This document addresses some Twentieth Century doctrinal teachings of the Christian Church that have been so destructive as to scream out for scrutiny. In spite of its length, it is not an exhaustive study. Its length only serves to illustrate man's propensity to try to out do God. As you read, some of my statements may seem to border on heresy but bear with me, there is no intent here to in any way mis-appropriate or violate God's Word. My only aim is to show how badly His word has been mis-appropriated by some over the years. When I started this document I planned to cover the last half of the twentieth century from first hand knowledge and the first half from those I knew from those who lived it. More recently I have become aware that some of these theologies are not rooted in the Twentieth Century, some in fact date back to at least the eighteenth century. I firmly believe that God has placed on my heart to write this. I have no further insight into His plan. Is it for the body, or is it for me? I leave that question to you.

I have asked that too. If there is anyone in this world who can identify with the prophet when he recognized his inadequacy, it is I.

But I feel so much less worthy than the prophet and unlike the prophet, no seraphim came to place a coal on my lips. But as I have studied the scriptures I have found that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin and through that work we are clean. All too well I see my own hamartia (ham-ar-tee'-ah -- missing the mark, shortcomings also translated sins), and I know too many places that I come up short of the Glory of God. I have for years wrestled with this, with no answer. But by his word, his voice and his prophets God continues to bring my attention to the scripture:

If you wonder why God has dealt with me this way, you are not alone. I probably have more reservations than you. And I have had to live it, to stand in the face of opposition. I have learned what it is to leave behind friends to be obedient to God. I know what it is like to be vilified, misunderstood, abused and falsely accused. And more than once I have asked God, "Why me?" But I have found there is no value in questioning the decisions of the Almighty. So I read further. If His will for me is to be a watchman, I will, but what follows concerns me even more:

Note that the prophet was not called to be a watchman over the house of Israel, but a watchman unto it. I could build a theology on this wording but one thing I am sure, I am not to rule the house, but to be there to serve it. But then, why is anyone selected to lead in the house of the Lord?

When we were installed as elders at CLC several years ago Melvin Matson spoke words over me, that I would be the one to see things others miss, things others would not be aware of. At the time I thought Melvin might have missed what God was saying. Today I am sure he did not.

It is a heavy thing to be responsible for one's self, but to be responsible for others can be an awesome responsibility. I understand Paul's discussion of the weight of the Churches. And to be held accountable for inaction, that is heavy. I look back now to the last ten years and I can see more than a few times I have blown it and badly. This document is the beginning of releasing what God has given me. It is probably several years late. Again I frame the quesiton, "Why me?" If you have an answer, I am open to listen, but in the last few months I have come to realize that question must not be, "Why me," my response must be "Here am I, send me." And the "send" has not been to some other place, that may have been easy, it has been, "stay". The implementation has not been an easy one.

As we see the hands of time move toward the end of the Twentieth Century it is well to reflect on the teachings of the Christian Church during this century and what impact these have on the coming of His Kingdom. Jesus prayed for us in the Garden of Gethsemane. He prayed that we would be one and we would be in Him.

But Christians of the Twentieth Century have all too frequently relied on the word of man rather than the Word of God. From my perspective this has happened frequently during the last half of the century and some study of church history shows it to be true in the first half. For centuries Protestants have decried the Catholic doctrine of only the priests having the ability to interpret the Word of God. But while pointing fingers at the Catholics the same Protestants have almost totally relegated that function to their clergy, mainly by laziness. All too often the Protestant clergy have responded to this by taking more control and encouraging the process of creeping lethargy. To the pastors it felt good to be in control, and be honored, revered and in some cases worshipped. Satan played on weaknesses on both sides, to his benefit. The situation was simple. We listened to the pastor, he heard from God and what he heard was passed down to us without question, without us having to do the work of knowing His word for ourselves. By our laziness we returned to the Old Covenant Priesthood. We negated the work of Jesus' death. When the veil of the temple was rent in two we were given access to the most holy place. We lacked the desire to possess this position so backed out of our rightful place and sent in the "priest" in our place.

Jesus did the work on the cross to allow access to His grace, and we threw it back in His face by our laziness.

Like the nation of Israel of old, we clamored for one to represent us, with Israel it was a King, with us it is another mediator between God and man. It matters little if that person set himself or herself up or if we selected them or if it was some combination thereof. There was another mediator set between man and God. Jesus died to remove that person. By action or inaction, we nullified His work on the cross. Paul wrote about this in both Galatians and Timothy. We apparently did not read and comprehend the scripture.

There was a period in the late seventies and early eighties when the Word of God became dear to some of us. It was called the word movement. We were criticized by the Historic and Pentecostal Churches for our commitment to His word. Men like Doug Slay, Don Hughes, and Ken Hagen were among those who carried the standard. I don't believe in movements, we'll discuss that later, but this was a significant change in how we approached God, not in how he approached us. We chose to come close to God by making his word precious (valuable). So we studied it to learn about Him. And we spent time with Him to get to know Him. There was a similar time in the early fifties that got less interest. Why did it not get the attention, you may ask? That's easy. It didn't fit the man defined "movement schedule", reports about it did not sell books and tapes, and it existed primarily in the back woods. It did not have extensive access to radio and print media to promote it. It is still ignored by Christian writers. After all, it did not fit man's definition of a movement and it did not come at the "right" time to fit their pre-conceived notions and time tables so it doesn't exist. And the participants in these times were shunned by much of the rest of the church and were branded "legalists". Even today they are being chastised for their commitment to the word. Some fit the description Jesus gave when he said they would be put out of synagogues.

It was easy for those who did not have a commitment to His Word to criticize those who do. It is in fact desirable because it exonerates their lack of study. Conclusion: those in the "word movement" were obviously too hung up with the Word of God to be right! As time passed even those of us who had come to know the power of His Word failed. We "grew up", we "advanced past the word", and we had "found fresh revelation outside the scripture." Or so we thought. We were taught that being in the Word was being bound by it and being bound by His word was legalism. And we were taught that legalism was a sin, it was being Pharisaic and that was wrong. "The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law gives life." We needed to spend time "just in His presence" and "interceding." We dropped our interest in the word. We majored on the scriptures:

We forgot that to know God we must know His word and His ways, but most important, to get to know him we must know His word for ourselves. We are not to be a slave to the Word or worship it, it must never become an idol, but we need to know it. God is clear, we are to have no other gods before Him. His Word can become a god and we must be vigilant that it is HE who we worship, not His Word. But we also know the word's importance. God's word is the stepping stone to knowing His way, His will and Him. Second hand Rhema stinks like rotting fish. Second hand logos never becomes Rhema. It is only when we know Him first hand through His Word that He becomes bigger than life and real to us.

Although it is essential to spend time in prayer and communion with Him, these are not substitutes for the word. Our relationship with God is like a three-legged stool, with His Word, Prayer and communion with Him as the three legs. Cut off one and the others are worse than useless, they make the stool lopsided. And it seems that the more out of balance these are, the less our value to ourselves and to Him, no matter how much we concentrate on one or two of the others. Avoiding the word made the average Christian of the 90's lopsided. Legalism is the problem, not God's Word. After all, legalism is not knowing too much of God's word, but instead misappropriating the word in a strict manner and without love. So we threw out our commitment to the Word under the guise of getting rid of the legalism. The baby went out, not the bath water. And in that lopsided state of Christianity of the Twentieth Century came some of the most hellish lies that the devil could concoct, and unfortunately they were proclaimed from the pulpits as truth. And what is worse, those of us who had known the word forgot it enough or we compromised enough that we swallowed these doctrines. They were for the most part, nearly the truth, so we accepted them as good enough. But a half-truth is a full lie. Thus it is not incorrect to say that with the famine of the word, the dark aes have enveloped a part of the church.

In the early eighties a Theology professor from the Assemblies of God Seminary was scheduled to speak in our church. When I heard he was coming, I considered staying at home. Theology professors bore and intimidate me. In my opinion they rarely say anything that seems valuable and most of it is either over my head or confusing. Out of obedience to the pastor, I went. I would endure. It was like my mom giving me medicine. I took it because she said it would make me better. This man called himself a professor of Applied Theology and I learned this was different from regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, dry theology I had seen before. He defined it as God's word applied to our daily lives. Wow. Right on. This man was worth hearing. If I ever am called a Theologian I want to be called an Applied Theologian. I'm not sure if there is any other kind that has any value.

From the time I was about six till I was in my teens I was in a church pastored by Theodore Gaylor, a man of God. He was a Bible teacher, a man who knew God and knew his word. During that time I grew in the word through his sermons. Today I can still define some scriptures as having learned them from him. Yes, a seven year old can grasp the gospel. They don't have to be put in a play room during services. We also had Sunday-School lessons from various teachers, and the teachings by a woman who taught the young people before the Sunday evening service. Yes, we had an hour youth service and a two to three hour regular service and yes, there was no nursery. And we had an hour drive to church and an hour drive home, during that time we listened to Billy Graham and Oral Roberts. Tough? Maybe. But I got an appreciation of the word of God, and a background in it. I still remember the first time I heard I Corinthians 13 read by Oral Roberts while riding past Laurel Lake on our way to church. These people did not have everything down pat, but they had an understanding God's word. I learned how God dealt with his people by Bible stories and I learned of His ways by learning of His Son. Some of the grasp of the history of the Jews came from the Sunday School lessons from the Gospel Publishing House literature.

During my mid and later teens we attended church infrequently, we became a part of the electronic church. It was not God's best and although our progress was slower, we still grew in the word. During college and my early work years I spent several years in two Methodist Churches, one in Shippensburg PA pastored by Jim Zeisloft, a bona fide Ephesians 5:12 Bible teacher. Yes, the Methodists have teachers even if they don't talk about it. They probably have prophets and apostles too. I grew there. Under his teaching I learned a new way to gain from the scriptures, to write each verse in my own words. To this day I do this at times, then check if what I have written matches the original meaning and then touch up my work till it does. Pastor Zeisloft never used the word Rhema, but his teaching showed me one way to take the Logos, the written word and made it Rhema, the living word. The first morning I visited his church was not by chance. I have come to appreciate men and women like these, those who are capable workmen (and women) rightly dividing the word of truth. If I were to add two more it would be Ben Haden and K. Fred Price, what some may call an unusual pair, but these men have contributed to my walk with God. And these two men have a simple way of looking at the Word. It is God's word, therefore it is true. Ben Haden has been a continual source of encouragement to me since about 1970. The scripture describes these man and women well.

So I have learned to set a standard, it is God's word, and I have built a standard, based on the word, for dividing his word, for making it alive to me. I will share that here. The standard is used to apply the word to a situation or theology to determine what is the acceptable will of God.

That standard is simple, it is Biblical. For me to build a theology I must have MULTIPLE witnesses of the truth and I must, after diligent effort, find no contradiction.

This scripture supports itself. Least you say I build this on a single scripture, it appears in slightly different forms at least four times in the scripture. It is quoted by both Jesus and Paul and applied to the spiritual as well as the legal aspect. I look at any Old Testament scripture that is quoted by Jesus as being important. So to be valid we must have more than one witness.

The theology must also represent the spirit of Jesus, it must be for the building up of the Body of Christ and it must bear witness with my spirit as being from God.

And I am single minded on this, if a doctrine fails the scriptural test it immediately goes into the trash. If it fails any of the others it goes on the shelf, I give God time to talk to me about it. During that time I neither reject nor embrace, I just watch it sit on the shelf. It's like watching something to see if it keeps or spoils or watching a test in Chemistry to see the outcome. When the disciples were called to question about the teaching of Jesus after the day of Pentecost, one of the teachers of the law, Gamaiel said that if this thing was of God it would flourish and if it were of man, it would come to naught. I treat new revelations that do not bear witness with my spirit the same way. I give God time to talk to me about it and I usually approach Him with the "if this is of you, show yourself in it."

And this same man Gamaliel was mentioned by Paul in such a way that we must believe that he was respected, learned in the law and one that would have applied the law strictly. Paul was proud that he had learned at the feet of Gamaliel and was taught the perfect manner of the law.

I apply this same criterion to modern day prophecies and personal prophecies. We will discuss that later.

One thing that I have rejected in all of this, if any theology is based on one scripture, or IN ONE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, no matter what translation, the theology is shelved. Although over the years I used the KJV for most of my study, there is no version that is good enough to control one's eternal destiny. I will discuss the reason for this later in the section on KJV only.

The songwriter wrote, "Jesus is coming soon, morning or night or noon, many will meet their doom, trumpets will sound. All of the dead shall rise, righteously in the sky, going where no one dies, heavenward bound."

The song is catchy, but I prefer the song, "Our Lord is coming back to earth again." Let me assure you, I know beyond any doubt that Christ's return is CERTAIN. I know it is ABOUT 2000 years nearer than it was when he left the Mount of Olives. I know He will come. I have no doubts. But I also know absolutely for sure, I DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHEN it will be. I am also sure that I DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT, in fact other than the above, I know nothing. And I am sure that I do not want to spend my time speculating on something that God has told me I will not know. Jesus is coming. I do not know if it is soon. And I also KNOW for SURE that I am not alone in this, there is no man who knows.

Let me assure you, I am not one who believes that Jesus will delay his coming, it will be on time. It will come EXACTLY like his first coming, when everything is ready, not one microsecond before or after.

He is coming in the fullness of time, when everything is ready. But for us to say it will happen at a certain time is to grossly exceed the word of God. (See Taking the name of the Lord in Vain.) That said, and to avoid being accused of heresy, I need to remind the reader that I firmly believe the following scriptures:

It will be unexpected, so the predictors must be wrong. And it is approaching. But there are other scriptures that talk about the end time. And it is getting closer, it is now about 1963 years closer than it was when he left the mount of Olives.

These say that we will not know the time and the word shows that we have spent our time foolishly trying to second-guess God. Look at a scripture that deals with this in a different way. Most of the teachers of the end time take their core material from Matthew 24, Mark 13, and the book of Revelation. This is interesting because the scriptures in Matthew and Mark both tell us that we will not know of that day and hour. I rarely use something from one version (translation) of the Bible and use precise language to prove a point but the scripture is constant through the KJV, NAS, and New KJV. Even the slightly different language of the NIV carries the same meaning.

This is supported by other scriptures listed above. This does not only say that we will not know the date, we will also not know the details about it! And there are other scriptures that support this one,

And you ask, "What about the details in the Book of Revelation?" Let us examine that too. When we read the book of Ecclesiastics we have no problem saying it is the book of the preacher, because it says it is that.

But when we read the book of Revelation we call it the book of the end time in spite of the first verse.

It is first a Revelation of Jesus Christ and secondly it is to show the things that must shortly come to pass. This book must first be looked upon as a Revelation of Christ. And when we look at it as a prediction of the end time we must recognize it is to tell us of the things that are to come, not to tell us the time or the precise surroundings. Like any scripture it is to edify us, not to scare us.

Now that I have laid this biblical foundation let us look at what is wrong from a practical standpoint with the statement that Jesus is coming soon. Over the years the church has taken that approach to the detriment of the Work of God and His Church. We have said, "He is coming soon, any long range planning is wrong. Few of my contemporaries in the church got any advanced education, in fact when I was in High School there was talk that even completing school was futile, Jesus was certain coming by the end of the fifties. When looked back upon, this looks almost like the cults that sold everything and went out on the hillside to await His return on a certain day. We just did it in a less conspicuous way. I thank God that my parents had more foresight than this. And while the church was engaged in this foolishness it did not do His command. Are we doing this today? Other than being ready if He comes, if we are engaging in any activities that assume that Jesus will come soon, other than aggressively spreading the gospel, we err, other than aggressively pursuing the lost.

In writing this I became concerned that I was becoming too negative, too critical of the church. Then Jerry Fawell, a man I respect, announced that he believes the Anti-Christ was living today and is a young Jewish male. For him to BELIEVE this is one thing, that is his right to have an opinion. But as a teacher, one who is charged to present the gospel his responsibility is doubled. If he teaches error, his responsibility is increased. I believe he erred significantly in making this statement in public.

And he has just committed the sin of predicting the date of the second coming of Jesus Christ. I use the word sin as the Old Testament uses it, missing the mark. His statement has no value in edifying the church, it instead has caused confusion and brought reproach. But this is the normal result when we miss the mark.

Let us press toward the mark, let us serve Him and His people, and let us do those things that build the kingdom in the time we have breath or until he comes.

I have learned that not everyone who calls himself or herself a prophet is in fact proclaiming the Word of the Lord. And least you say, "He is too critical," Paul expressly warned us to be prudent. Let us suppose that a card-carrying and self-professed Satanist came into our meeting and tried to prophecy. We would reject the word. But if someone who looks like a prophet, sounds like a prophet and gives words that sound like prophecy, we might just accept it even if it is not a true word. We might just accept it without testing it. But God's word is clear, try the spirits.

Note that the first line is read, "Depart from the faith." The person presenting the falsehood must be someone who once served God and knew his word. You cannot depart from what you did not once embrace. We need to be concerned about what we hear even from those who have a record of presenting the word of God accurately over the years. I could mention more than a few who have tremendous works over the years who have slipped into error. Over the years I have applied the same rules to the various doctrines that have arisen and found some of them to be seriously wanting. Often they have been rejected by the church after some time, after they have created havoc, then only to resurface ten to twenty years later to haunt the church again, usually with a different byline, but based on the same error. I am hoping that by writing this I can help set some of these to rest.

And what should we do when we encounter a doctrine or prophecy that we cannot substantiate? Easy, check it out. First go to the word. If you cannot find support, go to the person who gave the prophecy or doctrine. Any pastor or prophet worth his salt will not be offended by someone who is sincerely asking questions. They will look at this as someone who is really listening, even if they did not hear the teaching properly. But if the prophet, pastor, or teacher refuses to accept questions, than mark that one, and carefully inspect the words. Look for the fruit, if it is not good, have no part in him or her, least you be in the place of those who supported the prophets of Baal.

I am sure that I need not tell you of the end of Jezebel and Ahab.

Unfortunately more than a few of those who profess to be prophets were foreseen by Peter nearly 2000 years ago. He saw that there would be those who would make the Gospel a merchandise.

First read the following scriptures.

When most of us think of fables we think of old stories. But if we look at the Greek, the word that is translated as fables clearly points to concept of FICTION, not stories of old. We are turned from the truth to stories that are not true. This is entirely different from how the "new thing" teachers teach this, they show it as OLD stories, to carry the idea that any story that is not new is not valid today. Much of our children's programs in the church have gone away from the teaching of the history of Israel. And in that note, we have ignored the history and have been committed to make the same mistakes. It is ironic that the Preacher, Ecclesiastics, says that there is no new thing under the sun. It is exactly that desire for a new thing that draws many to the cults and the error of them. It is the same thing that draws the learned away from the truth and to error, and it is the same thing that seduces the church to follow the latest fad rather than the word.

Note that Isaiah 43:19 talks of a new thing that is a thing that you have not previously heard about. It is interesting to note the number of times that there seemed to be a new thing and yet it was what God had been doing, it was just new to us, just as we read in Is 43:19. The first miracle I saw in Oral Robert's ministry was not a new thing to God. The first soul saved in Billy Graham's ministry was not a new thing, it was just God continuing to do what he had been doing.

But I can remember people who went to those meetings and were awestruck at the new thing God was doing. And this was a reason for viewing God as an awesome God it was not new. Awesome is not enough to define or describe Him. We can view him as nothing less. But the things we have seen have been happening since he walked this earth.

The "Charismatic movement" was a continuation in the 60's of what God had done in the first 50 years of the century in other settings. What changed? It was not God, and He was still doing the same thing. What changed? The people in churches that in the fifties had REFUSED the holy spirit were now accepting it. God was not miffed by their previous rejection of His overtures. He received those who would call on Him. The "Faith Movement" was nothing more than a continuation of the move of faith and healing in the back woods from the late forties and early fifties. It was a renewal of our interest in His word, interest that had waned. But God again was gracious. And there is such a stir about the prophetic in our midst today, yet I personally saw the prophetic word of God going forth over thirty years ago. And this was not done in a corner or hidden. The men of the FGCBI were exposed to it on a regular basis in the seventies. And some of those who are touting it as new were there to see what I saw. Did they forget the things they had seen God do? Some of the same men and women of the FGCBI moved simultaneously in what we now call the Charismatic, Faith and Prophetic ministries and long before the religious leaders of our day put a title to them so they could sell books and tapes about them. God is not doing a new thing. His Son did that new thing when he prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, died on the cross of Calvary, arose from the tomb of Joseph on that morning and left this world from the Mount of Olives. The next new thing he will do is when he splits the Eastern Sky to come back. The only new thing he is doing today is a fresh work in our lives each day. If we are to grow we must allow this to happen.

There is a teaching that the time since the Protestant Reformation has been a time for God to restore to the church each of the various things that were lost during the Dark Ages. Although I find the study interesting some areas are at the very questionable at best. First, one must assume that these things were lost to the church for them to be restored. That is open to question. It clearly depends on how you define the church. Secondly, to accept this, one must assume that God works in a lock-step manner, advancing all areas of the earth at one time. History brings this to question also. There are several "movements" in which the restoration came at vastly different times in different geographic areas. In fact sometimes there were several "movements" of the same type in a given area, over a period of time. It takes considerable effort and juggling to make them fit. And were these teachings lost to the church or did they appear to be lost because their presence was not recorded?

God's word says he will have a remnant.

I will ask the question. Did God have a remnant during the dark ages, when the church plunged into the darkness? We have no record of such, but I personally believe that there was one. Why? Because God is unchanging. To a despairing Elijah he reported he had seven thousand prophets that had not kissed the alter of Baal. His love is reaching out to us always. I believe it is just as likely that God worked with individuals and small groups during that time, apart from the church and in conjunction with the church where possible. Why do I contend that? If that were not true, God would not be keeping His word. And there may have been individual priests who continued to preach the word.

But the area in which the teaching goes into the future concerns me greatly. First, one book written by this author shows a time line that indicates a time of the return of Jesus. See the section "Jesus is coming soon" above if you do not recognize this as a major contradiction of scripture. I do not care how "great" a man is if he teaches something that is contrary to scripture, I begin to subject his teaching to scrutiny. I do not follow him blindly. In addition, the later movements he describes are ones that will be used by the church (and already have) to create more hierarchy and more return of the priesthood. For this to be true, the opening of the holy of holies by Christ at His death was a temporary situation. Already the terms of "Office of the Prophet" and "Office of the Apostle" are being used as titles, almost like nobility. The word "office" is interesting, it appears eight times in the New Testament, none refer to the "Office of the Prophet" and only one the "Office of the Apostle." Let us deal here with the teaching of the restoration of the office of the apostle and prophet, if one element of the teaching is false, all is suspect.

In the KJV the office of the priest is mentioned three times in the New Testament, twice in Luke and once in Hebrews, referring to an Old Testament Priest. By comparison, the word "office" appears nearly forty times in the Old Testament, most of them referring to the office of the priest. Most of the teaching of the "office" comes from those schooled in the KJV so we will use it as the base. Let us examine the scriptures that have been used to build the "offices".

The phrase "priest's office" or "office of the priesthood" in these three scriptures are translated from the Greek as follows: (Note: I use the Strongs Concordance numbers for reference and include the meanings below.)

The other uses of the word office are as follows:

It is interesting that the meanings we see above are not oriented to the use of the word "office" to a place of honor, or to place of authority, or a place of royalty. It is clearly a function of service. But that concept of service is consistent with the VALID office of the priesthood in the Old Testament. They were to serve God and the people. The honor upon them was to be able to serve, not the adulation of the people. There remains one scripture on office from the New Testament, the one that is thought to refer to the Office of the Apostle. In fact the only one that points to an office of any of the "five fold ministry gifts" in spite of the "Office of the Prophet" being the only one mentioned frequently in contemporary teachings.

Interesting. The office in the New Testament is also a place of service. In fact it is a word with the same root as word 1248 which is obviously describing one who serves. So if there is an "Office of the Prophet", an "Office of the Apostle" (and Pastor, Teacher, Evangelist) they are places of service. So if there is no such office in the sense of a title, how can the office be restored?

Let us look further to another place Paul mentions the words that are described as offices, in fact where he describes himself. Note that he calls himself a preacher, an apostle and a teacher of the Gentiles. Note that the more generic word Preacher is used in a list with the words teacher and apostle that are such specific and coveted titles.

And look at these words, and how else the Greek words they come from are used in the scripture.

And look at the words that are used in Ephesians 4:11. The apostle and the teacher are the same words and are not shown here. What would I conclude from this? That too much has been made of the exact wording of some of the scriptures. Too much has been built on these few words without the context. It is possible that the "five fold ministry" is not really a scriptural concept but an invention of theologians derived only because Paul mentioned five places of service in a particular pastoral letter. Look at all of the analogies that would have not been possible, the fingers on the hand, for example, if Paul had mentioned four or six items. Think of all of the books and tapes that would have not been made.

And Jesus explained it this way.

Those who would be great in the kingdom are to gain that by being the servant of all. Note that Jesus who is our example came to be the servant of all. He set that example by being the one who would lower Himself to serve His disciples. And here the church has taken a specific act of Jesus, an act of humility, and built a theology. I assure you I have participated in "foot washing" and there is nothing wrong with it, in fact there is much right about this participation. I encourage you to participate if an opportunity presents itself. But Jesus' purpose in the act was to show us that we were to serve one another in all things, a much broader and vital concept. And somehow in the emotion of the "foot washing" we have missed what he was teaching. Is it better to serve a fellow Christian by washing his feet in a service or by supporting his character, or by encouraging him? I maintain we should do the latter without thought, and the former only when the latter has become routine!.

The arguments against the newer translations of the Bible have been hot since the early fifties when the RSV was announced. Even now some churches consider any other translation equal to the Book of Mormon. I remember hearing the RSV denounced from the pulpit many times. I look back at the ones who I remember engaged in this and I find that I cannot confirm that any of them taught me any parts of the word that I remember today. I agree RSV had some shortcomings but it was not the heresy that the church pronounced it. And a lot of time and energy was wasted on it.

When we address the subject of the various Bible Translations in classes I teach I like to tell the students that the KJV is the one Paul used. I usually get some interesting stares as I continue, then someone pipes up, "The KJV wasn't around when Paul was alive." My answer, "Paul Mummert always used the KJV. Who do you think I was talking about?" For those of you who don't know him, Paul Mummert is a man I respect, a man of wisdom and love. I have known him since the early fifties, he is more than twenty years my senior and still actively serving God and His people. We all get a laugh about it and then I have their attention as we discuss the various versions.

But there are those in the Christian community who have insisted that the KJV is the only bible, all others are heresies. They cite homosexual translators of the other versions. These charges have not been proven to my satisfaction, even if valid. They should study the backgrounds of some of the KJV translators. Often they point to a few places that other translations DIFFER from the KJV (and gore some sacred cow theology that can only be proven by KJV wording in one verse) and assume that anything that differs from their pre-conceived notions is an error in the newer translation. In fact there are several possibilities. The KJV could have a less than perfect translation or their interpretation is a private interpretation or an error. In addition, the age of the KJV may have changed the meaning of some words or phrases.

This is one area in which I have reached to the reasonable and logical for an answer to the question. God gave us His word.

Why would God give His Word to man and then allow man to corrupt that word and make it null and void? Seems senseless, doesn't it? I reject that out of hand and because of scripture.

If this is God's will then He must stand by His word to protect its accuracy. If His word has not been passed down accurately, how can it be the standard? I believe He has over the centuries stood by His word and protected it from dilution, alteration and error.

The men in the dark ages preserved the word. The monks copied it faithfully and had such a respect for it that they could not alter one single character of it. The leaders of the Catholic Church, the politicos, may have subverted the word that was taught for that era but the men who's job it was to preserve it made sure it was copied word for word. And they preserved God's Word for the generations to follow. Those scrolls they copied have been shown to be accurate in spite of the anathema of the church hierarchy. Earlier scrolls that have been found confirm the accuracy of the later ones. God's word was preserved through these times and I do not believe that the newer translations will prevent His word from being passed on accurately, in fact, I believe they are the vehicle that will accomplish that. And those scholars who have studied the newer translations, particularly the NIV and the NAS, will tell you they are accurate. And the wording is generally more accurate relative to our current language. I hear the scholars often say, "The KJV language is more impressive, more poetic than the newer translations. But they are never heard say the KJV is more accurate. And this is understandable, God's Word cannot be more accurate than God's Word. I am not ready to throw out the KJV, it is one of the ancient landmarks of the faith, but I have come to respect the newer translations. Let us face it, the KJV was God's gift to man to free his church from the enslavement of the apostate church of the dark ages, but God never intended us to worship or idolize a translation of the Bible or even the Bible itself. But it is a lamp to our feet and a light to our pathway.

Much Charismatic Christian thinking decries the dispensationalism of some of the denominations yet succumbs to it themselves in other ways. Each time we declare that God will work differently because we are moving into the next year or the next decade or the next millenium, or the next movement we commit heresy. We declare that God changes and by default we declare that He has been bound by man's calendar or some other activity! I'm sure that none of us would do that knowingly, but we sometimes get caught up in the things others say and follow them rather than God.

We must begin to place the yardstick of God's Word against every teaching. If someone indicates you are wrong in doing so, they are called of God, a prophet, an apostle, a teacher, give them no mind. If they fear that scrutiny enough to discourage it, then watch them carefully. If what they teach fails to measure up, drop it like a hot potato. Like the Apostle Paul, I welcome the scrutiny of what I teach. In the scripture he says that if anyone teaches another Jesus than the one he was teaching, be it an angel or Paul himself, let him be called accursed. If you find something I teach that does not measure up to the plumb line of the scripture, discard it. I personally ask of you one more thing, let me know because I too can be in error.

Ironically we have taken this from the world. The world that speaks of the new decade, the new millenium, the new phase. But we are children of a God that does not change.

And as we struggle to learn what will happen during the tribulation he speaks to us and says:

We start defining times and seasons, which Christ has told us it is not ours to know. It seems that the more we define, the more interest people have, the more we teach it because it sells. We concentrate our teaching on what sells. Is that not what Peter noted in the scripture? And Paul mentioned it in qualifications for leaders.

Over the centuries man has devised one calendar after another. Often the calendar was based on some event like the reign or birth of a king. I see nothing wrong with this, we humans must plot time in some way, a calendar is simply a tool. And the base of our current calendar is great, it points to the year of our Lord, and even though it is not accurate, it is a constant reminder of His first coming. Our calendar is supposed to be based on the birth of Christ, however serious scholars discount this because the apparent year of Christ's birth is somewhere about 3 or 4 A. D. I like to remember that although it is not totally accurate, our calendar points to His time here on earth. It is a constant reminder that He is. God does not operate on man's calendar. His calendar is based on His timing, which is impeccable. Events He orchestrates happen "in the fullness of time, when everything is ready. With Him there are no loose ends, nothing that does not come together. God is not like McGuiver, he does not jury rig and improvise. When he does something it is planned and orchestrated. It is laid out and perfect. It is like a military operation that is executed on time, H-hour, D-day, as planned.

And the numbers of man's calendar don't matter either. His ways are higher than our ways and are past finding out. He is immutable, he does not change. He is not bound by time and distance, he is omniscient and omnipresent. (And omnipotent but that is not an issue here.) There have been many numerological studies of the scripture and of dates. Although they are interesting, I can find no scriptural support for their value.

He will be with us till the end of the age.

Few phrases have been as overused by the church as "the Egyptian System." In the late seventies and early eighties it was used by proponents of Christian Schools to describe the public schools. According to them, these hot beds of liberalism and humanism were subverting our children by the Egyptian System. We must get them out of this evil environment and into Christian Schools. One franchise even called every Christian School not in their program part of the Egyptian System. In the late eighties and early nineties the term became one used by home schoolers to describe the public and all Christian schools. The home schoolers had to find a bogeyman and any school outside the home was it. This included church-run Christian Schools. They proved by scripture that it was God's will that only parents teach their children.

But Christians who want to teach their own ideas are rarely consistent for any length of time. Some home schoolers are now banding together and forming "home schools" where several families "home school" teir children together. Sounds like a school to me, I can see no difference here. And if they are pooling, they are not teaching only their own children, the major theological argument. Possibly these home schoolers are succumbing and reverting to the Egyptian System. Possibly they have found it is not feasible to home school and have no other way to back out other than to admit they are wrong? The real home schoolers will claim the cooperatives are succumbing to the pressures of the world. What will come along next? What will it call home schooling? Easy, anything the church wishes to deride is called the "Egyptian system."

But let's go one further. Let us assume that the concept of teaching your own children is God's will and we should be doing this. This means that we and we alone teach our children as we say in the home schooling. But are we consistent? With some sarcasm I say, "This would be too much to expect." We bring the children to church, to be consistent each parent would teach their own children, what is more important than teaching our children God's word. And if we cannot trust our Christian brothers and sisters to teach our children Geography and Algebra in a Christian Day School, how can we trust them to teach our children God's word in Children's Church and Sunday School? In some cases I have seen the same person teaching in the church and the public school! And let’s go one further, if we are to have a New Testament church as some propose, how can we have a Sunday School program when neither it or a Sunday School Superintendent are mentioned in Paul's letters to the churches?

I ask you, is God fickle? Or is it us?

In his book, "The Vanguard Leader" Frank Damazio described the set man, a man God sets in place to see His work is done. This is a scriptural concept, BUT like most good concepts, if it is accented in a book, someone will pick it up, build a full blown doctrine on it and to have an "adequate" doctrine to teach on, man's ideas creep in and first subvert, then supplant God's Word. Damazio deftly avoided this pitfall in his first book on the subject, but others did not. After all, it takes a lot of words to fill a book or conference on a minor doctrine or concept. And Satan saw an opportunity to slip in. The concept that God puts one in place and that one leads in doing His work was subverted. It is easy to see how far this has sunk. One travelling preacher recently challenged those present in at least one church that unless they were ready to follow their pastor no matter if he were right or wrong, they should stand up then, make it known and allow him to denounce them in public! Least someone say this did not happen, I was present when he did it and I am now convinced that I erred in not standing up in the body and denouncing him for making the statement. His man was teaching error boldly and shamelessly. He should have been corrected in the same public forum. The scripture specifically prohibits following a man.

Although I know the pastor this man was citing and have respect for him and know he has a track record of usually being right, he is a man and it is possible for him to err. I cannot follow any man blindly. I have come to the place that I have rejected this subversion of the teaching. It is not in line with the scripture, the yardstick for any doctrine. And note the last reference, it is one of several that indicates Paul had a high regard for Apollos but he cautioned against following any man, including himself as well. And for the leadership to be trusted to one man alone with no counsel is pure folly. One man rule in the church and civil government has been the cause of many errors and disasters. They range from small errors to the debacles at Jonestown with Jim Jones and Waco with David Koresh. And the difference between them is only in how long people will follow a leader that is committing error.

Let me digress, if you throw a frog into a pot of hot water, he will jump out. But if you float him on a piece of wood in a pot of cold water, put it on the stove and turn on the heat, you can cook him alive. The frog will not notice the increasing heat until it is too late. People are the same. If I try to teach you that ist is right to commit adultery, you will reject me. (I hope.) But if I teach a "little" error here, a little there, people will miss it, they will get accustomed to the error and will be set up to accept the next error. Soon we drift far from the truth.

This is one of the reasons why the scripture talks of counsel and counselors. It is not that those who fill that role are that smart or have such great insight, often they have no more insight than the leader they advise, and they would usually tell you they have less. The safety is in that when one is weak, the others are there to take up the slack. When one is tempted the others support him or her. When one misses it, the others may have better insight.

And it is best to have more than just a few counselors for that reason. Usually if there are two or three they will become more like the leader and they will the same myopia. One comment here, counselors are only counselors if their counsel is regarded. If they are treated as Rehoboam did, they are of no value.

And let us look at the men he rejected. They were "the old men, that stood before Solomon". They were selected as advisors by and for the man who God called "wise." That certainly had to be a select group. What an honor to sit and advise him. What a place to learn and grow. How much of Solomon's wisdom in handling the kingdom came from the exposure to these men? Why would he have even had them unless they had value? Now Solomon is gone. As the advisors of Solomon stood before the new king they could see into the future and knew that the new king would have to prove himself. The first thing they advised, "Serve these people." But Reheboam had a selfish streak. He wanted for himself, not for the people. He was not good, Godly leadership. After all, he was king and kings had rights to do whatever they wanted to do. I'm sure his anger ran hot as he looked at them, "How dare these old men think I would serve this people, they are to serve me." He dismissed the counsel and the counselors, and sought counsel where he knew it would agree with him. And counselors that will tell you what you want to hear are a dime a dozen, they are easy to find. Give them a prize position. Make agreement with the leader a condition of retaining the position. The weak and worthless will give the "right" advice. Counsel is worthless if it will only agree with you. Shopping for such counsel has brought more than one person to ruin. But it is easier to work with someone who always agrees with you. It is generally not as productive.

I have heard many teach on how wrong the ten tribes were to rebel. And so they were. But the foundation of that rebellion was laid in the bad counsel that the king accepted. I can imagine that the reduced taxes from the twelve tribes would have kept him in luxury. But now he was forced to live on the taxes from two of the tribes. Somehow, it appears that the counsel was bad. Pride, arrogance and my way only brought the division of the nation.

In 1997 there was a "movement" in the church to "cast off the old and be exposed for a time." There was even a "word from the Lord" on the subject which was circulated to some pastors. I will not comment on it more than to say it seemed to violate some scripture and we could not learn who "God spoke through" in giving that word. To me, this alone is reason to suspect the word. The "being exposed" included removing the "advisory leadership" until new leadership could be mentored by the top leadership which remained in place. More than a few churches did this. I have yet to see fruits of this action that indicate it was God's design.

And as we see the increased mention of the Apostolic being restored, I can only raise the concern about this "office" because of the companion excesses in the teaching about the set man. The risk of leaders turning from the sincere word of God and men like Jim Jones and David Koresh exploiting this teaching are great. I have even more concern that sincere men will be impacted by this and tempted to excess. Few if any will go to the extent of Jones or Koresh, but as the authority is abused, even slightly, the church suffers. It is interesting that a recent issue of Charisma talks about an Unhealthy Church. One of the marks it cites is the abuse of authority and excessive control. Jay Conrad talks about this in his series on Jezebel. He cites the church influenced by the spirit of Jezebel as one where the subject of church government is continually at the forefront. It will be the subject of more than a handful of messages a year. He says this is necessary to maintain the level of control Jezebel needs to avoid being detected and confronted. After all, if you cannot question leadership, you cannot confront and expose Jezebel. And confrontation and exposure is the only thing Jezebel fears.

Note that when you read this it on the surface appears that the sin is sexual in nature, yet when you inspect the Greek, both words seem to point toward it being IDOLTRY is as valid as ADULTRY. Let's face it, although there have been notable exceptions, in the church it is often easier for Satan to tempt leaders with idolatry then adultery.

And there is a paired spirit that is rampant in the church today, the spirits of Ahab and Jezebel. They are complementary because Ahab sets Jezebel on the throne and Jezebel feeds Ahab's ego to keep her power. And both find the power they gain fulfilling. And it is not only in the church, I soundly believe that these spirits are working in the White House today. Jezebel (Hillary) is willing to be treated as dirt by Ahab (Bill) in her marriage so she can have what she wants. Her control over him is her tolerance for his indiscretions.

There is no doubt in my mind that the church has had men who have functioned as apostles since the time of Paul. Often they did not have notoriety and thus were not known, and until recently most of the men who served as such shunned the title. It is not necessary to be called an apostle to be one. Generally those who so served over the years considered themselves unworthy of the title. It has only been in the last few years that we have had a disturbingly high incidence of self-proclaimed apostles. This self-appointment is dangerous at best. And where there has been what seemed to be recognition from others, it is all too frequent that these proclamations have been from someone who would gain from a favorable statement. And by calling this the "Apostolic Movement" we indicate that there will be more apostles, explaining away the increased number.

But there are more than a few today who seem to covet the titles. And they covet the honor of the "office". They covet the high position. And they are offended if the proper "honor" is not due them. The scripture deals with this.

The set man as defined by the post Damazio teaching is just a re-incarnation albeit with additional abuses, of the discipleship teaching that created confusion and havoc in the church several decades ago. It has the potential to be just as destructive and we have probably already seen examples of this that we do not yet recognize as such. People have been and will continue to be devastated by the control and false expectations until the debunked teaching is relegated to history.

Implied in the set man is the idea that he, the set man, is in a place of honor. He is, HOWEVER, that honor is the honor of being able to serve. Just as the "offices" discussed elsewhere are places of honor because one "gets to serve" so is the place of the set man one of service, not one of honor.

And what is so often stated when there are excesses in leadership is that the person is easily offended. It automatically becomes the "fault" of the person who is offended. There have been many sermons preached on "The sin of being easily offended." The scripture is specific here, that to offend is to sin.

The Apostle Paul is clear here on several matters. First he discusses the lengths that he will go to not offend. Secondly he discusses how he takes on the case of the one that is offended. Yet in the church today if one takes the cause of the weak he or she is criticized for taking on the offense of the other person. But in II Corinthians 11:29 Paul clearly says that he takes on the cause of the one that is offended. In another scripture he says that we should weep with those who weep.

And Jesus is quoted in three of the four gospels as saying that one who would offend one of these little ones it would better that a millstone would be hung around his neck and he be cast into the sea. He does talk of offense and offending, HOWEVER the only offense Jesus counseled against taking is being offended by being with Him.

There is more scripture that tells us to avoid OFFENDING than BEING OFFENDED. I think the answer in this is in the commandment, "Thou shalt not Murder". The concept of murder most of us have is to the wanton taking of human life. This is true, but in the Rabbinical interpretation of the scripture to take away a person's livelihood or ability to make a livelihood is to kill. This might take the form of slander, for example. But to destroy the person's spirit is also considered a violation of this commandment, destroying the person's spirit and will to live is akin to murder. You will say, this is an extreme view. But let us look at the teaching of Jesus.

There are many who say that Jesus expanded the coverage of the ten commandments in the sermon on the mount, I personally do not believe this is true. Jesus did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. As a part of the Sermon on the Mount he expands our understanding of the commandments. The commands of God were always there. Our understanding was lacking until Jesus came to die for us. Yet, if we look at the Rabbinical interpretations that predate Christ, we see the tracks of the teachings that were there to expand that understanding to where God intended.

I will recommend a book here that will help you increase that understanding of one of the foundations of the faith. It is, "The Ten Commandments" by Laura Schlessinger.

What is the ideal church government? The scripture is strangely silent on what is ideal unless you "go into an in depth study" and wring out the smallest specks. And the twentieth century church has become adept at searching the scriptures, not for life as is indicated but for scriptures that support our pre-conceived theories.

Thus there are many church structure teachings today based on man's opinion and at best very shaky scriptural interpretations. Over the years these initiatives have split churches, divided congregations, caused leaders to fall, and in general been damaging to the work of God. Just the time spent on this instead of preaching the gospel is a significant waste of resources. Each change in structure of a church has come with glowing predictions of grand and glorious growth in the church when implemented. After all, this is what God mandated. They generally promise that by this change the church will be liberated from the chains of the past, it will be free to move on and grow in the next movement God is planning. The question can never be asked, "is there a next movement, or even a current movement?" One paradigm is certain, you cannot question the set man. But that is covered in another part of this document. This writer has NEVER seen these predictions come true, and in fact most times the change has resulted in at least a negative trend in the growth rate. Very often, the church experiences a significant period of negative growth, usually lasting one to two years. That's a nice way of saying it looses quite a few members. The leadership explains this away by calling it getting rid of deadwood, backdoor evangelism or they say, if they want to go, let them go. Ignored is the scripture that Jesus lost none but the son of perdition.

Those who don't get with it are sacrificed. Within a church there are some that will go along no matter what happens, they are the ones that for the most part do not study the scriptures for themselves and rely totally on what they are spoon-fed on Sunday morning. They will never notice if the leadership goes over the hill, because they will be fed the line slow enough that they will not notice. Like one poisoned on arsenic by small doses, they will never taste anything bitter because it is fed slowly. Meanwhile the ones that know the scriptures are encouraged to leave. They are problems. They ask too many questions.

But back to the church government that was changed. Generally after a few years the church government is changed again. We have another new revelation from God. Reason, the same. Result, the same. We humans just can't stand not tinkering with something.

When the results do not come, the proponents of the new structure generally explain that the problem is the people, they aren't in tune with the vision, they are not hearing from God, they aren't following the leadership, they are in rebellion, they are not spiritual enough. If the people were with it the change would bring the desired results. Yet at the same time the leaders are the ones that are telling the people they hear from God and are passing on his word to the congregation. What are they passing on? But if they are providing this leadership, why aren't the people getting it? We can as leaders say that is not our responsibility for the people to get what we are presenting, but look at the writing from Paul.

The problem is never considered being a failure of the leaders. It is never the leaders not hearing from or following God or faithfully passing on what He has said. The problem is never that the change is ill timed or wrong. It is never considered that the change was hatched in a mere staff meeting, not in the heavenly realm. Once the change is touted as God's will it is cast in stone and it will become policy. But if it is our idea, have we not taken God's name in vain?

Ironically, this is the way of the world, to reorganize, to realign, to restructure, to gain the edge. It is not God's way. And in the business world these activities rarely result in the expectations and predictions becoming reality. And implementing them usually incurs tremendous costs. People are displaced. Skills are lost. Morale is crushed. The organization flounders for a time. I have seen it first hand. Often this happens because some of the most valuable people are the ones that are not considered important in the new organization because they, unlike the ones that survive and thrive in the reorganization are not political enough to provide a personal safety net. The most effective reorganizations I have seen are the ones that were progressive, making minor steps as they became obviously necessary rather than waiting till major changes appear necessary. These can usually be done without the chaos and often can be done while the organization continues to function normally.

The final reason I reject this is practical. I have seen churches with almost every form of government grow, spiritually and in numbers. Watch TV on Sunday and see the number of varied groups that have the resources to support nationwide TV programming. The Baptists generally have a democratic or republican form of government in their churches and they grow. Thomas Rhode in Virginia is an example but there are others. Independents may have leaders appointed by the pastor or elected by the congregation and they grow. Some have strong pastor government and they grow. If God's mandate to have every church have the same form of government is as it is stated, then why would God bless the work that was operating contrary to His will?

A simpler explanation is that God will work within the government that exists if those who lead and worship there will live within His love, care for each other, and earnestly desire to do his will. And if we believe they writings of the Apostle John we find that to love one another is to show our love for God. If we love Him and really love each other, no form of government, in the church or the world will be oppressive and I am convinced that any form of government will support God's work.

After all, the government is on Jesus' shoulders, not on the shoulders of a man. If we allow that relationship to exist, the mechanics are not important. There must be a structure to prevent chaos but the type of structure is unimportant. It is very possible that many of the changes in church government are more for the personal preference of the leadership, or some new doctrine they have read about or embraced, rather than to follow the Rhema of God. If this is the case then the leadership is guilty of exceeding the word of God, a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." Is it just possible that God can work within the structure man creates and will do that? Is it possible that although change is good, but sometimes stability is better?

Paul said to the early church, "I am all things to all men that I may win some." He was willing to talk about the unknown god to win the Greeks. He was willing to work in their framework to win people for the kingdom.

(KJV)

We hear TV preachers tell how civil governments should be structured. They assume that every government in the world should be the same, and as they see it. I wonder as I listen to some of them if they are expounding the word of God or if they are running for office. In some cases I am sure.

I am not sure that there is a God-ordained form of government, except that the government is to be concerned about the good of the people and operates with love and concern for them. The scripture tells us to pray for Kings and Princes, Paul tried to convert the governor, and there are many references of working with civil authorities so the scripture recognizes that there will be various governments. I am sure that God ordained government to care for its people. But I am not sure that there is a single scriptural way it should be structured.

Paul said they are for our good, Jesus said to render to them what was due. There are more than just a few references that indicate that God has ordained civil authority. Jesus lived under one of the most oppressive governments in history, yet he was able to operate and spread the gospel. Paul lived under the same government. It is well to note that although both ran afoul of the civil government it was the religious authorities that made the problems for them. Remember, the civil authorities, Herod and Pilate wanted to find some excuse to release Jesus. It was the religious leaders that cried out, "crucify him." And Paul was saved from death by the Romans when the Jews made an oath to kill him.

I am glad I live in the U. S. A. and enjoy the freedom this land provides. I love this land as much it is possible without it being an idol, but as long as the leaders treat the people with the proper love, no form of government, even a dictatorship, is necessarily bad. Admittedly the more power that is concentrated in a small group, the more likely there will be abuses of power. And without accountability, there is place for every abuse. Even the founders of this country knew this. They designed a government with three branches, with each having accountability to the others. It is called checks and balances. I can find no scriptural basis for it as such, however it is a good model of accountability.

One thing that is heard both in the world and the church, "I'm responsible to God." And to that I ask, "Who holds you responsible to Him?" If the leader says he does not need anyone to hold him accountable, he is at least in the beginning stages of error.

For many decades the church has treated politics is evil and shied from it. The Pentecostals in the fifties taught that even to vote was to commit a sin. This is so short sighted. Many elections are won by a few percentage points, a few votes per precinct. The elections that most impact our lives are not the high profile national ones that get all of the media attention but the local ones, the school boards, township leaders, county commissioners, Mayors and city Councilmen. These people make decisions that impact our daily lives, how we live, the restrictions on our homes, the way our children are taught in schools and how we are protected by our local law enforcement. And often these officials are not only elected by a few percentage points but by a very few votes. Often the district is so safe for a Republican or Democrat that the incumbent runs unopposed (or opposed by someone with no chance of success) in the primary only to have the same situation in the general election. I've seen elections won by 20 votes and have heard of occasions where the margins were less than a handful. And there have been times where the difference was someone who would stand for righteousness or someone who would not, the church failed to act and unrighteousness won by a margin that was slim. I don’t advocate that the church break the law and endorse candidates, but the church can be a force here, either by its people passing the word or by issuing non partisan information that helps the members make decisions. Had a few more people stood for righteousness by knowing the candidates and voting the result would have been different. Is it possible that some Charismatic leader that could have beat Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 was defeated in a local race in the seventies and was thus deprived of the exposure needed to be that difference? And I'm not talking just Republicans to beat him. It could have been a Democrat in the primary. I am a Republican, a conservative, and proud of it, but first I am a Christian and I know God does not have or endorse a political party.

Let me illustrate. I am very political. I have missed voting in very few elections. I participate in the process where I can. I even go to some local school board and township board meetings. Christians should to go to these meetings in droves, sit there, make your presence known, and make a difference. Pastors would do well to post local government meetings in church literature. Let your local leaders know you will not tolerate a lack of righteousness. Write letters to your representatives at every level, and remind them if they do not stand up for righteousness, you will not vote for them. Don't rant and rave and yell. Politicians know those who rant and rave usually don't vote. Nothing scares a local politician more than to have someone calmly face them before a meeting and say, "Unless you begin to support causes of righteousness you are finished. Your vote here tonight against righteous causes will make it certain that I will not vote for you in the next election." I like to do it before a debate, when it really unnerves them. Many are very much unnerved by someone telling them after a meeting, "I am going to pray that God finds you unacceptable for re-election and you are replaced by someone who holds righteousness as important, and I am going to help Him do it." And if you have a plan for doing that tell them what it is. It also helps to tell those who have voted righteously that you appreciate them. Tell them if they continue in these ways you will continue to support them. Even telling them you will be at the polls to vote encourages or concerns them.

Politics need not be dirty, but one of our founding fathers said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." That isn't scripture, but it is in line with the scripture, "Be sober and vigilant…."

Our country has been devoured by those who have been elected to office because Christians have lost hope and not stood where it counted.

I can remember a pastor I respect saying of Johny Cash, "If he wants to get saved he has to get out of show business." I can remember the derision of Pat Boone and June Carter when they proclaimed their faith, most of it from the church. And I can remember the Assembly of God admonishing him to cease and desist from baptizing people in his backyard swimming pool because he had not been authorized to do so by the denomination.

I chuckled as I read the article about it and mused. What if Phillip, upon being asked by the Eunich, "What doth hinder me from being baptized," had responded. "Well, let's see, we're still in the Jerusalem district, that is Peter's district. He hasn’t authorized me to baptize people, he'll eat me alive and maybe revoke my ordination if I do. I better not baptize you until I get out of town."

Sounds absolutely stupid, doesn't it? But that is really what the leaders were saying. Let's look at this carefully using established doctrines of man. First, the bible plainly states that you must be baptized in a river, all examples of baptism are thus, so any baptism in a pool, lake, or pond is not valid. At least the pond or pool isn't valid since they are man-made. OK, I'm pulling your leg. I do that to make a point. This is how much of the church thinks.

But back to the entertainment business. Yes, this business is rife with godlessness, but there are also those in it that have not sold their souls. They stand in a place that should attract our prayers. We should view them as people God has allowed in a place of influence. They stand daily in the face of evil and have temptations that most of us have not known. There are more than a few today that I look upon as God's missionaries to this arena. Johnny Cash, June Carter, Pat and Debbie Boone are among them. So are many others. And they are not only in the film and TV production, they are in sports as well. And we need to pray for each of these who uphold righteousness.

But there was once a time when a film, to hit the silver screen had to be passed by a censorship office that the church maintained in Hollywood. But the church saw dollars more important than lives, and the office was closed. Now there is no watchdog. The keepers of righteousness became the keepers and protectors of the purse. And we missed a chance to influence the world.

Talk to any Christian about the media and you will hear it, they are liberal, Godless, hate the church. Let's think about this. We have a profession in our country that is filled with people like this? OK, if we have this idea, there must be a reason. Let's examine some situations.

Look at how the secular press has handled some of the men of the faith. What about Billy Graham? Have you ever seen an article in the secular press about him that was less than complementary? I can't remember one. But I have heard someone in the Church malign him. But what about other men? Jimmy Swaggert. Lots of bad press when he was involved in sexual trysts. Bob Tilton. Lots of bad press when they found out that people mailed him prayer requests that were thrown away by the bank when they took the money and checks out of the envelopes. John Osteen. Lots of bad press when he claimed his house burned and it was not his residence. Jerry Fawell. Bad press when he said the anti-Christ was alive today. The list is long.

It is interesting that the ones who have gotten the bad press were guilty of something wrong. Is the media really anti-Christian, or do they just follow a story. If there is no story.

Christians have little understanding of the press. When you are confronted by the press they want to get a story, that is why they exist. And nothing makes a GOOD reporter more suspicious than someone coaching every word like they are trying to hide something. They go for blood. The more you try to hide, the more they tend to dig and they will then guess on what they do not know for sure.

Jesus said to take no thought of what you will say.

I have had my days with the press. Three times I have been the subject of their inquiry. All three times I have taken the same approach, all three times I have been treated fairly by them, in fact I looked good in the stories. I'll admit my experience is limited, but follow me on this. Firstly, face them openly. Offer to tell them about what happened or is happening. I am assuming that you have nothing to hide. Secondly, answer questions honestly and freely. Thirdly, offer to explain something if they appear to not understand. Fourthly, do not use "Christian" words, use plain language. You will be more understandable to them and to the people they are writing to. And you will sound more human.

Let me show you two events. I was once called about our church web page, I spent over 30 minutes on the phone with the reporter. The result was an article about church web pages that featured our church, the web page and as the result, Jesus. Because of what we gave the reporter she went to the page and surfed it. She told how it covered our church tenets of faith and included some of them in the article. She described the church and its ministry in detail. We got good exposure that would have been expensive under other circumstances.

In the other situation I was falsely accused in a FAX to the newspaper. Since they mailed the letter to me and FAX'ed it to the paper, I didn't have the letter when the paper called. I explained it would be unfair for me to comment on a letter I had not seen. I asked them to FAX their copy to me and give me a few minutes to read it before calling back. I would talk to the reporter then. Without any question the reporter agreed, I got the letter, had time to read it and then gave the interview. I was in a position to respond. I was candid. The interview resulted in a story that was favorable to me.

In recent years I have heard people say, "You can't take the bible literally." Let me ask you, "How should I take it?" Now understand, when I talk of taking the scripture literally, I mean in context, not a line here or there out of context. The bible is the literal word of God. It was given to us to provide some permanence, so we could remember it. The law was given to Moses, to provide a guideline for His people to live by. It was written on tablets of stone. That law is now to be written on heart. But even though that law is written on our hearts, the written law, the logos, is still the standard we go back to for verification. It is like the plumb line that is held as an unerring vertical. If it is properly used it is more reliable than any level. I look at a bible commentary like I do the level, it is easier to use, but the scripture itself is like the plumb line, it is accurate. It is the standard, it is always right.

If not literally, how should the scripture be taken? Most of the people who are teaching a doctrine that questions if the scripture should be taken literally are also having problems with the scripture or their doctrine will not stand the scrutiny of God's word. Many, including some preachers, PRIVATELY question the accuracy and correctness of the Word. I know this by personal experience, in fact I know one pastor who asked me if I believe all of the Bible. In our discussion I learned that the reason he asked me was because he did not believe all of it. And why is this? Because those who do not believe they word have been deluded by Satan. Why? Because they have not come to grips with God's word, His ways and His will and they see things that seem inconsistent and it saps the value of the word. Satan has come and stolen the word from their hearts.

They then become targets of modern day prophecies. God's Will, Word and Ways testify of each other, they do not conflict. His word is what he gave to men to set down for those who follow. His ways were exhibited in His dealings with His people and in His giving His only Son. And his will is exhibited in the lives of those who know his word and way and are obedient to His call. It is His letter to us, to come closer to Him and learn of His ways. It is the foundation, it cannot be ignored. To ignore the written word is the beginning of error.

Those who have ignored His word and those who have exceeded His word have missed Him.

God's word is either God's word or it is not. It is either His infallible word or it is not. The prophet Elijah addressed the people of Israel regarding the worship of Baal in this way;

And when Elijah put God to the test, he answered with fire.

The church of the twentieth century has for all too long halted between two opinions, is the Bible the Word of God or is it not? They have not seen the fire, they do not know His power. And in halting between these two opinions it has been like the nation of Israel during this time, the church has followed charlatans and fakers because they did not know the genuine. If you really know the genuine, anything else looks fake. This is true for money and it is true with things people claim to be the Word of God. When they train people in a bank to spot counterfeit money, they teach them what REAL money looks like, and when they recognize it, they then can recognize a fake when they see it. Just think how fake the new bills looked when you first saw one. It is the same with God's word.

I for one believe in and accept the accuracy of many modern day prophecies BUT, there is no such thing as a valid modern day prophecy that contradicts OR GOES BEYOND the Bible, the written Word of God. This was true in the time the scriptures were on scrolls, and it is true today. Jesus looked back to the "writers of old time" when he said, "It is written." To understand God's position, let us look at the word of Balaam the prophet;

If Balaam, a prophet of the Old Covenant could not override or GO BEYOND the Word of God (to him) how much more must we not override or GO BEYOND the written Word of God to us? But some will say, "That was the Old Covenant". Let us look to Jesus.

And Jesus went further in showing His respect for the Word. He first said that He, The Son of God had not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. And He declared its permanence. It would not pass away, as long as there is a heaven or earth. Since we are on earth and God is in heaven, both continue to exist and His word is still valid. I trust the scriptures and I place high confidence in anything attributed to Jesus. (See the section on King James Only for my concerns about interpreting the written scriptures.) If Jesus respected the written word of God, the Logos, then should we not do likewise?

What is loose interpretation of the word? It comes in many forms, and it stems from various motivations.

It can come from lack of knowledge. Often the zeal of a person not well grounded in the word results in their taking something in the scripture literally, but out of context. This results in error and the person seeming to become super spiritual in an area, but in their zeal without understanding they hurt others in the body of Christ. All too often doctrines that go beyond the word cause others to be pushed away from the truth.

It can come from simply carelessness. Often this is the result of one who is promoted in the church for the wrong reasons. Man looks on the outer appearance, God looks on the heart. Man tends to see the intelligence, the physical attractiveness, the eloquence of speech, the education, the finances, but God bypasses all of these and looks for a heart of contrition and love for God and His people.

It is not the fault of the person who is promoted beyond their maturity although they could have turned down the promotion. All too often the lack of maturity that will cause the problem is also the flaw that hides from them the fact that they are not ready for the promotion.

David was considered a man after God's own heart because he was willing to repent. This is true, but if you look at the life of David, with a very few lapses, mostly dealing with the incident with Bathsheba, he had a sincere love and concern for God's people.

Loose interpretation can result from pride. If the person has a pet theology that he places beyond the Word of God, then he will look for scriptures that will promote that theology. The pride may allow him to delude himself so that he believes the lie himself, or it may cause him to consciously promote the error, knowing it conflicts with scripture but ignoring that because he believes his idea is above scripture. This latter situation has been the basis of the formation of most of the peripheral cults.

The church of the twentieth century has been hung up on using God's name as a swear word, certainly an abomination to God. But it has not been careful to not use His word loosely by loose interpretation of the written and revealed word of God for selfish and self-seeking purposes or in self promotion.

I have heard from God. I am very careful in what I share from those times because I wish to not commit this sin. I would more likely say, this is what I am sensing, or this is what I feel God is trying to say to us. I know this may seem to some to be splitting hairs and someone may take the exact meaning from it that I am not trying to convey. If I feel someone is taking something too much from things I say, I tell them to take what I have told them and seek God for His word for them. I'm sure I have transgressed in this area, but I have become more and more cognizant of the risk when we speak for God. When we do, there is no excuse for overstating his word.

Ironically, with the training I have had over the years in the word, I never heard anything about this interpretation of this commandment from a Christian Pulpit. I am even more concerned that I had to hear this from a secular radio program host who is converting to Orthodox Judiasm. This lapse is the result of a lack of knowledge of the scriptures and the nature of God. I believe one portion of the Hippocratic oath might well be applicable to those who proclaim his word, "Above all, do no harm." Those who teach and proclaim his word must remember that we are nothing more than messengers. Our word means nothing. It is only His word through us that is important.

Look at an example of what happens when we exceed the word of God. In the following scripture we see God giving directions on the Tree of Knowledge and then we see Eve repeating that to the serpent. Like the old game of rumor, as the story changes hands, it is altered. We must recognize here that God didn't get the story wrong and He didn't repeat the story wrong, but Eve somehow got it wrong. And in exceeding the authority of God she diluted His word. She and Adam, who did not correct her, soon fell victim to the wiles of Satan.

Eve told the serpent that they could not touch it, God had forbidden they eat of it. She misquoted God. Although she was not under the law her act was that of taking God's name in vain. And she paid dearly for this transgression.

In the first century Paul confronted the issue of circumcision of the Gentile Christians as being necessary for them to enter the kingdom. He even took Peter to task in front of the church because he had wavered in the position Paul knew was right. Paul described the law as a yoke of bondage that even their fathers were unable to bear.

There have been several initiatives in the last twenty years suggesting that this is valid, again these are an attempt to take the law and return to it. Although I might appear to some to be a legalist in some of my points, I believe in balance. We must know God and we must know his word, if we do not know him personally we become legalistic and prone to misappropriating the scripture, if we do not know His word we are open to error. To understand and know Him it is not the time we spend with Him or the time in His word. There is no substitute for both.

Every couple of years someone in the church introduces a new book or set of tapes on diet. Generally these have centered on the "ideal diet" or "God's" diet. These have varied in what is valid, each writer has picked his own smidgen of scripture and extrapolated it to something big enough to write a book, and make a tape series. With a little careful gleaning of the scripture the second book is easy to write, its sales will be less, but it is profitable. These become almost mandatory in the church when they are introduced, everyone goes gaga over the diet. If you are not into the diet, you are not following God. In addition the teaching always has the tones of perfect health if you follow it, nothing but pain and suffering if you don't, the carrot and the stick.

Most of these diets are based on the Jewish dietary laws. This is an interesting theology, particularly if we look at this from a balanced and biblical standpoint.

First, the Jewish dietary laws were intended to be a blessing to a nomadic people in a land that had no refrigeration, not a restrictive shell to restrain them. These laws prescribed a way to live healthily under extreme conditions.

Some years ago a jet carrying some Jewish passengers was hijacked to Entebee. The movie "Flight to Entebee" relates the event. While there one of the women, an Orthodox Jew noticed that a man who was a Reform Jew was keeping Kosher. She asked him why. Reform Jews do not keep the dietary laws. His response tells it all, "In Telavi I do not keep Kosher, in Entebee I keep Kosher." Within a few days most of the people who did not keep Kosher were ill.

The answer is simple. Keeping Kosher, following the rules makes one less likely to get sick under bad sanitary conditions. These laws were simply God's way to provide for His people. And Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He also came to free us from the curse of the law. I believe that one of the curses of the law was the curse we bring upon ourselves when we adhere to a portion of the law that does not apply to our situation.

Most Christians think of the prosperity teaching as something that happened in the late seventies and eighties. Although this was the primary time, at least one other time of the teaching has occurred in the middle fifties. One thing is certain; God desires the best for His kids.

David said he has never seen the righteous forsaken. But having enough and enough to give is not necessarily having a Rolls and a Rollex. (Although I have no problem with a Christian having either if he got it honestly.)

John (III John 2) relates that the Apostle wished that we may prosper and there are many scriptures in Proverbs that indicate prosperity.

But the scripture also indicates that gain is not godliness. The abuse of the Prosperity doctrine was greed and the sin of not properly discerning the body of Christ. We discerned those with less means as being less spiritual when that was often not the case. This was being a respecter of persons, something the scripture cautions against. And Paul warns in Corinthians that there are many who die prematurely because they do not discern the Lord's Body. The scripture probably refers to both His broken body and His church in the world.

In Matthew 6:16 Jesus said, "When you fast." I realize I am taking this out of context but the implication is clear, we should at times fast. There is no doubt left and there are other scriptures that support this one. But the questions that arise are, "How, how often, and when?"

And in the how, how often, and when is where the doctrines of man have taken over. Tithing is a form of denial like fasting. Of that Jesus said, "You tithe in mint and anise and forget the weightier matters of the law, Justice, mercy." If then justice and mercy are the weightier matters of the law, then where does fasting fall? Does this mean that the fasting of denying self of food is not the ultimate?

I personally have had few times I have been prompted to fast, excluding the times I have been made to feel guilty for not fasting more by someone who bragged about how much they fast. But Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them." And later he said that we should not let those around us know how much we fast or when we fast.

When someone brags about the days of fasting, or the hours of prayer, I have come to ask about the fruit. And the fruit of the spirit is Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, and patience. If these are not there, whatever works are done loose their luster.

And Isaiah talks of fasting for strife and debate. Is that not bragging of fasting to show that one is more spiritual then the other? Certainly this would fit that description. This is certainly not God's design. But the prophet goes on, and discusses the fast of setting people free, of breaking every yoke. It is the fast (self denial) of dealing bread to the hungry (giving), of caring for the poor (love), of loosing the bands of wickedness (taking the cause of the oppressed)? Is this not living our lives so that we daily release bonds of people, spiritually, emotionally, and physically?

Some of the most intense self denial I have done over the years has been in these areas because my fleh desires to avoid that which is unpleasant. There have been times I have stood against wickedness, and I assure you that I would have much sooner been somewhere else doing something else. But the call of God has been to be in the place I stood. And more than once I could look to my right, my left, and my back and there were none that stood with me. But then, like the young man that stood with Elijah, I saw the hosts of the Lord that were with me, and I knew I could not back up one step. My wife and I have been privileged to see and participate with the Holy Spirit in the deliverance of people from the bondage of Satan. And we have stood with those who were oppressed by man and helped them be free. Again, I assure you, my flesh does not opt easily for this role. There are more comfortable posts. But God has called and I have learned that I must stand MY watch, not the watch of another. And often the conditions of the post are harsh, the environment is cold and lonely. Sometimes the attack of the enemy is intense, and often we have been caught in "friendly fire." The assault against us has been from those who we should have been able to look to for support. There is an axiom of water rescue that you must keep the drowning person from taking you down. In In the battle for hearts, this is also true. We must be willing to give of ourselves and give liberally, but we must learn the leading of the Holy Spirit that tells us, "this is the time to retreat, rescue is no longer possible." But we must never take that out until God has pulled us from the place of rescue.

Jesus clearly instructed us to disciple those who we lead to Him. And to accomplish that purpose close relationships must be formed. To be close enough to a person to make an impact in their lives there must be some intense interaction and there must be some teacher/student relationship. Even secular Universities recognize these relationships can be abused, they provide safeguards. Most of these deal with the teacher taking advantage of the student. But this activity should never be in the Church of Jesus Christ so such safeguards should seem unnecessary. But are these needed? Let us look at the abuses of the last fifty years. The discipleship movements have produced more than their share of abuse without corresponding gains. Selfish and prideful men used this for their personal gain, not for the good of the people they discipled. Often this was economic. But doesn't the scripture say the one who labors is worthy of his hire? Certainly.

But Jesus clarified this.

How do we reconcile this seemingly contradiction? It is easy. The laborer is worthy of his reward, and the church must never prevent this, in fact it is incumbent on the leaders of the church to assure that the laborer is properly compensated. I will say something here, a laborer should be compensated properly, even if he declines that compensation. I, and this is me, not the Lord, would prefer to compensate adequately and allow him or her to dispose of the money in whatever way they see fit. If they are worthy of the hire, they should also be wise enough to properly handle the compensation. God could easily use this as a way to bless someone else. To do otherwise sets an artificially low value on that person and eventually the devil will have opportunity to enter.

Jesus set a standard for those who lead, they must be a servant. The concept is easy. If leaders strive to be the best at serving, there will be none of the problems with abuse, and those who are led in this way will see the leader as being one that has blessed them. How can they help but treat that one with respect and minister to their needs? And possibly even be lavish in doing it? There is an old Jewish proverb that the best business deal is one that both parties thought they got the best of. This is how the relationship should be, the disciple seeing the value of the teacher as being more than he could possibly return, and the teacher being blessed so that he feels he is getting too much. And Paul understood it well.

The object was to engage in a labor of love, not to earn a living or demand substance, honor or respect because when the labor of love is full, these things will come. And the familiar scripture tells it well.

Seeking the Kingdom of God and seeking to be a part of making that kingdom come is the way to greatness. To try to do otherwise is to miss God's plan for both our own lives and the church.

Hundreds of years before Christ was born the "preacher", Ecclesiastes wrote:

And about 3000 years later we find that this is still true. The duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments. The preacher says "His Commandments," not the commandments of men. God looks not only on the outer appearance, He looks upon the heart. But we have taken the "serve God and keep His commandments" and made it to be a burden of man-made rules and rituals. And while decrying the activities and rituals of the "formal" churches, the Pentecostal (using the word rather loosely to describe the charismatic) groups have been far from immune to this. In fact, all too often we have been right in there in the front of the line. Man cannot seem to resist the urge to "improve" on God's plan. The Pentecostals became informally formal and thus created new traditions and new burdens on the new Christians. In the fifties it was the sin of playing baseball on a Sunday afternoon. As we have grown up the theologies have also grown up. While calling legalism a sin, we have created new rules to follow. These theologies have been a millstone around the neck of the church, it is time for us to recognize them and erase them. I believe the Pentecostal church of the early and middle of the Twentieth Century was God's catalyst to bring about renewal in His church. It was not to become a new hierarchy, a new system, it was to be free and able to follow God. But in our finite wisdom we dragged this work of God back into the yoke of bondage. The Charismatic renewal of the sixties was God's second round in releasing His Church. We were able to subvert it, primarily by making tongues a stumbling block for those who might have entered. And meanwhile the "elder brother" Penetecostals all too often stood on the sidelines and sniped at the Charismatics. Meanwhile, both groups created more theologies of bondage. As we desire to continue on with God, we must be vigilant that we do not create a new set of theologies that are just as bad or in our efforts to reform, throw out ones that are good. We must examine each theology, each teaching, compare them to the plumb line of the word and when we find them wanting, we discard them.

Copyright Ralph Brandt 1998,1999. Not to be reproduced without written consent of the author.