the fact that Matthew was a sinner in general or mitigate the overall lostness of his soul. God's Word does say that when Matthew was called by Jesus, (Matt 9) Matthew left his previous life behind immediately. Even though Matthew is describing his own experience he writes in the third person, always keeping Christ at the center of the story.

What is Copenhagen Really About?

Two words. Envy and money. This is all about the less developed countries seeing an opportunity to fleece the developed world of billions of dollars. The idea that tyrants like Mugabe will put the money towards cutting emissions in their countries is laughable. They will do what they have always done with foreign aid. Pocket the money and leave their citizens to suffer.

You Didn't Say What Kind Of Change

Once there was a man who was married. After eight years of marriage, he became fed up with his wife and they divorced. The wife left the man with $10,000 of credit card debt. The man remarried and put the second wife in charge of the family finances. She had promised him 'change' if he would marry her. Faced with a ten thousand debt, the second wife decided the solution was to go further into debt by $100,000. This was ten times the debt left by the first wife. The husband was furious. This was not the kind of change he had in mind. When he asked the second wife why she had done something so irresponsible, the second wife blamed the first wife for leaving behind such a financial mess. This made no sense to the husband. The family could now not even afford to pay the interest on the debt. The husband demanded that the second wife cease her irresponsible spending. The second wife responded by spending another $20,000 on credit. All the while, she claimed that she was left with no choice because of the first wife. She said this even though the debt she had accumulated was now twelve times the debt of the first wife.

The husband wanted to divorce the second wife. Unfortunately, he lived in a country where couples could not divorce until they had been married for at least four years. He had no choice because the second wife ignored his wishes. All she would tell him was, "You said you wanted change. You didn't say what kind of change."

The World's Only Universal Religion

Outside of Christianity, there really is one true world religion. It is the melding of all of the world’s other religions into one common theme: The Self is God. In this religion, I am sovereign. The world revolves around me and you exist at my discretion and to serve my purposes.

In my religion, there may be times when I will grace you with my liberal generosity. I will, when it suits me, perform random acts of kindness. The criterion for my good deeds is a complicated, arbitrary system based mainly on my own self-aggrandizement. The main purpose of such charity is to appease my own screaming conscience. As long as I feel better about myself, it’s a good thing. It also helps if others notice.

In the religion of self, I hold the scales of eternal justice. The balance may tip any way I please. I decide what is reasonable. I decide what is important. I decide what is sin. I decide what I must do to redeem my soul. That is, if I decide my soul needs redeeming at all.

I may decide there is no such thing as sin at all, at least in terms of what I owe to any man. In my religion, you are a commodity to me. You are either a prop in the theatre of my life or, perhaps a tool by which I may acquire a thing or achieve a goal. If I am ill and your stem cells might cure me, hand them over, even at the cost of your life. If you are old and occupying valuable space and sucking tax dollars from the system, you may need to be eliminated. Get this straight. This is about me.

The only conflict in my religion comes when my interests compete with yours. When this happens, I will attempt to make you an ally for a while. Otherwise, I will form a coalition against you. It will be whichever is expedient.

The religion of self is Darwinism taken to its ultimate end. This is survival of the fittest. Someday, I may be on the short end of the equation. Until then, you are either a resource to me or a burden. If you are a burden, you have lost you usefulness. Prepare to be eliminated.

Christianity Today in the Tank for Obama

Christianity Today magazine is in the tank for Barak Obama. They have been theologically drifting for years but now they have officially joined the "Evangelical left."

In an article in their Out of Ur blog, titled...

Decision '08-Our choice of president is less important than our integrity http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2008/10/decision_08.html#comments

the magazine warns Christians "shoud be a bit more careful about the 'facts' we repeat."

The article quotes the website factcheck.org.

"Does John McCain really want to apply “Wall Street de-regulation” to health care? No. Did Obama really vote against funding our troops? No. According to FactCheck.org:

'McCain has made multiple false representations of Obama's tax proposals. Obama has made false claims about McCain's stance on Social Security. Both McCain and Obama have traded some whoppers about their energy policies, about Iraq, and about Iran, and about supporting troops.'"

Notice the emphasis on McCain's "multiple false statements."

A little fact checking about factcheck.org reveals the following:

Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation was the source of funding for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a failed effort at reforming Chicago's public schools. The CAC was run by William Ayers formerly of the Weather Underground. Barak Obama was on the board of directors of the CAC.

Christianity Today feigns concern for the truth of the candidates statements about each other in order to front for Obama. The goal is to blur the truth by supposedly warning that both candidates will stretch the truth. The idea is to throw Christians off the trail of the truth about Barak Obama.

This is not at all the only example of CT's bias. Just the latest. The magazine has conducted a softball interview and published numerous puff pieces on Senator Obama.

Memo to Washington: Thanks But No Thanks for Faith-Based-Initiatives

It may surprise you to know that conservative Christians believe strongly in the separation of state and church. I reverse the common phrase, "separation of church and state," because it brings with it the image of the church as the aggressor. History shows that just the opposite is true.

Christian believers and even the God they worship have always been considered political threats. Our Lord, even as a baby, was considered by Herod to be a threat to the throne. The betrayal, the trial and the crucifixion of Christ, were thick with the politics of the day. Since that time, a long list of Christians have been tortured and killed because they were considered a political threat, including many in China, Russia and Africa. Some of the original European travelers to North America came because they were Christians on the run from a government.

While Christians in other countries have experienced the sometimes violent oppression of the state, Christians in the United States have experienced something more subtle. We are stifled not by stormtroopers, but by the lure of money and the threat of litigation. Government officials dare not express their faith and neither do employers or landlords.

It is with this in mind that I, and most Christians, want to say thanks, but no thanks to the government funding of “faith based initiatives.”

When President Bush originally announced the program, many of the leading Christians who had supported him, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al, announced their opposition. There are several reasons for this. First, there is no such thing as free money from the government. There are always strings attached. President Bush dictated that the money could only be used for secular purposes, effectively muzzling the evangelistic voice of Christian relief workers.


Secondly, the Bible never tells God’s people to be charitable with other people’s money. And that is what government funding is. Other people’s money. Biblically speaking, charity should be personal and sacrificial. It should hurt a little. God’s purpose is to build Christian character in the giver as much as it is to help the needy. To accept government funding defeats God’s purpose.

Also, Christianity is not the only faith whose relief agencies may receive money. That is only fair but it will certainly lead to spiritual confusion. Christians are all about making sure people understand the distinction between following Jesus and other religions. For Christians to accept federal funding along with the agencies of other faiths will only blur the picture.


There have certainly been some misguided souls in the Christian community who decided to accept the President’s offer. Now, we have Barak Obama offering to expand the program and even loosen some restrictions on Christian relief agencies that accept funding.

To any Christian organization that has not yet accepted funding but is considering it, I would say please think in the long term. You do not know when or how the state will call in the debt.

So Long, George

I thought George Carlin was the funniest person in the world. In the late 60s and early 70s, I was a kid and the only time I ever saw Carlin perform was on the Tonight Show (Johnny Carson). I knew nothing of his anti-establishment rants that were part of his act when he was not on television. I didn't know anything about the seven words you can't say on television. When George Carlin was on TV, his humor was simply ironic and really funny. When he was the guest host of the first Saturday Night Live (1974), I thought it was his show and I was disappointed he wasn't on the next week.

Later, I discovered the real George Carlin. The swearing, sexual humor and politics. I found his off-TV humor to be more bitter than anything else and I remember feeling sorry for him. I know from reading and seeing interviews that he really did put the blame for the world's problems on religion, particularly christianity.

He will be mourned by those of us on the right and canonized by Hollywood and the Left.

To me, he is simply a tragic figure. The Lord finds no joy in the death of the wicked.

There's Nothing There There

In the course of my scientific exploration, I have found a neat little web page:

http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/atom/index.html

This page illustrates the hydrogen atom. Hydrogen is pretty simple. There is a proton at the center and a single electron in orbit. The neat thing about the illustration is that it is to scale so that it may be seen by the human eye. The electron is represented by one bright pixel. The proton is approximately the size of a basketball. In order to see the electron, one must scroll over to the right what amounts to a distance of eleven miles. It may be the world's single biggest web page.

According to this illustration, if we could enlarge the hydrogen atom enough to see the electron with the human eye, it would be orbiting the proton from a distance of eleven miles away. Other atoms are more complicated but the principle remains the same. If you look at what we know about the galaxy, it is clear that it is also made of empty space. While the Sun is huge relative to the Earth and while there are bodies in the galaxy, which dwarf the Sun, the empty space in between it all is so large as to render the heavenly bodies relatively microscopic.

Furthermore, those heavenly bodies are made of the same empty space, which makes up our physical entity. We, and every material thing we encounter, are essentially made of empty space. We are a mirage, not even a vapor. Physically, we are nothing more than the sum of zillions of little balls of unidentifiable energy held together by an unfathomable force. What we call matter, is really an illusion.

I have never seen a more convincing scientific proof of the existence of God.The Bible tells us God created the Earth, its creatures and all the heavens from nothing. Not that God took what existed and shaped it but that He had to create what exists and form it.

From nothing.

We can give a name to the force, which holds our existence together. We can call it gravity between planets or bonding between particles. And we can experience the illusion of a substantial world. But giving a name to something we experience is not the same as knowing its essence. We cannot and will not ever be able to scientifically get to the bottom of it. That's because there is no 'bottom of it.'

The Bible also tells us that someday, God will peel back everything we think is real. Our world and the entire galaxy will be destroyed and replaced by a new Heaven and a new Earth. That won't be so hard for God because we are made of nothing to begin with. Everything we know to be real will be replaced by what is really real. As we go about our daily lives we should always keep in mind that our material world is something created by God for our benefit and His glory. But it is all as temporary as one of those facades on a Hollywood movie lot. As the old saying goes, there's nothing there, there.

Was the Early Church Marxist?

Another one of my comments on the Out of Ur blog

Travis,

I hope you will read this as old as this thread is. There was nothing remotely Marxist about the early Christian Church. Marxists don't ask for your money. They take it. They claim it is for your own good but they don't ask you if you agree. (Who does that sound like? Oh yeah, modern day Liberals.) The early Christians are said to have been "together and had all things in common;
"45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need."

Acts 2 NASB

There is no similarity between the early Christians sharing with each other voluntarily out of love and the forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth by the state. That is actually what the tax collectors did in those days and our modern day tax collectors (The U.S. Congress) are about as corrupt as the tax collctors back then.

Do you have any idea how small a percentage of our tax dollars actually come back to our communities for social welfare? It is so small that sending our money to Washington must surely be a violation of God's command for us to be good stewards of the resources He has given us.

You Might be Emergent if...

Outy of Ur has a post called You Might be Emergent if...

Here are some suggestions:

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy and thanks to Pastor Rob Thurman, who supplied me with almost all of these...

If, when you refer to "the text," your congregation instinctively stares at their cell phones...

If you think Windows NT is a Bible translation...

If your church has designated drivers listed in the bulletin for each service...

If you just take yourself way too seriously...

The Myth of Church and State

This notion that the church has tried to force itself on the state throughout history is purely a myth. In fact, the opposite is true. One reason so many Americans, including American churchgoers; see it backwards is because we live in a Democratic Republic. Our vision of history is skewed by our very unique experience.

Before Believers were referred to as the church, we see in the Bible that God’s people were oppressed by the state. Moses was on a spiritual mission but Pharaoh certainly considered him a political threat. Our Lord, even as a Baby, was considered by Herod to be a threat to the throne. The betrayal, the trial and the crucifixion of Christ were thick with the politics of the day. Did Christ present himself as a political figure? No. But he was considered a political threat.
Fast forward to just the last 200 years. The list of Christians who have been tortured and killed because they were considered a political threat is too long for me to do it justice here. But it includes millions of Believers in China, Russia, Africa, et. al. The list includes people like the Ten Boom family and other Christians who helped many Jews escape the Nazis before they were caught and sent to Ravensbruck.

Some of the original European travelers to North America came because they were Christians on the run from a government. The surge of Christian involvement in politics in the late 20th century was in response to the perception that the country was taking a moral and spiritual turn for the worse. It was but the case can be made that one look at history and scripture should have told Christians that trying to save the country at the ballot box would be futile. No one is changed from the outside in. Be that as it may, it still remains a fact that it wasn’t Christians who were trying to hijack the state. It was the state (and in our country, the people are the state, right?) that was trying to marginalize and disenfranchise Christians.

While this has been going on, Christians in other countries have been experiencing what Christians have been experiencing for 2000 years. They do not seek the state. The state seeks them, with a vengeance. Those who think the Christian Right are a threat to co-opt power in this country simply haven’t yet experienced the storm troopers at their door.

An Open Letter to Jim Wallis, et. al.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology defines covetousness:

“Strong desire to have that which belongs to another. It is considered to be a very grievous offense in Scripture. The Tenth Commandment forbids coveting anything that belongs to a neighbor, including his house, his wife, his servants, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to him (Exod 20:17). Jesus listed covetousness or greed along with many of the sins from within, including adultery, theft, and murder, which make a person unclean (Mr 7:22).”

When a stranger recently knocked on our door at home and asked for gas money, I gave him $10.00, no questions asked and I shared the Gospel with him. That was Christian charity. (I share this not to glorify myself for I am a sinner saved by grace. Let God be glorified.) My wife and I have never made more than $40,000 combined in a year and we have two teenagers so $10.00 is a stretch for us. We also have a young friend who is single and pregnant and penniless. We are helping her with expenses, transportation, etc. etc. That is Christian charity. The command Jesus gives to believers to love our neighbors is not given to bureaucracies or even to Christian aid agencies. The Good Samaritan did not call Social Services. The command is given to individuals. Some high profile Christian leaders would have us believe otherwise.

Voting for a politician who promises to “soak the rich” is not Loving your neighbor. Neither is calling for a “moral budget” where moral means taking and spending more tax dollars on social programs. In fact, there are several problems, Biblically, with this line of thinking.

1. There is an assumption communicated by Liberals, Christian and otherwise, that those who have gained an above average wealth must have done something wrong to acquire whatever they have. This is both guilt manipulation and the kind of judgement Jesus warns against and it is an example of covetousness.

2. As we are commanded to be stewards of all God gives us, nothing could be more irresponsible than spending more money on government handouts, the administration of which are hugely expensive and rife with corruption, inefficiency, and waste. Church-based charity operates efficiently out of necessity. There is no bureaucracy seeking only to preserve its own existence. Moreover, there is nothing more efficient or more Biblical than one-on-one charity performed in the name of Jesus. No infrastructure or bureaucracy required.

3. The command to be charitable was not directed at the state but at individuals and the administration of the Church. The Christian priority is to meet the needs of family first (I Tim 5:8), then Brethren, then strangers.

4. Most importantly, it is one thing to struggle with covetousness within one’s own soul. It is something else to act with covetousness supposedly in the name of charity, and it is a far more serious sin to encourage covetousness in others. The existence of poverty in the world and even the existence of greedy people do not justify making government policy based on covetousness. God will deal with the greedy. He will also deal with those who lead others into sin supposedly in His name.

In recent years “The Church” has come under increasing criticism for not doing more to “give to the least of these.” First, this is a misinterpretation of Matthew 25: 31-46. This passage is about our response to the Gospel and God’s messengers; not how we treat the poor, etc. But assuming for a moment their interpretation, I have heard Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and others use this accusation to encourage higher taxes so that government can spend more on social services. Speaking as one who is not far removed from being among “the least of these,” I have been on both the giving and receiving end of Christian charity often enough to know that the Body of Christ is performing its assigned tasks much better than some Liberals would like us to believe. The Church is not perfect. If it were, we wouldn’t bother with studying Paul’s Letters. But that does not justify demeaning the Bride of Christ. There is no charity being administered by the state that could not be done better by the Church.

It should be noted that in the entire Bible, the eradication of poverty is never mentioned either as a possibility or a goal. Jesus Christ, the Lord never talks about it. Neither is it mentioned in the epistles. What is spoken of in both the Old Testament and the New is Charity. In the Book of leviticus, it is recorded that God, the Father, giving Moses the Law for the administration of the Nation of Israel, gives specific instructions on how those who are able are to care for the poor. Farmers were instructed to leave the outside edges of their fields unharvested so that the poor could glean from them. In the book of Acts, we see the twelve setting up a structure within the church for taking care of the widows. In I Corinthians, we see Paul instructing the believers to take a collection for the believers in Jerusalem.

Consider this, if you encounter someone claiming Christ who, relatively speaking, has more wealth than most, and is not charitable with it; …in other words, if, after having first examined yourself, you do not see fruit in a fellow believer, what makes you think that that person is really saved? No one changes from the outside, in. Charity is an evidence, a manifestation of the fruit borne out of a life redeemed. But charity does not save us. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Perhaps the Body of Christ is not nearly as populated as some would like to believe or assume. Barna Research indicates that a majority of Americans claim Christianity but less than 10% of self-described “Born-Agains” can correctly answer the most basic questions about the faith. (Barna Update-12/1/2003)

I suggest that we should be concentrating more on evangelizing and making disciples. (You know, The Great Commission) Do you doubt that the Holy Spirit will lead Christians to do what is right?

Way to go Kirk

Well, I'll be busy with college now (back in school at age 44) so I won't be so active blogging now. But it was good to see Kirk Cameron on TBN the other night. I'm no fan of TBN because they'll let any false teacher on the air. But once in a while they have someone on who really speaks the truth like Kirk Cameron. He and his guests really nailed it. No word-faith nonsense. No seeker sensitive compromise of God's Word. No purpose driven beating around the bush. Just the straight-up Gospel. Repent and believe. Jesus Christ is the only way.

Nothing New Under the Sun

The only differences between today's world and that of 500, or 2000 years ago involve the speed at which humans can communicate and travel. Human nature is the same. Sin, that thing some Christian leaders would like to avoid talking about at all costs is the same. God, for sure, is the same. His Word, for sure is still both sufficient and superior. His Grace is still available to everyone. There is nothing new under the sun. None of the pressures or temptations facing people today anywhere in the world are new or unique to this time. The whole discussion about cultural sensitivity is, at best, fruitless and a waste. God's Word asks us to examine ourselves first, not make broad accusations of the Church, which, by the way, has done much more, corporately speaking, to help the world meet physical needs than it is given credit for here.

So should we abandon orthodoxy?

Let me tell you, I work 63 hours a week at two ten dollar an hour jobs and I am broke but my kids LOVE JESUS and they believe in Him and call on His name for their salvation. So eternal security is more important to me than my next meal and it should be to you too.

Consumerism in the Church

The following is a response in Out of Ur to an essay about consumerism in the Church. The Link will take you there.

It is human nature to attempt to find or create tangible evidence for our intangible faith. We are more confident in our own faith when we have some kind of a “flag” to fly (bumper sticker, t-shirt, etc.). The result can be that we reduce Christianity to something on a par with being, say, a Yankees fan. And no one who loves the Yankees strives to convert his neighbor who loves the Red Sox over to his side.

The problem is not that we have choices. It is that we have made one choice in particular, the choice to rely on something other than God’s Word and the Holy Spirit for our direction. The Christian community seems to be ever waiting on the “next big thing,” which will follow in the footsteps of the Prayer of Jaybez, the Purpose Driven Life and Emergent.
So Skye’s post is right on. But let’s not conclude that the symptoms are the root problem. The solution begins with each Believer as an individual committing to personal holiness, evangelism, and discipleship. The rest will take care of itself one soul at a time.

Here are the first and last paragraphs of a recent news article.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Six conservative Episcopalian bishops opposed to the liberal drift in the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion are asking for a trial separation, a move hinting at an eventual divorce over irreconcilable differences, some analysts say……..
…….The U.S. church may again be "pruning" itself, said Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Church in Pasadena, California and president of Integrity, a group for gay Episcopalians. "Episcopalians like to think of themselves as being a broad, generous church," she said. "We may have reached the point where some can no longer live within the tent."
(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved

A "pruning", a realignment, a purification by fire. It may very well be that the "Church", at least in America, is and will be smaller in numbers than was once thought. That is not a bad thing. It will serve God's purpose. It will be a good thing for Christians to get away from denominational loyalty. Being a Christian should not be held as equivalent to being, say, a Yankees fan. There must be a line drawn.

The tough call will be for the true Christian who serves a drifting church body regardless of affiliation. Does one stay, essentially as a missionary to the self-deceived lost? Or does one gravitate toward like minded believers. For me, I think it comes down to the family situation. If there are young children, find the most grounded-in-the-Word-Church you can. If you are mature and strong in the Lord and an empty nester, the missionary way may be what God's calling is for you.