ROMAN WOMEN WERE RESTRICTED?

One of the arguments for the apparent restrictive segments of the NT regarding women has been the model of Roman society. Women in Roman society, we are told, were limited and under the control of the husband.

A 1911 book suggests otherwise.



“many things that among the Greeks are considered improper and unfitting,” wrote Cornelius Nepos in the preface to his “Lives”, “are permitted by our customs. Is there by chance A roman who is ashamed to take his wife to a dinner away from home? Does it happen that the mistress of the house in any family does not enter the anterooms frequented by strangers and show herself amon them? Not so in Greece: there the woman accepts invitations only among families to which she is related, and she remains withdrawn in that inner part of the house called the gynaeceum, where only the nearest relatives are admitted.”

Quoted in The Women of the Caesars. Century Co., 1911 pg. 3.



“When rome became the master state of the Mediterranean world, and especially dyring the last century of the republic, woman…had already acquired legal and economic independence, the condition necessary for social and moral equality.” Pg. 5



“Moreover, in the home the woman was mistress, at the side of and on equality with her husband.” Pg. 10



“…under the republic there existed at Rome a kind of woman’s club, which called itself conventus matronarum and which gathered together the dames of the great families. Finally, it is certain that many times in critical moments the government turned directly and officially to the great ladies of Rome for help to overcome the dangers that menaced public affairs…” pg. 12

39 Articles (16th century)

These form the basis for several prominant religious groups including, but not limited to, the Church of England and the Methodist Church.

Read them here.

Athanasian Creed (4th Century)

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Purpose: To oppose Arianism and defend the concept of the Trinity

Nicene Creed (325)

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

When formulated: 325 A.D., Nicea, (Note creed means elements of belief)
In response to what challenge or threat: Gnosticism and the denial of the humanity of Jesus.

Apostle's Creed

The Apostles' Creed
I believe = the first action is actually learning enough to say you believe. Learning, considering, evaluating, praying, and living then I can affirm I have belief

1. In God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

3. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

4. the Holy Catholic Church, the universal church that is the Body of Christ,
5. the communion of saints,
6. the forgiveness of sins,
7. the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Amen.

IS THE DURA EUROPOS CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE?

While some suggest anyone questioning the representational aspects of Dura Europos as imbecilic, the facts are clear. There is no reason not to accept the church at face value as one vital face of early Christianity. The better question is how often have house churches been overlooked because they did not meet some preconceived expectation of arrangement, location, decoration, or setting?

It is clear that the worship centers in this part of Syria were unconventional; the use of art in the synagoue goes against accepted understandings of worship decor. Yet, Francis Schaeffer in the 1970's was challenging the overly conservative view of the prevelance of the plain and simple in both Judaism and early Christianity. His thesis for the reclaimation of the arts by the faithful may have been an echo of what was a reality so long ago in Syria.

Perhaps, like the middle ages church came to recognize, as an area became cosmopolitan, diverse, and educationally differentiated the role of the image as instruction could not be ignored. The 'stories in stone and wood' presented by the cathedrals, the icons, and frescoes may have been used to good cause in the wanning days of the first and second centuries in places such as Dura Europos.

Unfortunately, most of this church was carted off to Yale where it is hidden in a musuem. The value of investigating the form and context of this church are largely ignored outside arcane archaelogical journals. What is clear is it was a lovely and unique chapter of early church history that has been overlooked and ignored. The presence of women in the imagery - and all that the presence of them in representational instructional art implies - has been gagged this many long centuries. The story they present may be one some do not want to accept. The implied inclusion and value of women a story they want silenced. Yet, it is one that needs to be heard and soon to restore the balance and equity of the Gospel ethos to the Christian community.

EARLY HOUSE CHURCH: WHAT DURA EUROPOS HAS TO SAY TO US

Dura-Europos was a Christian house church dating to 235 A.D.

In it are frescos depicting Adam and Eve, what is assumed to be the three Mary's approaching the tomb, and the Good Shepherd image. The fact women were included on the walls of this house of corporate worship could be simple cultural style or may reflect something more. The fact their participation in significant Gospel scenes is noteworthy and should be considered against the more grating refrains chanting: " a woman must be silent", etc. Eve, and all of her daughters, would be constant and visual teachers of the Gospel message via the artwork.

The house consists of living quarters, afew smaller rooms, and a common room but apparently lacks the sexual segregation aspects often assumed of the synagoues. There is a baptismal area with a shallow pool indicating probably immersion was not practised in the house but this could have happened, as many have noted, in the river nearby if a believer or doctrine required.

This is important because it indicates something different was going on in the Christian worship site. While authors argue woman was segregated and the disciples addressed the males in their pastoral epistles, the house church seems to undermine that argument.

As one of the earliest church houses and containing important images (the earliest image of Christ was found there), the site is largely unknown. Far greater emphasis is on the Jewish synagogue and the implications of the Christian worship center are laregely ignored.

[Image public domain ]

HEY YOU GUYS!

"Brothers" or "Brothers and Sisters"?

As a child growing up in Kansas, the term ‘Guys’ had no connection to gender it was more an informal collective noun referring to any group of people regardless to sex. “Hey guys, let’s go play on the swings.” “Those guys over there want to play a game.” “Guys!!!! Wait up…..”

I remember the first time I used this outside of Kansas. Half of the assembled group responded with an irate: “What! We’re not guys!”

I wonder if someone had been writing down all the times I, and others like me, used the term informally as ‘people’, would they one day interpret that I had meant only the men? Maybe that is just what the issue of the New Testament use of the term ‘Brothers’ (adelphos) implies. Ancient sources reveal evidence that the masculine plural forms of the noun could, depending on contexts, have a gender-neutral sense and mean both sexes (see the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon (2nd ed., 1979).

A review of the uses of the term translated “Brothers”, indicates few instances where gender is an issue unless one is overly concerned with issues of male superiority, authority, or propriety. There are, however, in applying a strict rule, repeated problems challenging the scope of the Gospel presented, the membership of the ‘church’, and the attitude of the disciples to the followers.

Scope of the Gospel
Internal logic alone calls into question the strict use of a male specific rendering of adelphos as a steadfast rule. If there is evidence in other sources of a gender-neutral use of the term, could there also be an informal and general use of the term similar to the way ‘guys’ can be used? If not, there is a massive exclusion of women in the New Testament pastorals which conflicts with the actions and words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

Membership in the “Church”
The Pauline corpus uses the term “brothers’ (adelphos) heavily, yet included in many of the letters are instances of a larger intended audience. Some authors argue that the early church was gender segregated and cite the remains of the synagogue at the Syrian Dura-Europos . Yet, one of the early house churches (this one dated to ca 235 A.D.) is also located there complete with a single hall and frescos depicting Gospel events, Adam and Eve, and utilizing the imagery of the “Good Shepherd”. Some even depict women of the Gospels and show the three Mary’s approaching the tomb.

Attitude of the Disciples
To Be Continued.....















See Also: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/dura_europos/

LIVING UNDER A CURSE

Recently, I was reviewing a situation, and the only answer to the problems presented seemed to be the possibility of a curse. Now, I am not one to lightly bandy that term around. I feel it has been misused in the past and used far too glibly. Yet, in this situation it seems to fit.

At issue: An institution unable to get ahead, unable to achieve any of its goals, to become what its destiny implied, unable to identify and follow a vision with honor, and an institution with a track record of viewing its human resources as a disposable commodity. This last element, especially, seems the most likely vehicle by which a "curse" or similar proclamation may have been levied.

Such actions tend to generate discord, if not downright hate, and from such hurt and pain arise careless actions or words. Such actions also tend to violate solid Christian principles of righteous actions and fundamental principles of ethics, love, and concern.

CURSING ELEMENTS

How were those O.T. curses voiced? They often included declarations that -

1. Your Plans would come to naught. Despite strategic plans, goals, well orchestrated emphasis, and visions of possibilities, there is in the end complete failure. The target is not reached. Every effort falls terribly short of its intended goal despite all efforts to the contrary.

2. Your Wells would go dry. Wells provide nourishment, they enhance life by their existence (shade and life emerge around the well or watering place). The water is symbolic of new life, of cleansing, and renewal with new purpose.

3. Your Herds would not increase. The herd can be symbolic of economic stability and blessing. The herd can be symbolic of discipleship and growth. The herd is the future and the reproduction, addition, and improving of that herd were keys to stability, growth, and future life.

4. You are spurned. Like Cain there seems to be a sign reading 'loser' or some other sign that keeps quality customers at bay but attracts negativity. Over all, there is the sense that the darkness embraces even as the light spurns the business, group, or agency.

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS

These objects of prophetic pronouncements often seemed to share some common characteristics as well.

1. They closed their ears. They did not listen to advice, warnings, or words of wisdom to change their ways, correct their course, or rethink their strategies. Pride had stepped in to steal their humility. They did not hear the cries for compassion, help, or mercy. They did not hear the warnings or the counsel.

2. They closed their eyes. They did not see what was before them, pr they chose to be too selective in what they did see. They saw what they wanted to see and they urged movement to the wrong landmarks as a result. They did not hear the cries of the widows, the orphans, the hungry, or the injured (physical or metaphorical).

3. They closed their mouths. They did not speak up when they saw error, sin, or crime on every side. They did not dare to disagree when the decisions were made that headed them toward the shoals of unethical actions, unscriptural conduct, or illogical thinking.

In uncontrolled power lies the bitter root of sin, the lure of hubris, and the inevitable outcome of pain. In power lies the ability to generate fear and control. This Fear keeps the ears, eyes, and mouths closed. Fear gives the ungodly control. Fear is the tool of those who who seek to destroy. As the Bible says where there is envy and strife, and selfish ambition, there is “confusion and every evil work” (James 3:16).

In WW2 a pastor, Martin Niemoller write a poem...."In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Fear, unconcern, and the refusal to be fully aware of what is going on around combine to create a deadly situation. This is the opposite of what the Bible says the Christian is to be and to do.

"But the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and hypocrisy" (James 3:16-17).

The hurting person who intentionally or unknowingly lays down a curse can only place that curse on those who do not operate in that "wisdom that is from above". Those who are being pure, peaceable, gentle, merciful, without partiality or hypocrisy, have nothing to fear.

THE CURE

"Come let us reason together" and 1) search the heart of the self, the institution, and the cause to determine if there is a curse and why it is able to negatively impact our setting. 2) Then, corporately repent, 3) seek out those wronged and make restitution or seek forgiveness, and 4) then make the changes necessary to be a Godly, righteous, and ethical place.

Then....and only then....will real advancement or achievemenets be made.

I LIKE IT OUT IN THE OPEN: SENSUAL IMAGERY AND WOMEN

A recent furor has been raised by the 'suggestive' postings of women on social networking sites. The problem appears to rest not so much with what is said but how people interpret what is said. Words are worrisome things and can hinder as well as help clear communication.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder than just as surely lustful thoughts, suggestive inflections, and tawdry intepretations may be influenced by the human filter through which they pass. Namely, you and I. I have known people who if the word 'red' was written on a wall they would inhale, cover the eyes of small children, and hurry away, tongue clicking at the indecency. I have seen those same people mock, belittle, denigrate, slander, insult, and ridicule with words and 'suggestive' inflections without anyone calling them to account.

Larger issues of cultural confusion, Christian cultural confusion, cloud the issue. Through layers of church history, inferior interpretations, and hare-brained hermenuetic there is often a view of women as 'creators' of lust, temptresses, inferior mental stamina, and vapid moral character.

For some, who mis-read Paul and Peter's words in the New Testament and largely ignore those of Jesus, Woman is eternally standing in the Garden offering poor, innocent Adam a forbidden fruit.

Woman, as the being created by God, has been maligned and in so doing so too has the Man. The Song of Solomon celebrates the physical nature of human sexual interaction as a joyful, playful and satisfying experience. What we have done is blame one gender over another, instill artifical standards of purity, and build walls that tend to heighten rather than control natural sexual responses.

Holiness - in life, thoughts, and actions - is more than being surrounded by people in non-revealing clothing. If that were the case, the Victorian era would have been one of the holiest and yet sexual sin was rampant in the day when a glimpse of ankle was scandalous. If that were the case, the lives of peoples in cultures where clothing is mimimal or missing would be torrid centers of scandalous living - yet they are most often the opposite. Pacific Islanders did have trouble with women going topless in pre-colonial Hawaii; the Missionaries and others who worked there had the problems and how they responded was a means of safeguarding themselves rather than those they sought to minister to.

When we assume that anything sexual is sinful we set ourselves up for a series of problems. When we assume we can do anything sexual we set ourselves up for a series of problems. It is the middle, in the balance, where we must reside to safeguard healthy, God-given reactions with the ability to control animalistic urges. This is done through character, ethics, respect, and Christ working within the man or the woman to see the best of God's creation.

ONE CHOCOLATE BAR SACRIFICES

I remember hearing or reading an interview of French film personality, Leslie Caron talking about the deprivations she and her country had suffered under Hitler. She recalled the soldiers coming through and giving them their extra chocolate bars. They were treats but later she observed that one of the main differences in their relative experiences was for the American it was simply losing one of two bars but for her and her countrymen it was having no chocolate bar at all.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, killed in WW2, also recognized that sometimes we can be guilty of wanting a cheap grace with a small price tag. As he said:"To endure the cross is not tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ.” As a man ultimately killed for his position standing against the Nazi and his faithful beliefs, Bonhoeffer had understanding of the reality of suffering and a cross in the life of the believer.

As Jesus, 'take up your cross' if one desired to follow him. The way is not easy, what good thing comes without pain, sweat, or cost?

Our problem may be we have lived overly long with the sacrifice of one of our two candy bars. Sacrifice is what someone else does. Sacrifice is an abstract which holds little reality in our instant gratification paradigm of normalcy.

Muzzeling the Ox: Women Today

There is statement in the Bible reminding people of the unwise move of muzzeling the ox that is working to grind the corn or the grain to be made into bread. Life and economic vitality depended on the strength of the ox to work at the thankless task.

I was struck lately with how apt an illustration that is for woman in the church sometimes. She is hidden away, working thankless and repeatitive duties, and some want to muzzle her as well.

What happens when an ox gets hungry? When it is not cared for or tended to with respect? It looses strength, withers and dies, OR it can grow frustrated, anxious and break out to escape the servitude of its bondage.

SEEING AND SEEING. M.HUDSON

SEEING AND SEEING
The disciples looked at one another; someone had forgotten to bring the food. After a check of the ship they found only a single loaf of bread to be shared between them. Each one's glance drifted guiltily to where Jesus stood at the side of the ship looking toward the far shore. Since leaving the group of Pharisees who had tried to waylay him with their tricks and questions he had stood like that. He was probably even more hungry than they, and all they had was a loaf of bread.

From where they were grouped they heard Jesus speak in a tone he used when there was something he particularly wanted them to know. "Listen to what I have to say," he commanded them. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod."

Talking among themselves they decided that Jesus knew they had not made provision for food and that he was displeased with them. Although they Had spoken in whispers, Jesus turned to them asking: "Why do you think that I spoke about the absence of food? Do you not understand yet-do you not grasp what I mean? Are your hearts hardened to me already? "You have eyes, can you not see? You have ears, can't you hear, and do you so soon forget all that I have spoken to you? When I broke the five loaves of bread among the five thousand who had come to hear me teach, how many baskets full of food were taken up after all had eaten?"

"Twelve baskets, Master," they told Him."If I could supply the need then, what is to stop me from doing the same now?" Noticing the blank looks still on their faces he asked: "How is it that you do not yet understand?" There is a difference in seeing and really taking in what is seen. One merely catches the visual impressions. The other catches it and analyzes it. Then the person comes to an understanding. Some people never get past the "surface- skimming" stage. From a human standpoint Jesus might well have despaired that his followers-those twelve, hand-picked men, who would turn the world upside down-would ever graduate past the skimming stage. But Christ was, among other things, their Teacher. Almost immediately, He set about to impress something on those men. In a group gathered to one side of the road the disciples watched as Jesus took the blind man by the hand to lead him away from the town. Jesus spat upon the eyes and asked him what he could see. The man looked around: "I see men who are like walking trees. It is all very unclear." As he finished speaking Jesus placed his hands on the man's eyes and told him to look again. "I can see! I can see clearly now!" He cried to the crowd as his sight was restored, "I can finally see."

The man had been blind, unable to see the sky, his friends, or even his own family; however, Jesus didn't heal him right away as he had in other cases. Instead, He touched him once and then the man reported that he saw but the images were obscure and out of focus. Perhaps Jesus looked at his disciples then, wondering if they
were grasping the analogy.

Earlier, on board the ship they had "seen" what Jesus said, but it was out of focus, badly distorted. They loved Jesus but they had not come to the place where they did more than skim the surface of the relationship available to the Son of God.

Like you and me, the disciples had caught the visual impression on the soul's retina, so they bickered, murmured, were jealous and unkind until, they, like the blind man, were touched anew and cast off their spiritual blindness to see really see-the meaning behind the coming, the teaching, and the victorious death of Jesus Christ. It is the difference between merely making a casual acceptance of Christ's teachings, and taking in what He taught, studying it, and coming to an understanding of God's will and plans for life. It is the difference in living a life of sight in spiritual concern and maturity, or remaining blinded.

It is the difference between seeing ... and really seeing

HIS BOW ABODE IN STRENGTH.

HIS BOW ABODE IN STRENGTH

It was done.
The sun hid its face behind countless grieving clouds. The wind quickened to carry the word of mourning. The earth arose as if it wept. Laughing, vulgar faces abruptly ceased their reveling as darkness and fear sent them scurrying down the road seeking safety.

A small group remained, infinitesimal in comparison to the cheering crowds of just a few days before. A mother, a friend, a handful of women, an unknown number of acquaintances.

How, we ask, could those desert Him who followed Him for months, even years. How could the press of the crowds clamoring after the miracles, the healings, and the words He spoke, be reduced to a lonely handful on a hill?

We know the answer - for it is within ourselves. Their human frailty is our weakness. Their lack of faith is our absence of trust, Their humanity is ours.

In our doubt and unbelief, do we run to hide in a cave. When about us the ungodly grow full of earth's best, do we grumble at what we feel should be he spoils of this life? When we are straining beneath the load of, do we complain because one walks unfettered? When the way grows hard or our sun hidden by grief, do we hurry to bury our faces beneath the cover of solace?

The Cross. His cross and our cross. Can we stay by the side of Jesus regardless of outside influences or apprehensions? Can we be described in the terms Jacob used in his death-bed blessing of Joseph:
. . . the archers sorely grieved him, and shot him and hated him,
but his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were
made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob
(Genesis 49:23, 24).

M.HUDSON

SEEING AND SEEING. MARILYN A. HUDSON

SEEING AND SEEING
The disciples looked at one another; someone had forgotten to bring the food. After a check of the ship they found only a single loaf of bread to be shared between them. Each one's glance drifted guiltily to where Jesus stood at the side of the ship looking toward the far shore. Since leaving the group of Pharisees who had tried to waylay him with their tricks and questions he had stood like that. He was probably even more hungry than they, and all they had was a loaf of bread.

From where they were grouped they heard Jesus speak in a tone he used when there was something he particularly wanted them to know. "Listen to what I have to say," he commanded them. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod."

Talking among themselves they decided that Jesus knew they had not made provision for food and that he was displeased with them. Although they Had spoken in whispers, Jesus turned to them asking: "Why do you think that I spoke about the absence of food? Do you not understand yet-do you not grasp what I mean? Are your hearts hardened to me already? "You have eyes, can you not see? You have ears, can't you hear, and do you so soon forget all that I have spoken to you? When I broke the five loaves of bread among the five thousand who had come to hear me teach, how many baskets full of food were taken up after all had eaten?"
"Twelve baskets, Master," they told Him."If I could supply the need then, what is to stop me from doing the same now?" Noticing the blank looks still on their faces he asked: "How is it that you do not yet understand?" There is a difference in seeing and really taking in what is seen. One merely catches the visual impressions. The other catches it and analyzes it. Then the person comes to an understanding. Some people never get past the "surface- skimming" stage. From a human standpoint Jesus might well have despaired that his followers-those twelve, hand-picked men, who would turn the world upside down-would ever graduate past the skimming stage. But Christ was, among other things, their Teacher. Almost immediately, He set about to impress something on those men. In a group gathered to one side of the road the disciples watched as Jesus took the blind man by the hand to lead him away from the town. Jesus spat upon the eyes and asked him what he could see. The man looked around: "I see men who are like walking trees. It is all very unclear." As he finished speaking Jesus placed his hands on the man's eyes and told him to look again. "I can see! I can see clearly now!" He cried to the crowd as his sight was restored, "I can finally see."

The man had been blind, unable to see the sky, his friends, or even his own family; however, Jesus didn't heal him right away as he had in other cases. Instead, He touched him once and then the man reported that he saw but the images were obscure and out of focus. Perhaps Jesus looked at his disciples then, wondering if they
were grasping the analogy.

Earlier, on board the ship they had "seen" what Jesus said, but it was out of focus, badly distorted. They loved Jesus but they had not come to the place where they did more than skim the surface of the relationship available to the Son of God.

Like you and me, the disciples had caught the visual impression on the soul's retina, so they bickered, murmured, were jealous and unkind until, they, like the blind man, were touched anew and cast off their spiritual blindness to see really see-the meaning behind the coming, the teaching, and the victorious death of Jesus Christ. It is the difference between merely making a casual acceptance of Christ's teachings, and taking in what He taught, studying it, and coming to an understanding of God's will and plans for life. It is the difference in living a life of sight in spiritual concern and maturity, or remaining blinded. It is the difference between seeing ... and really seeing

NO LONGER MASTER

In the prophetic book of Hosea, God speaks to his people using the language of metaphor and marriage. The promise of better relationships with God was expressed in terms clearly identifying the nature of the interaction as being love, and not power, based.

"And it shall be in that day," says the Lord, "...will call me, 'My Husband (Ishi)' and no longer call me, 'My Master (Baali)' (Hosea 2.16).

The clear message is that the way God wishes to interact with His people is not through power, authority, or control. Instead, God's wish is to be intimate, loving, protective, and supportive of His people.

Compare this to the often misused words of Paul in Ephesians 5.22 telling women to submit to their husbands. It is often used as a whip to prod women into 'their place' while ignoring the earlier verse about submitting to one another.

This is another excellent example of how scripture informs scripture. If God desires to no longer have his symbolic spouse view him as 'master' - than human men should look to this as their model. It is always better to have relationship than mere reverence.

The Tea Cup

FROM THE EMAIL - NO IDEA WHO THE AUTHOR IS, WILL CREDIT AND PROMOTE IF NOTIFIED OR REMOVE AS REQUIRED...I love this story - you will not be able to have tea in a tea cup again without thinking of this.

There was a couple who took a trip to England to shop in a beautiful antique store to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. They both liked antiques and pottery, and especially teacups. Spotting an exceptional cup, they asked, "May we see that? We've never seen a cup quite so beautiful."

As the lady handed it to them, suddenly the teacup spoke, "You don't understand. I have not always been a teacup There was a time when I was just a lump of red clay. My master took me and rolled me, pounded and patted me over and over and I yelled out, "Don't do that. "I don't like it! Leave me alone," but he only smiled, and gently said, "Not yet!"

Then WHAM! I was placed on a spinning wheel and suddenly I was spun around and around and around. "Stop it! I'm getting so dizzy! I'm going to be sick!," I screamed. But the master only nodded and said quietly. 'Not yet.'

He spun me and poked and prodded and bent me out of shape to suit himself and then he put me in the oven. I never felt such heat.. I yelled and knocked and pounded at the door. "Help! Get me out of here!" I could see him through the opening and I could read his lips as he shook his head from side to side, 'Not yet'.

When I thought I couldn't bear it another minute, the door opened. He carefully took me out and put me on the shelf, and I began to cool. Oh, that felt so good! "Ah, this is much better," I thought. But after I cooled he picked me up and he brushed and painted me all over. The fumes were horrible. I thought I would gag. "Oh, please, stop it, stop," I cried. He only shook his head and said. 'Not yet!'.

Then suddenly he put me back in to the oven. Only it was not like the first one.. This was twice as hot and I just knew I would suffocate. I begged. I pleaded. I screamed. I cried. I was convinced I would never make it. I was ready to give up. Just then the door opened and he took me out and again placed me on the shelf where I cooled and waited and waited, wondering "What's he going to do to me next?"

An hour later he handed me a mirror and said 'Look at yourself.' And I did. I said, "That's not me; that couldn't be me. It's beautiful. I'm beautiful!!!"

Quietly he spoke: 'I want you to remember, then,' he said, 'I know it hurt to be rolled and pounded and patted, but had I just left you alone, you'd have dried up. I know it made you dizzy to spin around on the wheel, but if I had stopped, you would have crumbled. I know it hurt and it was hot and disagreeable in the oven, but if I hadn't put you there, you would have cracked. I know the fumes were bad when I brushed and painted you all over, but if I hadn't done that, you never would have hardened. You would not have had any color in your life. If I hadn't put you back in that second oven, you wouldn't have survived for long because the hardness would not have held. Now you are a finished product. Now you are what I had in mind when I first began with you.'

The moral of this story is this:
God knows what He's doing for each of us. He is the potter, and we are His clay. He will mold us and make us and expose us to just enough pressures of just the right kinds that we may be made into a flawless piece of work to fulfill His good, pleasing and perfect will.

So when life seems hard, and you are being pounded and patted and pushed almost beyond endurance; when your world seems to be spinning out of control; when you feel like you are in a fiery furnace of trials; when life seems to "stink", try this:

Brew a cup of your favorite tea in your prettiest tea cup, sit down and think on this story and then, have a little talk with the Potter

PRAYER FOR GOD'S WILL: UKRAINE

From a missionary who has worked in the country:

"THIS IS A CRUCIAL MOMENT IN UKRAINE. The SITUATION IS TENSE in Kiev, the capital, and throughout the country as the run off for President of Ukraine is about to begin. In mere hours (10 PM PST) the polls will open for people to decide between Pro-Western Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko and Pro-Moscow opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich.

Ukraine has been the freest nation in the former Soviet Union and one of the freest in Europe. There is freedom of religion as in no other nation in the region. Ukrainian missionaries have been the pioneers of many, if not most churches in Russia (even during the Soviet Union). Without getting into the important geopolitical position of Ukraine, this nation is very very important in many ways in the region.

The pastors and churches in Ukraine are fasting and praying for these elections and they ask the Body of Christ to do the same. The Prime Minister has had good relations with the Christian Churches and has Pastors as advisers, whereas the opposition leader has promised the Russian Orthodox Church that he would curb the growth of protestant movements and rein in their current liberties, bringing in similar restrictions to those that currently exist in Russia.

We had a dynamic start to the Bible Training school in the Ukraine (80 Students). Ukraine. Please pray for the students and teachers. Shortly 2 schools will start in Siberia, Russia. Last year over 200 new churches were started as a result of these training programs. "

THE SENT ONES

The term 'apostle' is a term from the Greek referring to one 'sent out' as in a messanger or representative carrying out a duty or errand. Traditionally, the church has used the term to refer to the disciples who were sent by Jesus on a mission (errand) to share the witness of the Gospel, just as he had been sent by God (Heb.3.1

Ephesians states they are a gift to the Body of Christ: "He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry"(Eph. 4.11-12).

So, let us examine the story in John of Mary Magdalene, called the "Apostle to the Apostles".

In John 20.14-18 is the story.

Jesus is encountered in the garden, not as a corpse but as glorified redeemer and tells her..."go (poreuou) to my brothers (adelphous) and say (eipe) to them."....

Mary went and "announced (angellousa)...I have seen the Lord and he had said these things to her."

It becomes clear that Jesus
a) could have told them himself but instead uses a messanger and the messenger was Mary;
b) he gave clear instructions in the message to inform his absent followers of the fulfilment of his teachings;
c) Mary shares her witness (I have seen the Lord) and he said these things....

This was the role of the apostle - to be the messanger of the good news to share the message, to share their personal knowledge and witness of its truth, and to share the words ( teachings) of the one who sent them.....

For a century or more after the time of Jesus this was understood as a role of people in the church. Yet, it became narrowly defined to mean only those who had seen -w ith their own eyes - the works of Jesus and his first disiciples. Two hundred years later it is already being replaced as an active role in the new church.

Just as, over 2,000 years later, it is being narrowly defined as referring only to the male followers of Jesus.

The disciples (student learners) were, at the Great Commission, the Upper Room, and various other places transformed into apostles. They were sent people with a mission and a message.

How could Mary Magadalene be anything else than an Apostle?

MARY THE MISLABELED

Mary Magdelene has been victimized over the centuries. She has been labeled a prostitute, fallen woman, and other fanciful descriptions which reveal more about the scholars than about her.

1. Are we guilty of bearing false witness against this woman?

2. Why has it been so easy to label this woman as 'fallen' when nothing in scripture leads to that description?

What we know from scripture is that she was from a place called Magdela, she had seven demons which Jesus cast from her, and she was a faithful and constant presence in his ministry from then until she ran to inform his male followers he had risen from the dead.

1. Why do we first assume she was a young, vital, and beautiful woman? The success of the theory assuming Jesus and Mary were a couple is predicated on the assumption she was young, but on what is this based?

2. Earliest chuch writers recognized her first as 'the apostle to the apostles' yet soon she was denigraded to a fallen woman....and we have allowed her to stay there since then.

After that, events are less clear. Some sources based on early legends of the church say she became a companion to Mary the Mother, may have assisted John in writing his Gospel and may have traveled to Epheseus.

1. If she was an more mature woman there would be fewer 'stories' of her post-resurrection because she would have died.

2. The strong model of the 'wise woman' and the 'mother in Israel' from Judaism and the O.T. needs to be considered when interpreting the role of women in the nascent Christ-followers. This is something early, Greek and Roman and European scholars and clerics, may have totally missed. Women did have those roles or honors in those societies so naturally in the early formalized church these roles are minimized and controled and eventually eliminated.

I AM NOT A FEMINIST - I AM A CHRISTIAN

Every Bible scholar must face a moment where they ask themselves, 'is my bias showing?' To fail to do this risks them compromising their scholarship. Yet, history is replete with people who never asked themself the hard questions about what their own prejudices, biases, and stupid ideas were!

The patriarchal scholar reads and sees women as faint figures in the Biblical background. They are firmly placed in gendered spheres to serve, mend, pleasure, and support the life of men.

The so-called feminist scholar reads the same texts and see women being taught, commissioned, blessed, called, and valued. They tend to see the role of women may even be equal to that of the men.

When looked at in its totality the Bible supports women in strong leadership roles. From the prophets and queens of the Old Testment to the disciples and apostles of the New, women are there at work being used and guided to act by God.

Looking at the Old Testament we can see women who may have been warriors, we see women as prophets, national leaders ('Mother of Israel'), political leaders, and playing vital roles in the spiritual life of the people.

Looking at the New Testament, just in the Gospels, we can see women who where never 'put in their place', who were spoken to as equals and engaged in serious conversations, received the instruction of a disciple.

No, I am not a feminist (although some of their research has been valuable and groundbreaking) but I am a Christian. Christ, ministered and called all people, and so to be inclusive of both sexes is to be Christian.

WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT?

A list of the qualities of a pastor includes diverse traits and reveal of conflicted view of the role. The pastor should love to visit, be involved with the lives of people, be a sparkplug, make hospital and house calls, listen with sympathy and understanding, be a dynamic speaker, teacher, leader, and vision caster, work with the community, reach out to the needy, preach the word courageously, go toe-to-toe with culture, be active, attentive, and available!

Years ago there was cartoon ( I have no source) but it revealed the perfect pastor. One side of the pastor filled the demands of one segment and the other suited the demands of another segment. From eye color to the way the pastor's hair was combed there were conflicting desires.

One of the problems is that the concept of the pastor and that of leader are often in conflict. We want one person to actually be doing the work of one or more people.

Notice too that many of the traits we want in a pastor are also ones we equate with the feminine! We want relationship, we want comfort, we want attention, visits, and passive activity in isolated areas. The pastor must visit, talk, eat, listen, and care about all the details of everybody's life (from large events to smallest detail). The leader is expected to set the pace, lead, vision, motivate, drive, and push the church forward. These in the same person? Really?

"Diakonia"

I just finished a dynamic and deep book, "Diakonia: Re-intrepreting the Ancient Sources" by John N. Collins ( Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-539602-7). It is a book reflecting the authors long study of the original language, the use of the term 'diakonia' in both Biblical and non-Biblical sources. The result is challenging and filled with additional questions that I am sure researchers will rush to interact with over the coming years.

Why is this word of note? It is the word that is used to define our current understandings of the word "ministry" and it is the word that has been used to keep women forever in the outer courts of Christian ministry and leadership.

It is the word in Romans where Paul speaks of the Christian woman sent to him with letters and purpose, Phoebe.

It is a word that leaders, translators, and preachers have played a shell game with in order to keep women out of the ministry.

For you see, the word means "servant" in some uses and therefore a reader with a preconception that women can not serve God in leadership or ministry will translate the term to mean Phoebe came as a servant, a slave, a helper.

Elsewhere,where the exact word is used in reference to men it is translated as minister, preacher, and priest.

This shell game of meaning can be found throughout commentaries, writings, sermons, and other sources over the last 1900 years.

If the sweeping work of Collins is taken with the seriousness it deserves, the word also has deep implications for the very nature of the ministry and those who act in those roles in the church.

ANTICHRIST NAMED?

Recently an email came across my desk and a friend asked for my opinion on the video linked in the mailing. A video that presented the concept that Christ had named the Anti-Christ. Leaving the decision to the viewer, the video presented a word study of a single verse in scripture. These words in the their original language, in theory, bear a resemblance to the name 'Barack Obama.'

So I reviewed the video and here are my conclusions:

"After reviewing the film, asking some scholars, and reviewing the text I would conclude the video is very interesting, challenging, and apparently logical. That is only half of the story however, since whenever one goes to the Biblical text, the first questions to be asked are not minute, arcane word meanings, but rather, 1) what is the context for this statement? and 2) how did the original speaker or audience understand this text?

That is where the video breaks down somewhat. The second point is context. The cited text (Luke 10:18), as a reference to the Antichrist, is an error.

The context of the statement (and context must always be considered in interpreting scripture) seems to refer only to the original fall of Satan (the Isaiah reference in the video) and there is nothing (no traditional prophetic clue words, etc.) that indicate this is a prophecy about the antichrist in any way.

Jesus appears to be citing something in the past - and not in the future.

Instead, Jesus chides them that instead of boasting over the power they welded as His emissaries (the demons quaked, Lord) they should instead be simply thankful of their salvation because it was HE WHO SAW the original fall of the troublemaker...in other words...'it's not you guys doing any of this but the might and the power of God."

Further, the statement that Aramaic was the earliest form of Hebrew is also in error. Most sources confirm that was a dialect related but which emerged in the northwest boundaries of the Semitic territories. It appears to have been a dialect of the Palestinian region and separate from the traditional Hebrew of scripture, especially early Hebrew. It was a common language of trade and the marketplace just as Koine Greek was the 'universal language; of Mediterranean commerce.

Children learned a more formal Hebrew for the sacred reading of the Torah in service, a more extreme version of how American children once learned a more formal language in Elizabethan English than the language they spoke daily. Moreover, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek - regardless of what language the speakers might have spoken. The common language for communication and commerce was Greek. Looking for word meanings in Hebrew (or related dialects) for insight into the Greek text is faulty logic.

Words change and shift in such evolution of language. Skakespeare's use of 'naughty' in the 1500's meant severely wicked.....now it means slightly impolite. Thus the importance of understanding how an original audience heard and understood the words."

I would also add that it is a worrying thing - this tendency to identify and label one as "The AntiChrist". A decade ago it was George Bush, before that Bill Clinton, and before that.... the list is endless. Why should we care? Should not our focus - as Christians - be on the task to be Christ like to those around us? To preach the gospel? To feed the hungry? To clothe the naked? To be the image of Christ to those around us?

One of the most thought provoking books of the last century was a small, mostly obscure work, that challenged people to really cause trouble by asking, "What would Jesus do?"

What indeed.

OUR HEARTS GO OUT: Carole Daniels

A horrific crime has taken the life of a dear saint of God, Carole Daniels. Her family and friends grieve for her passing. Her life was taken in an act of malice in the very church where she labored for the souls of men and women.

It was a simple and small pentecostal church in a poor southwest Oklahoma community of Anadarko, but it was her pastorate, where she ministered. She traveled there from Oklahoma City even when no one attended.

Our prayers join to uplift her loved ones and to aide law enforcement in bringing the perpetrator to justice. This is the time for all people of faith to band together and prayer as one.

News Story

THE CULT IS BACK!

FEMALE VS FEMINITY: THE CULT IS BACK
The recent episode with the South African runner highlights the social constructs we place on gender. It also emphasizes how we as people tend to want to 'read the book by its cover'.

What we are in our body determines if we are “male” or “female”. What we are on the outside is largely a social construct created by the prevailing cultural mores of the day. Do we wear gloves? Do we wear slacks? Do we wear makeup? Do we study hard? Do we value our looks? Do we value our minds? These are a determination of the culture in which we reside.

In the Victorian Era was one recent “cult of femininity”. This was an attempt to develop “hyper” males and “hyper” females – within a certain social class. This was something that was not seen as important for men and women in lower class, poorer, or foreign populations. The second large move was during the Edwardian Era before WWI, the famous Gibson Girl, was the poster girl for this movement.

At the close of WW2 the men came back to home and jobs. "Rosie the Riviter" was sent home. The women who’d been keeping things going in the workplace were told to go back to husband and children (even when they had neither). A new cult of hyper or “uber” femininity developed. The poster girl for this false construct was the mother from the “Leave It To Beaver” television show. In one episode, she was wearing a string of pearls while cleaning the oven!

The problem was, it was all lies. Victorian men, as a group, were no more true and good as husbands because of the super-femininity of their wives. There was still domestic abuse and rates of venereal disease were still high. The Victorian woman - and man - was living a lie.

The Gibson Girl was a lie as well, since it too was a front to the true problems in a society based on dominance and control. The fifties was also a social mask hiding the marriages built on lies, the basic dissatisfaction people felt with their lives, and the same social problems bubbled under the surface. This was the decade that birthed “Playboy” – the cult of femininity taken to its extreme because at the root of the cult is the idea that woman’s one purpose in life is to please – at any cost – a man.

This placed within the hands of men the determination of what was beauty, what was feminine and what was permissible among women. The fifties is the parent of the social unrest of the 1960’s because young people saw the injustice and hypocrisy of the relationships around them.
http://www.positivelyfeminine.org/Beautiful/beautiful.htm
http://somethinggreaterblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/what-is-femininity/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Womens+Page/feminism_verses_femininity.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Womens%20Page/womens_page.htm

In the present day, the message has been twisted to inform women and young girls that their tossing aside of virtues of modesty, self-worth and pride are to be valued. How much skin they show as they advertize their sexuality in the bumps and grinds that were once only seen in sleezy back strip joints, becomes the standard for feminine freedom and equality.

I don't think so.

The same off-kilter values that created the hyper-femininity have also created the hyper-sexuality of today's woman. Neither is the true essence of the creature fashioned by God and in God's own image.

Each individual is a unique being, with special purpose and value to God. Shake off the shackles of the cult of hyper-feminity and the cult of hyper sexuality to become a true woman of God! A woman's value is not determined by any man, any group, or any society. A woman's value is determined by the relationship she has with God, other people, and the face that stares back at her in the mirror each morning.


"Nothing is happy until it fulfills the purpose for which it was created by God." What was your purpose? To love and serve God. Not a man, not a family, and not a legalism.

"A man's main business is God; a woman's main business is the man." - Pastor Jack Hyles Dont be distanced from relationship with God by slanted ideas that you are a 'second class creation'. God created humans and said "It was good."

That includes you.

IDENTIFYING MISTAKES

In doing online research I have been baffled by some of the ‘instant expert sites.” These are webpages where anyone can provide ‘expert’ answers (i.e., opinions) on any number of questions. Several would lay claim to ‘all Pentecostal women’ wearing long skirts and long hair. (
http://pentecostzone.com/blog/view/id_6647/title_the-basics-of-why-pentecostal-girls-do-what-they/)

The truth of the matter is that this answer is wrong. Not all Pentecostal women wear long skirts or long hair. The truth of the matter is that there are many denominations that identify themselves as “Pentecostal” (in fact Wikipedia lists several: Assemblies of God (The largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, 57 million adherents worldwide; Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) over 6 million, the Church of God in Christ has a membership of 5.5 million, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel has 5 million members, the United Pentecostal Church International has a membership of over 4 million,[35] and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church has over 3 million members. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism.

Just as it is impossible to say ‘all Baptists’ or ‘all Catholics’, Pentecostalism has its doctrinal and social nuances. It is impossible to say ‘all Pentecostals’ because no one group, person, or statement applies to all varieties of the movement.

Most of the current doctrinal divergences cluster around : the use of the name of Jesus in Baptism, the necessity of water baptism to salvation, and the role of speaking in tongues in the salvation process.
So, who does, among Pentecostals, is most likely to be seen sporting long skirts and long hair?
The United Pentecostal Church believes in modest dress by both genders, but has a list for women on their webpage at United Pentecostal Church : http://www.upci.org/doctrine/scripturesModesty.asp. They also have a different concept of the Godhead, believing in baptism only in the name of Jesus and members have been known (personal observation) to wear long dresses and long hair.

A group of Pentecostal churches known as the “Apostolic Pentecostal Churches” do claim this dress code, as expressed on a blog, The Ninety-Nine Ninety and nine, Apostolic women : http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20060828/cover.htm . (Note, the term is flexible as is seen in http://www.apostolic-movement.com/video2.php?format=; caution should be used when seeing the term ‘Apostolic’).

From the ‘Apostolic Pentecostal Directory’ (http://www.apostolic-churches.com/about.html) the doctrinal nuances are outlined: “This Apostolic Pentecostal Doctrine being the Bible standard of full salvation, which is the absolute essentiality of repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. (Acts 2:1-4, 2:37-39); We believe the Bibles teaches that the above statement to be essential and not subsequent to salvation.”

So beware the next time you read ‘all Pentecostal women’ do this or that, because the person is most likely speaking only a small handful of members of the Pentecostal movement or they are merely reflecting their own, quite limited, understanding of who is a Pentecostal.

CAN A WOMAN BE INTELLIGENT AND CHRISTIAN?

Apparently not, according to a survey of hits of Internet sites. A woman can be 'obedient','submissive', 'godly', 'faithful', 'liberated', 'sexy', and yet not 'intelligent'.

What does this say about the Christian faith? What does this say about Christian men? What does this say to daughters and grand-daughters needing guidance for maturity?

In the 21st century, why cannot a woman of faith be all of that? God created her to be intelligent (in the image of God includes mental ability), strong, and loving. She can be many things (just as a man is capable of being many things) - so why the stark absence of discussion/mention/recognition about 'intellegent Christian women?"

Did find one 2008 blog entry on the subject worth reading: http://letsbehonesthere.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/im-a-christian-woman-who-thinks-anyone-else-with-me/

Are We Workers in the Light?

In a recent conversation it became apparent that many people are basically very confused about what their presence in the world as Christians truly means. Over the last few years I have observed a disturbing increase in the number of dysfunctional churches, fallen leaders, and psychotic attacks on the church and her people. Once, the idea that someone would walk into a church and kill pastors or people would have been unthinkable. Yet, it has happened far too many times in just the last two years.

The world is an influence like dirty water....tip a paper cloth into the water and it is quickly contaminated. It is our life with Christ that prevents that total absorption into the values and motives of 'the world'. That contamination of all that is opposed to the message of the Gospel of love, hope, salvation, redemption, forgiveness, and new life.

For the spiritually minded, there is a new sense of something in the air. Too much is changing, realignments are taking place, things are moving into a predestined place to fulfil the will of God...all of these is sensed at a deep spiritual level.

Positive thought, global consciousness, and paranormal thought are replacing what was once a common belief system. One popular book asks the question in the title. All that is good is positive, affirming, and light washed and all that is evil is negative, negating, and hidden in ebony shadows where they cannot be easily seen. This simplistic duality calls to mind that in the New Testament the Church is warned of those who would masquerade as light beings and confuse people as to who was really "good."

When "Christians" can hate one another, cause others intentional harm, and make themselves the god of their life, is it any wonder that workers of evil might be confused with good?

As Jesus taught, what we do is as much a gauge as who we say we are. Our 'fruit" is proof of our light because to know right and to not do it is human. To know right and to do it despite ridicule, danger, or discomfort - that is what it means to be a Christian.

Could This Have Been in Paul's MInd?

James Frazier, writing in his classic book on the history of religion and magic, The Golden Bough (NY: Macmillan, 1951) notes that at Byblus, people were required to shave their head in annual mourning for Adonis. Women who refused had to serve as temple prostitutes. (pg. 384).

This may inform the thinking in Paul's confusing comments in 1 Corinthians 11. In Ephesus, where the many Gods were actively worshipped, something similar may have been required. In Paul's quest to balance Jewish ideals of propriety and local culture with the new faith - this may explain his comments.

Is The US No Longer A "Christian" Nation?

These recent words by the US President are not reflected in major demographic sources. According to Adherents and Pew Forum, the US has approximately 76% (159,030,000) of its population identified as "Christian." Islam comprises about 1% (1,104,000) of the population.

Of note, 'mainline' protestantism is listed as 18%, Catholics 24%, and Evengelicals at 26%. The remainder (4.5%) are Mormon, Jehovah Witness, etc.

QUIVERING CHRISTIANS

Almost everyone has seen the Duggars on cable tv - all twenty of them. It has been assumed that they are members of a movement of Christian patriarchy called "Quiverfull". This movement places emphasis on having as many children as possible - thereby defining a quiverfull - as a very, very large family. Is this Biblical? Is it sensible?

No where in scripture does the Bible identify a large family as perferred, despite the wording of the scripture cited on their website. The Bible is filled with instances of people who did not have large families, but were very clearly blessed. What of people unable to have children - is God's blessing withheld? Or, should they, as was the answer in several Old Testament scenerios, simply find a secondary wife to birth more children?

One person's 'full quiver' may be the two or three children God blesses them with in their marriage. In the normal course of life up til this century, infant mortality was high (as it still is in small or third world nations). In the 19th century, many families had 10-12 children but only 5-7 of them might actually live to adulthood.

Perhaps less emphasis should be placed on the Old Testament and more on the New Testament - where there was concern about the total community and on growing the family of the saints instead of super-sized family groups.

Is it selfish to bring more children into the world - when all around are children abandoned and alone longing for someone to bring them love and hope?

'JUNIPER TREE' EVENT: A Time of Refreshing for Ministers

REFRESH RENEW RETURN

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Come to a renewing time as the first "JUNIPER TREE" event is hosted at the
First United Methodist Church in Oklahoma City. Come enjoy an evening of non-denominational worship, fellowship, and praise designed to restore some joy to your faith life! Any Christian minister is welcome to attend.

Great uplifting contemporary music....
with a common bond of faith in Jesus Christ.

Come - instead of ministering to others - be ministered to.......Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009

Location: Hosted at First United Methodist Church, OKC
131 N.W. 4th Street, OKC, 73102
Time: 7 p.m.

Need information?
Contact : Marvin Hudson at 405-275-1556Email: wesleymarvin@sbcglobal.com

LESSONS FROM CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY

In ancient Greek mythology there was a prophet, Cassandra, doomed to have a true prophecy that would never be understood, accepted, or believed. Since mythology is often created from the things commonly understood to be truth or the understanding of their time and place, what can we learn about human nature and the process of prophecy for today?

The Bible clearly teaches that a prophet is proven true if what they prophesy comes to pass. Simple enough, you say, but is that always as simple a thing as is supposed?

What the lesson of Cassandra reveals is that there has to be a people who , in the words of Jesus, "have eyes to see" or "ears to hear". There has to be a people astute and spiritually in tune to recognize and understand the witness of the prophetic truth for the prophet to be verified.

Is it possible for a prophecy to speak the truth as impressed by the spirit of God and those hearing it not understand, accept, or believe? Can it be ....the promise is lost...because those hearing did not 'hear'?

According to Jesus, yes! Their ears are closed, their discernment nil, and their hearts hardened to the spiritual world.

(To learn more : the story of Cassandra).

THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST....

At a recent event attended by church people the words of Jesus came to me....those who would be first shall be last....and also some words from Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

I saw these people hurry to line up, grab seats and claim priviledge. Meanwhile, guests were made to wait as seats were found and while some stood because they had waited to see others served first - only one person offered one of those their seat. One group- church leaders all-raced to the table with a "1" on it , even though the seating was "open".

Issues of good manners aside, this reflects a more disturbing problem among people who confess Jesus as Lord. Jesus who made himself servant and sacrifice for all....who said if they take your coat give them your jacket too.

Something to think about when out and about, even among other Christians. What is my behavior saying to others? Do I reflect Christ's last in line leadership or am I racing to make sure others know how important I am?

DOES GOD HONOR THIS?

This is a recent email making the rounds...

"This is the simplest test. If You Love God... And, are not ashamed of all the marvelous things HE has done for you.... Send this to ten people and the person who sent it to you!

WHY IS THERE A TEST? WHY IS THE BLIND SENDING OF UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM STRANGERS TO STRANGERS BETTER THAN ONE-ON-ONE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION .

Now do you have the time to pass it on? Make sure that you scroll through to the end. Easy vs. Hard Why is it so hard to tell the truth but Yet so easy to tell a lie? Why are we so sleepy in church but Right when the sermon is over we suddenly wake up? Why is it so easy to delete a Godly e-mail, but yet we forward all of the nasty ones? Of all the free gifts we may receive, Prayer is the very best one.... There are no costs, but wonderful rewards... GOD BLESS! Isn't it funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Isn't it funny how someone can say 'I believe in God' but still follow Satan (who, by the way, also 'believes' in God). Isn't it funny how you can send a thousand jokes through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about .

THE LACK OF LOGIC AND CONNECTION TO THE MAIN MESSAGE MAY BE WHY SOME WOULD NOT FORWARD THIS. IF THE STORY IS A TRUE MIRACLE - THE NEWS WILL SPREAD. IF IT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED - THAN MAYBE IT IS NOT AS STRONG A MIRACLE OR SIGN AS SUPPOSED.

Sharing Isn't it funny how when you go to forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them Isn't it funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me. I pray, for everyone who sends this to 20 or their entire address book, they will be blessed by God in a way special for them.

IS A SPIRITUAL CHAIN LETTER BETTER THAN ONE ASKING FOR MONEY?

And send it back to the person who sent it, to let them know that indeed it was sent out to many more."

THE SAD FACT IS THAT OFTEN THESE TYPES OF EMAIL ARE PHISHING EXPEDITION BY UNSAVORY TYPES LOOKING FOR EMAILS THAT CAN BE HIJACKED AND USED FOR SPAMMING PURPOSES (AND OTHER UNSAVORY PURPOSES).

Mary and the Tomb

As another Dan Brown book is being turned into a move, many people are once again looking at the storyline of the DaVinci Code and its theme of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married.

A work of fiction is a work of fiction. This is something we should never forget. It says something about the nature of the people who look at the story and assume so much that is simply not in the Biblical account. Even the extra-Biblical accounts are not clear that there was anything beyond a simple teacher-discipline relationship.

Mary was not a prostitute - that was the later addition of an an early church Pope. She had demons and that may have included some sexual misconduct...but it is never expressed. The label comes from presuppositions about the town where she lived (a sort of Vegas of Galilee well known for its women of relative virtue) and the presuppositions based on the value of women in general.

Consider these things: no age is given, no direct implication of sexual misconduct is inferred, and she is recognized as one of the most steadfast and loyal of the disciples.

It may be she was an older woman - more of aunt figure - because no one seemed to be concerned that she and the other women were following. This seems to infer that they may have been in a stage of life where they had some autonomy: wife, widow, or older woman.

What is known is that the first post-resurrection Apostle - one sent with a message -was this Mary.

All else is conjecture. She chose to serve the Risen savior....and her decision challenges each of us to do the same.

CAMELS AT THE OASIS

Jesus, in Matthew 23: 23-24, warned a certain type of person about their actions. These are words we need to remember today. All around are people who fill their time with making sure others "measure up", that others are doing right, and that others are doing what they should.

These micromanagers of others spiritual worth and life, are often guilty of not seeing their own problem, and applying their own advice to their life. They "swallow camels" and "strain at gnats" in the words of Jesus.

What are some of these "camels" that get swallowed so easily?

• The camel of intolerance: spiritual, domestic, social, relational....you name it.
• The came of control: 'my way or the highway'
• The camel of unforgivenessa: still hauling around the baggage from hurts from 50 years ago!
• The camel of greed: me first and what I want
• The camel of stasis: "not gonna change, no way" ; Hasn't changed in 50 years and is proud of it

What are some of these "gnats" that choke them up so much?

• The gnat of agreement and peace; recognizing that there are some areas we can disagree on and still be brothers and sisters in the faith
• The gnat of partnership and cooperation: the confusion of power, control and leadership
• The gnat of forgiveness: to forgive is to forget and move on, to heal, and this they cannot do
• The gnat of giving: to place others needs and desires above self, to sacrifice like Christ for others
• The gnat of love: to love is to accept, to protect, to sacrifice, and to provide for spiritually, emotionally, phsyically, and (among friends and stranges) even fiscally at times
• The gnat of response and growth: to live is to change, grow, and develop; the Christian should not be the same person or have the same faith of 50 years ago...it should be deeper, richer, broader, more gracefilled, and knowledgeable.

What did Jesus mean by all of this camels and gnats? Think about it for a moment. Camels are known for holding a lot of water, traveling a long distance, and carrying a large load. Gnats are light and fast.

We are what we consume......are we full of camels....heavy, slow moving, weighed down with a lot of "junk" or are we quick, fast moving, efficient - gnats?

MAH

SCU PLANS NEW COURSE ON STORYTELLING

The Academic Council of Southwestern Christian University in Bethany, Oklahoma recently approved adding an elective on Christian Storytelling. This exciting elective will look at the traditional art of oral storytelling, its role and uses in history (including the Bible), and its potential to communicate values and themes to a post modern society - across careers and vocations. It will stress the use of storytelling in communication, family entertainment, education, healing arts, business, and as dynamic ministry tool. Students will hear and interview guest professional storytellers and prepare to perform their own stories in public. SCU is an accredited educational institution in the state of Oklahoma and the course will be for college credit. Financial aid (State and Federal) may be available to assist with tuition costs for potential students meeting requirements.
Target date for the class will be Spring 2010.
For info contact: Marilyn A. Hudson, 405-789-7661 x3451 or email: marilyn.hudson@swcu.edu

The Hornet and the Bee

God sent Hornets into the land….
In three O.T. passages there are references to strange ‘hornets’ sent into the land to prepare the way for the Children of Moses to proceed into their promised land. It is assumed that anything ranging from a plague of hornets to a military tactic was used. There is, however, another possibility. The Hornets might have been guerrilla warriors sent into disable and terrify the populace. Since there is mention of clean food and water maybe they used some form of artifice to convince the population that leprosy or some other problem had emerged and they must flee.

Now, fast forward to the Judges where a woman known as “Deborah” sat at the tree of judgment serving as prophet and judge of the people. Why did she become a Judge? How was she a leader, aside from her role as a prophet? Her name has been interpreted as “Bee”….and the root words, according to some sources, for Bee and Hornet appear to be related. It has been suggested that such a group of women warriors did exist as an honor guard before the wilderness tabernacle. Did they also serve in other ways as well? Had she achieved her place of respect and honor because she had been a small Hornet…a bee…a woman warrior used to helping drive the occupants from the land?

When Deborah called the soldier to her from his mountain home...his readiness to come and his eagerness for her to come with him....make incredible and sudden sense. She had been a warrior, she knew the way of the soldier and the tactics employed, and had great experience in battle. Coupled with her prophetic skills, this experienced warrior woman would have been greatly respected, honored, and followed. No wonder she rose to the position of a Judge in the land...and no wonder the land had peace for forty years.....

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

The minister of God must show he or she is adept at the holy scriptures. They know the "Book" as the witness of God through the ages. The have learned it front to back in mind and soul. They apply it to their life...they may stumble...they may make mistakes (just as anyone can) ...but they raise to their knees and seek the face and forgiveness of God.

To not do so opens the door to abuse, ridicule, and hardship for others in the faith. This is rightly so. When a minister provides fodder to websites dedicated to detroying the the Gospel or destroying the work of God it is a shame.

Mistakes in the Message. The Bible verses listed on this explaination of blessings to be garnered from celebrating passover with offerings cause large questions to arise :http://www.stevemunsey.org/index.php?p=passovermore