BRUSH FIRES

by

BRUSH FIRES
BRUSH FIREs

“While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said…” Job 1:17

Brush fires are hard to contain because of the winds that spread them. Just about the time you have one under control, a gust of wind blows sparks into another field, and off you go again.

The pastor must exercise wisdom and discernment when it comes to these fires. “Should I chase it, or will it burn itself out if ignored?” “Where no wood is, the fire goeth out…” Proverbs 26:20.

There are two dangers when it comes to brush fires: one is to ignore it and allowing it to burn down your ministry; the other, is responding with fire trucks and ladders every time there is smoke.

My experience is that most fires are not that serious and will burn themselves out, if you don’t stir up the winds or throw fuel on them.

The pastor must stop responding to every battle, every complaint and every problem. If possible, let others in your church handle these fires and keep the smell of smoke off yourself.

The pastor should determine that he is not going to be the only man in the church with a fireman’s hat. There are others who can put out fires just as well. Most of the people in your church won’t even know there is a fire unless you keep fanning it by call attention to it.

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS

by

principles

 

By Ken Blue
The American Heritage Dictionary gives the following definition of the word principle. I have also added a list of synonyms. 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption. 2. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments. 3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. 4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior. 5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes.” Synonyms: • standard • benchmark • criterion • gauge • measure • touchstone • yardstick • guideline • requirement • prototype • guide • canon.

Since many principles (standards) are manmade and misapplied, the believer must distinguish between those of God and those of men. The Old Testament Law had one set of principles and the Pharisees had another by distortion of the Law. We need only to read the Gospels and the book of Acts to see Israel’s departure from Old Testament principles. Jesus rebuked this self-righteous crowd. Certainly, the religious leaders had their principles, and they expected everyone to live by them.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]We must have principles to live by, but they must never become legalistic mandates to control others.[/pullquote]

Things have not changed. There are some Christians who think they have God’s principles, and all who do not follow them are apostate and liberal. They are confident they have found the Bible verse which assures them that their principles are established by God. However, where that verse is found in Scripture is of no consequence to them. They have developed a set of standards, and now they must search from Genesis to Revelation to find support for them.

The problem with these men is that they have never learned how to rightly divide the Word of God. They either reach back under the Law or forward into the millennial kingdom for their principles, and then they seek to impose them on everyone else. We must have principles to live by, but we also need to know what part of the Bible to find them. They must match this dispensation of grace.

The principles or standards of dress, hair, days, musical instruments, background music, power point, boots, glasses, etc. have not Scriptural mandates for this dispensation. They are the legalistic mandates of men to control others.

THE LOVE/HATE PARADOX: HATE THE SIN AND THE SINNER

by

Does God hate the sinner?

(Note: The purpose of this article is not to argue with anyone, and I will not. However, if anyone has a better answer to this paradox, it is welcome.)

hate

Among the self-designated “Bible Believers,” there is a group of men who teach that God, not only hates sin, He also hates the sinner. In addition, they teach that the only place and time God ever “loved” the sinner was at the cross. They are very adamant that His love is always in the past tense. Thus, back at the cross only. Now, I am familiar with those verses that says God hates the sinner. That is why I call this subject a great paradox.

In Psalm 51 David confesses his sin of adultery and murder. In verse 5 he says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5. David is not speaking of his mother, but of original sin in himself at conception.  Now, my question for the “hate” crowd is this, did God hate David prior to his birth, or at any time afterwards?

Also, David committed many sins before, with, and afterwards, in relation to Bathsheba.

  1. He lusted after her.
  2. He coveted her.
  3. He committed adultery in his heart.
  4. He committed physical adultery with her.
  5. He used deception to hide his sin.
  6. He got her husband drunk.
  7. He had her husband murdered.

All of these are sin, and some required the death penalty. Yet, God did not have him executed as  the law demanded. I know God hated David’s sin. Did God hate David?

Since all are conceived with original sin, does God hate every baby? But, I can hear someone say, “God hates those who commit the acts of sin. David had original sin, but he had not sinned before his birth.”

Well, let’s see how that stands up. God hated Esau prior to his birth. “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:11-13. It must also be noted that God loved Jacob before his birth. So, as we will show, the cross was not the only place God loved the sinner. When we trace the lives of the two brothers, we also find that Jacob was a great sinner. Did God hate Jacob?

Another nail in the coffin of “hate the sinner” theology is seen in the Gospels. In Mark 10 we read, “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” Mark 10:21. We will not catalogue the sins of this young man’s response, but many are evident. It will take some Scripture twisting to ignore that Jesus had love for him prior to the cross.

We also read “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” John 11:5. Note the word “loved” is past tense.  Was the cross the only time and place Jesus loved this family? They too were sinners, and sin had not been paid for. Also, if we have unsaved parents, should we hate them if God does? If our children are unsaved, should we hate them if God does? If we have an unsaved wife or husband, are we to hate them if God does?

One of the greatest miscarriages of Bible interpretation is how John 3:16 is twisted by the hate crowd. We read, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. The twisted logic is that the only time God demonstrated His love to sinners was at the cross. Since He “loved” them is considered past tense, He did not love sinners prior to, or after His death on the cross.

Adam ate the forbidden fruit, did God hate him? Abraham lied, did God hate him? Isaac lied, did God hate him?  Jacob “loved” Rachel. Does that mean he stopped loving her? It says he hated Leah.  Rachel and her father had false gods, and no doubt worshipped them. Did God hate them? Noe got drunk, did God hate him? Moses disobeyed God, did God hate him?  Samson had many sins in his life, did God hate him. Solomon had many horses which was forbidden, he married strange wives, and brought idolatry into the land. Did God hate him? Hosea married a whore. Did God hate him and his wife? Time would fail to tell of all the others.

The doctrine that God “hates sinners as well as their sin” is a doctrine built on the abuse of the word “loved” and “hate.” Those who espouse this doctrine take the “literal interpretation” to the extreme. However, they will adjust the above examples to save face.

Perhaps the following quote will help clarify the paradox to those seeking an honest answer to the hate doctrine.

Jesus said His affection for the lost inhabitants of Jerusalem was like a mother hen’s affection for her chicks. Such a statement obviously denotes love for the sinners in Jerusalem.

In one of the most well-known “love” verses in the Bible, Jesus said: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s love for the lost world was shown before the lost believed in Jesus. John further explained this when he wrote: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). From these verses it is clear that God loves lost sinners, and proved that love by sending Jesus.

How, then, can one reconcile the verses that seem to suggest that God hates sinners, but loves them at the same time? One of the most plausible solutions is that the Bible writers are using a figure of speech called metonymy when they write that God hates sinners. Metonymy is defined as: “A figure by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 538). Bullinger further explains that metonymy can be “of cause,” when the person acting can be put in place of the thing that is done (p. 539). For instance, in Luke 16:29, the text says: “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” In reality, they did not have “Moses” or the “prophets,” but they did have their writings. The name Moses is a metonymy that stood for his writings, since he was the cause of the writings. In modern times, that would be like saying, “I hate Shakespeare.” Would the person who said that mean that he hated Shakespeare’s personality? No. We understand he would be saying he does not like the writings of Shakespeare, with no comment on the playwright’s personality.

If we apply that same figure of speech to the passages about God “hating sinners,” we can see that the sinner is put in place of the sin. Thus, when God says He hates “a false witness who speaks lies” (Proverbs 6:19), if metonymy is being used, then God hates the lies, and the one who is doing the lying (the cause) is put in place of the lies (the effect). It is interesting to see how clear this feature can be in other contexts. For instance, Proverbs 6:17 says that God hates “a lying tongue.” Does that mean that God hates a physical tongue, made of muscle and body tissue? No. It means God hates the sin that a tongue can perform. In the same context, we learn that God hates “feet that are swift in running to evil” (6:18). Again, does that mean that God hates physical feet? No. It simply means that God hates the sin that those feet can perform. It is interesting that while few, if any, would suggest that God hates physical tongues or actual feet, they would insist that God hates actual sinners and not the sin done by them.

When studying the Bible, it is very important to keep in mind that the Bible writers often used figures of speech. When we look at the idea that God hates sin, but loves sinners, the figure of speech known as metonymy clears up the confusion. Just as God does not hate physical feet or tongues, He does not hate sinners. These nouns are put in the place of the things they cause—sin.”

REFERENCE

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1968

By Kyle Butt, M.A. APOLOGETICS PRESS  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2035

 

 

 

 

HOW TO ORGANIZE YOUR MINISTRY

by

HOW TO ORGANIZE YOUR MINISTRY

organize your ministryWebster’s Dictionary defines to organize as: “To put together into an orderly, functional, structured whole. To arrange in a coherent form; systematize.  To arrange in a desired pattern or structure. To arrange systematically for harmonious or united action.”

Once the planning process of setting objectives and goals has been completed, the next step is to organize the work. The way to do this is to ask key questions of each ministry goal. The questions should be: Who is responsible for this project? What materials will be needed? How much money is needed for it? When will the project begin and when will it be completed?

A look at the above paragraph shows that men, money, materials and minutes are the assets needed, and they must be properly organized to complete the task in the most efficient manner.

I believe an organizational chart should be created for the entire church. Each position on it must show the ministry title and the name of the person for that position. The lines between the boxes are a language to let you know who each person reports to and what authority they have, if any. The chart gives you a complete picture of the church, what its ministries are and who is responsible for every ministry. A glance at this will remove the ministerial fog that so often obscures ones vision of what their church should be about.

Remember, your chart should be built on your ministry objectives and not on the existing organization. You may shoot an arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it. It does not prove that you are a good archer. Likewise, by drawing a chart around your existing ministries does not mean that you have planned or that you are doing the right things.

So, the first thing is to plan your ministry with an annual planning conference, then create your organization from those plans. The reason many churches are a train wreck and the people are confused is poor planning or no planning. A carpenter friend of mine said, “It is better to measure twice and cut once than to measure once and cut twice. So, measure your ministry and make a clear cut distinction with a good organization.

If you would like more information on this subject, please let me know.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

by

division in the local churchDivision in the local church

By Ken Blue

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” 1 Corinthians 1:10.

I know of nothing that causes strife and division in the local church like voting and giving undue attention to the church constitution. There are churches that cannot make a decision without first consulting the constitution to see if it is permissible and then voting to see how many will oppose it. Growing churches cannot function when hamstrung with policies which require a vote on every decision.

Why not plan the entire year with your leadership; then build the budget around those plans? Having done that let the membership review it. Tell them to contact the deacons if they have questions. The pastor and staff should not be contacted about budget matters. Finally, have a Victory and Vision Banquet where the budget is approved, but not discussed. Once the budget is approved, move forward in freedom to accomplish the ministry goals that have been set.

The pastor should also have liberty to appoint men and women to fill all needed ministry positions. It is unwise to vote on these people.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The fewer things a church votes on, the less division it will have.[/pullquote]

The fewer things a church votes on, the less division it will have. There are four things, if voted on, that will allow the church work to go forward. These are: 1. Vote on the annual budget. 2. Vote on any change in the constitution. 3. Vote on the purchase of property or building new buildings. 4. Vote on the hiring of a new pastor. The pastor should take the leadership in all these matters; otherwise there will be much ado about nothing.