We Persuade Men

Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; (2 Corinthians 5:11a KJV)

I want to make a plea—hopefully a persuasive one—to my fellow ministers for us to consider how we interact with those with whom we disagree. I will be honest, I have seen some very poor examples in the last few years. I have seen examples of how not to interact with people with whom I disagree.

We have all had friends in the church (parishioners and preachers) that have taken directions with which we have disagree. Some of those friends have been more notable than others. Regardless of their position or notoriety, there is a proper, Christian was to do it. If we really believe that someone is going the wrong direction, our first responsibility is to persuade them. Our blog text reminds us of this sober responsibility. If we believe someone is straying from the truth, and knowing the terror of the Lord, we should seek to persuade them of their error. 

Brothers and sisters, the goal is to persuade. It is not to belittle or betray. I know that there is a natural impulse to be angry and disappointed, but we cannot allow those sentiments to control how we react. I must insist that we persuade no one—either the person themselves or observing outsiders—with condescending and demeaning speech. This kind of response is unbiblical an off putting. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then do not blog or preach with anger and vitriol. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then do not make your response emotional or personal. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then you will be more effective if you argue your point scripturally and limit your comments to the issues. I have seen very few stick with the issues. There are a number of reason why they don't, but that is a blog for another time.

If you think you have the truth, then use it. The truth, not anger and condescension, is the only effective weapon you have against error. Any weapon other than truth will be weak and ineffective. 

Don't be petty; be persuasive! 

The Value of Debate

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. 

Proverbs 18:17 ESV

My last blog I discussed three reasons why I think Apostolics should engage in intramural debates. At the conclusion of that blog I stated my intention to blog about why I think that Apostolics do not debate. I still intend to do that. However, while listening to a debate, one of the speakers used this verse to demonstrate the value of debate. 

It is likely that the context—strictly speaking—is referring to taking a matter before a judge. The lawyer that presents their case first seems like they have an air-tight case. That is until the other lawyer presents their case and answers the first lawyer's arguments. The truth in such cases can only be discerned after both sides have presented their cases. A strong case does not mind questioning. When a strong case is questioned it only becomes stronger for it.

One ought to be aware of the person who refuses to have his argument questioned. This means that person is fearful that their argument will not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Truth is never afraid of questions. Few things frustrate me as much as someone who launches a public, personal or theological attack against someone and refuses to answer any one's objections. If you are going to argue for something publicly, then be man enough to field the questions that come along with it. Don't hide behind moderated comments and pulpits!

Why?

Because if truth is what you are really after, then you won't mind both sides of the argument being heard. People who refuse to field questions are only interested in "seeming right;" they are not interested in "being right." There is a way to have healthy and productive debate on any issue. It's not divisive; it is unifying if done properly.

The early church and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 are an awesome example how coming together to discuss issues that are controversial can lead to consensus. Avoiding controversial issues does not produce unity, it only hides the conflict beneath the surface where it festers and grows. 

The Impact of Inconsistency on One's Argument Part II

I wrote Part I of this topic two blogs ago. I am following up on this post due to something I read in the last couple of days. It never ceases to amaze me how selective we are with our judgments of others. An former friend of mine once made the statement that, "If I condemn in my enemies what I condone in my friends, then I make myself the ultimate hypocrite." This is a true statement indeed. I must also add to this statement one of my own:"If I condone worse behavior in my friends that what I condemn in my enemies, then I am a malicious hypocrite."

It is so easy to condemn people against whom we are politically aligned while going to great lengths to condone people with whom we are politically aligned. We see it all the time in the political battles in our country. Republicans will condemn Democrats for a little of nothing, but will defend fellow republicans for the same thing or something greater. The same goes for Democrats to Republicans. This also happens often in Pentecostal fellowship politics. And it is more frustrating when it happens in the church—I might add. 

This is precisely why so many young men are disenchanted with certain segments of our movement. Brothers, I am not saying that we should start judging our friends the way we do our enemies. I am saying that we should start showing mercy to our enemies the way we do our friends. Furthermore, we should start showing the same mercy to both our enemies and our friends that we show to ourselves. The worst of the hypocrites is the person who condemns in others—both enemies and friends—what he condones in himself. 

I must confess that I have at some point in my ministry been guilty of every one of the above hypocrisies. I find myself having to repent repeatedly for this sin. Thankfully, I am having to do it less and less these days. The Holy Spirit is revealing me to myself and is causing me to become more self-aware. I am grateful for this, although it has been very uncomfortable.

So what does this have to do with inconsistency? It makes one wonder if you believe what you say you do when you condemn in your enemies what you condone in your friends. It appears politically motivated and it hinders your message. This may not always be fair, but it is the way others usually perceive it. I pray that the Lord will help me to show grace to everyone equally, and not just my friends.

Why "Calvinism My Way"?

I am frequently asked if I am a Calvinist? People also frequently make assumptions about my views based on the name of my blog. So, I am writing this blog to explain the name of my blog. I am doing this to keep from getting blogged down with always responding to this question. 

The reason for the name of my blog is because my name is John Calvin Carroll. I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am merely expressing my views on this blog. Because John Calvin is my name, and because the views are mine, hence the name "Calvinism MY Way."

When I tell people that my name is John Calvin they often respond: "That explains a lot."

People now you know the reason behind the name. There is no conspiracy. There is no dark, hidden meaning. It is simply using my name to play on a known soteriological scheme. It really is just that simple.

The Impact of Inconsistentcy on One's Argument

I have participated in a number of discussions over the past few months with fellow ministers concerning various issues. Inconsistency is one of the things that consistently comes up in discussions about Apostolic issues. So the question becomes, what impact does consistency have on one's argument? Must one be absolutely consistent within the framework of a particular issue in order for their argument to be received?

I must confess that when one is inconsistent in their argumentation and application I tend to discredit the validity of their argument. This may or may not be a valid response. Be that as it may, it is the common response. The sentiment is as follows: if you cannot consistently apply your own doctrine, then why should I be convinced of it's validity?

Just because someone does not consistently apply their doctrine, that does not mean that their doctrine is wrong. Conversely, if a view is so inherently flawed that it can be applied consistently with little to no success, then it's weakness is self-evident. A doctrine that is practically impossible—or even improbable—to apply consistently in real life does not bear the marks of a true doctrine. 

I guess the point that I am getting to with this blog is this: don't be angry because people question your positions when they have gaping inconsistencies. 

With that being said, we all have blind spots in our lives. We are all strong in one area and weak in others. But we should seek to have a logically and scripturally consistent presentation of any given doctrine that we teach. And if it cannot be practiced in a livable way then it may be worth reconsidering. 

A Call for Calm About Christmas

There is a significant demographic of Apostolics that do not celebrate Christmas. There are a range of reasons why they don't. Not all anti-Christmas advocates use the same line of reasoning. However, the two primary arguments are: 1) It's pagan. 2) It's Catholic.

In making these arguments there are strong claims made about pro-Christmas advocates participating in paganism and teaching ancient trinities. The anti crowd makes heathen charges from Jeremiah 10. Now while this all makes for powerful points, it never translates into practical participation. If the anti crowd really believes that the pro crowd is partipating in paganism, idolizing idols and teaching trinities, then why are they still fellowshipping? 

I have yet to see any of my Apostolic brethren apply this issue the way they claim to believe it. The most ardent anti advocates that I have known have preached for or preached pro advocates. It were really as pagan, heathen, and idolatrous as is claimed, then why would fellowship anyone who participated in those anti-God activities?  You see no one really practices it the way they preach it.

This is not a pro-Christmas post. It it a call to calm on both sides of the isle about this issue. I was recently involved in a social media conversation started by an anti brother. The anti advocates were making it an heaven or hell issue. Brothers and sisters, can we stop?

Whatever your view is on this issue, we be brethren. 

What Silence Says!

There are many situations in life when people attempt to judge another's silence. We often judge silence more harshly than we judge speech. In fact, there is a large group of people within the body of Christ who think that "interpretation of silence" is one of the nine gifts of the Spirit. And they feel they have been gifted in this way.

The Bible calls them "busybodies" and those who "sow discord among the brethren." These people insists on knowing where you stand on issues that matter to them. If an issue is of no consequence to them, then they couldn't care less about your opinion. But if an issue is important to them, you must speak or be considered an enemy. 

The person gifted with the iOS (interpretation of silence), will use any means necessary to force you to speak. They will threaten you with hot button labels like "compromiser." To which they expect that we will respond by saying, "Nooooo, not a compromiser. Anything but that. I will talk. Just don't call me a compromiser." They will almost always throw out deep quotes about the vice of silence. Bonhoeffer is their favorite: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." 

But what does the Bible have to say about silence? 

Ecclesiastes 3:7 teaches us that there is a time to keep silence. There are times that silence is not a vice, but silence is a virtue. This means that one shouldn't speak to certain issues in certain situations. What are some reasons why one should keep silence?:

1. One should keep silence when speaking would break confidence. 
2. One should keep silence when they are not authorized to speak. 
3. One should keep silence when they are not qualified to speak.
4. One should keep silence when someone is soliciting information from them for the purpose of using it against them. 
5. One should keep silence when the mistrust they person attempting to make them speak. 
6. One should keep silence when speaking would require that they speak contrary to their convictions.
7. One should keep silence when they are uncertain what to say or what they think about the question.

Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. Proverbs 17:27-28

Silence says you are a smart man. Silence speaks so convincingly that is persuades the public that even fools are wise and intelligent. 

We should all reserve the right to remain silent. And we should all extend the right to silence to others without suspiciously reading anything into it. 

Why Apostilics Won't Debate!

This is a continuation of a previous blog:  "What I Wished Apostolics Would Do." If you have not read that blog, then you should read it before you continue reading this one. Go on. Go read it. I will be waiting on you right here when you return. 

Now that you know that I wish that Apostolics would have intramural debates about our differences, I will give you a few reasons why I don't think it will happen in some circles. Recently a couple Apostolic brothers were making posts on Instagram and other forms of social media about Christmas. I noticed as one person in particular began to interact with them about their views that they were not interested in dialoguing with others. They were only interested in dictating to others what they wanted them to hear. The attitude was: "My mind is made up and nothing is going to change me." This is not an attitude that is characteristic of truth seekers. Honest truth seekers always have the capacity to humbly hear the other side of the argument. 

The following reasons may not be listed in the proper order of importance, but they are all factors that  keep some Apostolics from debating. 

1. OVEREMPHASIS ON PASTORAL AUTHORITY: This reason could very well be the most important reason of all the ones I will list. Many Apostolic pastors would never engage in a public debate or a public discussion about differences for fear of losing authority. We have created a dangerous climate in the Apostolic movement where the pastor has unchecked and unlimited authority. We claim that we have elders, but for the most part it is a facade when push comes to shove. We have created a climate in which the pastor is always right. In fact, as I have heard it said, he is right even when he is wrong. What does this have to do with the reason that we won't debate? This culture of pastoral authority is not conducive to debate because it does not allow for leadership to be questioned or wrong. If it can be demonstrate that the pastor holds an inaccurate or unbiblical view, then his infallibility is undermined and his entire system of authority crashes. Yes, pastors have authority over the congregation. But as with all levels of authority, there are limits. Therefore, what I am pointing out here as the obstacle to in-house debating is not pastoral authority, but "overemphasis" on pastoral authority. I certainly believe that pastors have God-given and Scripture-mandated authority. But when pastoral authority comes to mean to a pastor that he can never admit to being wrong or change his mind, then he has abused his authority as a pastor. A pastor that has created a culture where he can never admit to his congregation that he has been wrong about an issue will find himself in the unenviable position not being able to follow the Spirit in crucial moments in his church's history. The truly sad part is this is a self-imposed and unnecessary limitation. The Apostolic movement is in need of God-fearing and transparent leaders who are only concerned with truth.  However, in an attempt to preserve our pseudo, overreaching authority, we are perpetuating doctrines and traditions that are less than accurate, biblical and productive. Open dialogue in the form of debate would expose them. And that's the thing of which the abuser of pastoral authority is most afraid. 
2. WE ARE AFRAID WE MIGHT BE WRONG: For some, the reason they are uncomfortable with debating their position is because they are uncomfortable with their position. While they preach it long and loud when no one can respond, questions are screaming in the back of their own heads. They are--in the words of a friend do mine--trying to drown out those voice with their own screaming voice. Or as the late great Marvin Hicks said about one of his debate opponents: "He is just whistling in the graveyard to keep his courage up." The problem is: the voices in one's head pick the most inconvenient times to talk. They couldn't care less that you have to get up early in the morning. They will keep you up half the night. Pesky little fellas! The fearful person is so afraid to be wrong because everything they believe is interconnected. They are afraid that if one thing they believe is found to be untrue then everything they believe is untrue. So they revert to an all-or-nothing defense of what they believe as a coping mechanism. This is why we need to understand the hierarchy of doctrine. Not everything we believe need to hold the same level of significance. I have some opinions about scriptures that I could not care less if they turned out to be wrong. Then I hold other views about scripture that are at the core of who I am as a christian.
3. WE DON'T HAVE A HIGH VIEW OF SCRIPTURE: Some Apostolics don't want to debate because they do not have a high view of scripture. In other words, for some Apostolics it doesn't really matters what the Bible says. They have a higher source of authority--their own opinions manifest as traditions. The reason that I know that they value their opinions above scripture is because when confronted with scripture they admit that scripture is at odds with their opinions yet they maintain them anyway. Some have even gone so far as to say, "I don't care what the Bible says." When one places their own opinions above scripture, then their view of scripture is low. Why debate when your views are set regardless of what scripture say?!
4. PEER PRESSURE: This is a significant reason that we don't engage in intramural debate. At least not honest debate. We defend the consensus vigorously. But when it comes to defending what we really believe, he hide. I fully understand the impulse and have been guilty of it many times. We have to create a culture where we are free to safely discuss scripture with other Apostolics. This is especially true for Apostolic preachers. If we cannot have honest debate, we will continue to lose men to extreme positions. They will keep their concerns to themselves until they cant take it an longer. Then in an explosion of freedom they will over react.

CONCLUSION

These are some of the reasons that Apostolics will not engage in discussion about in-house issues that face our movement. Brothers and sisters: this must change. As always feel free to rebuke me, shoot me full of holes and call me a heretic.

August Rain: A Tremendous Band

August Rain is quickly becoming the most listened to tracks on my music list. Their songs "Kingdom" and "Nothing" have been an incredible blessing to me of late.  The lyrics are amazing and the vocals are unique. Do yourselves a favor and check this band out! 

You can find their music on iTunes. You can also follow them on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. 

The Communion Controversy: Fermented or Unfermented.

There are many intramural debates within Apostolic Pentecostalism. Among them is the Communion Controversy--specifically fermented versus unfermented grape juice. There are many other aspect of communion that are debated within Christendom, but the chemical condition of the grape juice seems to be the preferred issue of dispute for Apostolics. Of all the points of contention for Apostolics, whether or not grape juice is fermented during communion ought to be near the bottom of the list. 

I know that this post is going to enrage or disappoint the activists from both sides of the aisle. And I have personal friends on both sides. In fact, I once was a strong advocate for unfermented juice only. I no longer am. I will be shot at from both sides. I will be accused of straddling the fence. I will be accused of compromise. But I really have come to believe that the bible does not provide a prescription for the chemical condition of the communion cup. I dogmatically insist on scriptural ambivalence.

With that being said, in a later blog I will recommend a book of a friend of mine that argues for fermented wine and he does an excellent job of presenting his case. There are also excellent books from the unfermented camp as well. 

I will list a few reasons why I reject dogmatism from both sides and insist on Christian liberty. Then I will state what I consider to be ideal.

REASONS:

1. The New Testament writers conspicuously avoid using any one of the three Greek words for wine (gleukos, oinos and oxos). If Jesus had used any one of these three words for wine at the last supper, instead of "fruit of the vine," there wouldn't be a debate. The phrase "fruit of the vine" grammatically allows for the entire chemical range of juice from fresh squeezed to naturally fermented. It is never to early to call juice from the grape "fruit of the vine," and it is never to late to call juice from the grape "fruit of the vine."

2. Paul allows for a person--because of conscience--to never drink wine (Romans 14:21). The bible allows for total abstinence. However, Paul also allows that a person can drink wine with faith (Romans 14:22). Whether one obstains or participates in drinking wine, it must come from a place of faith (Romans 14:23). But Paul does allow for absolute abstinence. This must include communion. So, do we insist that a person who cannot drink fermented wine because of conscience and faith  cannot participate in the blood of Christ? Or do we correctly conclude that unfermented grape juice also fits Jesus' prescription for "fruit of the vine?" It must be the latter. The same must apply to the reverse proposition. We must not allow the thing that is designed to make the body one divide the body.

THE IDEAL:

Ideally, if I were pastoring, I would juice grapes on Friday and serve them on Sunday. It resonates with me to follow the crucifixion-resurrection model for communion. I am certainly not saying this is  Scripturally commanded, I just like the imagery. I think fresh squeezed juice is ideal. I don't like the idea of store bought wine or Welches.

CONCLUSION: This should provide a nice conversation starter should anyone chose to comment. As always, all feedback is welcome. 

Something I Wish Apostolics Would Do

DEBATE!

Yes, you read correctly. I wish Apostolics would debate. I know that many Apostolic preachers would rather a dentist pull their teeth without anesthesia than to debate. I am not speaking about Apostolics debating non-apostolics; I am speaking about intramural debate. I think that we have a need to formally debate our differences. My reasons are as follows:

1. IT CAN BE DONE IN A RESPECTFUL WAY: I will illustrate this point with one example. Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown are the perfect model of respectful debate. White and Brown have teamed up in debate against Unitarians and others. They consider each other brothers in Christ. They share both Christian fellowship and personal friendship. Not only have they team debated against others, but the have also had formal debates against each other. As far as I know, they have debated Calvinism and cessationism. They prefaced those debates by informing their audiences that they were brothers in Christ and that the issues were in-house debates. Apostolic brothers and sisters, we need this kind of discussion among us. We need to develop the ability to disagree publicly with one another in a respectful way. We are disagreeing publically with each other now; we are just not doing it in a respectful and Christian way. Instead of doing in a formal, public, regulated way, we are doing it by taking potshots at each other from pulpits when our targets are not present. For those of you that think public regulated debate would be dangerous, I submit that what we are presently doing is infinitely more dangerous. 
2. MANY OTHER GROUPS DO IT: Almost every other Christian demographic is debating the relevant issues. These debates are reaching to highest level of theological academia. There are many debates and panel discussions being held on a number of different issues. Perhaps one of the hottest topics being discussed in contemporary Christianity is the doctrine of hell (pun absolutely intended). Theologians of every denominational strip are weighing in on this and many other issues. The question is, if these groups are doing it, why can't we as Apostolics? I will give my opinions in a later blog as to why I think we don't. Brothers and sisters, we have brilliant minds among us. It is a shame that we can't provide a venue where these great minds can weigh in from different perspectives on the same issues in the same venue.
3. WE ARE DISAGREEING ANYWAY: This is perhaps the most significant of these points. We are discussing our differences already. The problem is that we are doing it in unhealthy and unethical ways that are leading to misrepresentation, false witness and division. We are sitting around conference tables making claims about preachers with whom we have little to no relationship. I have witnessed innumerable accounts of men totally distorting the views of others (including my own). I will confess to having done this myself.  And I regret each and every time that I have. I have watched preachers on social media attack other preachers by claiming that they believe a certain doctrine when I knew they did not. Misrepresentation resulted from one man pouring his definition into the other persons terms. Or they heard a key phrase and instead of letting that man define his term for himself they assumed that he meant the same thing by it that another person who used that term meant. My point is this: since we are disagreeing anyway, why not do it in a way that allows both persons to represent fairly what they believe in their own words. Brothers and sisters, it is almost impossible to portray what someone else believes without distorting it is some way. We have almost an irresistible tendency to build strawmen arguments against the other person's view so that we can cleverly knock or burn it down. It is a much more difficult task to refute another man's view when he is arguing it in his own words. We must change this if we hope to survive as a movement. Finally, since we are disagreeing anyway, let's do it redemptively and respectfully

I intend to follow this blog up with another one that lays out why I think we resist this kind of public dialogue. I welcome any and all responses to this blog. All comments will be posted.

NOTE: If you disagree with debating, but comment contrary to what I have posted, that would be debating. :)

"It Seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and To Us" Is Not a Blank Check!

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

INTRODUCTION 

Preachers often use this verse as their authority to preach against things for which they admit they have no prohibitive verse (s). Well...they actually only use part of the verse. But I will make that point a little later. So they use this verse as their trump card to every objection that anyone raises against their personal authority. They even use it to trump biblical arguments. 

I am writing this blog post to place this verse in its biblical context. It should not be used as a blank check to preach whatever one chooses. A pastor has the liberty to make certain requirements for local church membership for which he has no explicit biblical command. However, no pastor has the authority bind, either on his local congregation or the global church, as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. This applied to me when I pastored in Alton, IL. And it will apply to me if I should ever pastor again in the future.

As I stated earlier, we do not have the authority to bind as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. Furthermore, we do not have the authority to use our opinions as a basis to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. 

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT

The context of Acts 15:28 was whether or not to bind circumcision—therefore, the whole law—on Gentile converts. The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised. This is the context in which one should understand the statement under consideration.

IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US: NO SCRIPTURE NECESSARY
This phrase is thrown around as though scripture did not figured into the apostles decision in Act 15. Therefore, this phrase is used to justify men binding their own opinions about contemporary issues on the entire body of Christ. This is the text many use to prove they don't need scriptural support for what they bind.  In fact, based on this verse, they can bind their own opinions on the body of Christ when the entire witness of scripture says the opposite.

So, did the apostles use this phrase because they issued a binding edict without, or contrary to, scripture? God forbid! Let's back up a few verses and see:

"And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..."  (Acts 15:15, 18 KJV).

Brothers and sisters, James and the others based their decision on written scripture. The reason  it seemed good the the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders was because they consulted the written words of the prophets.

WHAT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US?
Notice the rest of the verse that never gets quoted:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

What seemed good to the Holy Ghost was not:

• To bind unnecessary rules for which one has no scripture. 
• To bind unnecessary rules that are contrary to scripture.
• To make ones own personal opinions the basis by which they judge those who do not comply. 
• To make 20th and 21rst century standards (many of which may be wise) perpetual, unbreakable law by which we condemn all present and future generations. 

CONCLUSION

"To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" is what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."

If we are going to quote this verse, quote it all. And if we are going to use this verse, use it. Don't misquote and misuse it. 

Book, Chapter, and Verse?

Do we need "book, chapter, and verse"? Do we need specific scripture in order to act or not to act in a particular way? The answer is both yes and no. The answer is, yes, if you are asking about whether or not something is sinful. The answer is, no, if you are asking about whether or not something is wise. The answer is, yes, if you are asking about doctrine. The answer is, no, if you are asking about personal direction. The Spirit can speak to a person apart from scripture about direction for their lives (whether or not to take a particular church, etc). But the spirit will never, and can never, reveal commandments or doctrine that is not written in the word of God. The role of the spirit is to bring to our remembrance what the word has told us (John 14:26). The following are few things for which we must have "book, chapter and verse."

• We must have B, C & V for any doctrinal faith that we bind to the conscience of Christians. 
• We must have B, C & V for anything that we claim is a heaven-n-hell issue.
• We must have B, C & V for any issue that we use to exclude one from the body of Christ.

Furthermore, the wisdom that we practice for which we do not have book, chapter and verse, we should have strong biblical principle. We cannot produce holiness by inventing rules out of our own imaginations. We cannot produce holiness by inventing rules that flow out of our own personal likes and dislikes. We may chose to not participate in a certain activity simply because we don't like it. But we have no authority to make our personal preferences a matter of holiness. Brothers and sisters: before we judge our fellow Christians let's make sure that our judgement is rooted in scripture. 

Too often what we "feel in the Spirit" is really just self-sanctification of what we feel in our own human spirit. We are destined to err when we equate what "we feel" with what "God feels." If God wanted to bind a particular thing on the church as a matter of essential faith, he would have written it in his word. He would not have left it up to the fickle feelings of one man, or a tiny group of men. 

I fully understand that local pastors should set certain guidelines that may not be spelled out in scripture. But that is quite a different story than using those local parameters as the standard for judging the body of Christ. Local congregation membership requirements are not synonymous with the requirements for membership in the body of Christ. The requirements for local church membership will always be more stringent than the requirements for heaven. 

However, way to often we begin to judge the universal church by the local church. We sometimes think that if everybody everywhere isn't doing what we do here, then they do not measure up. We must not measure who measures up by our local guidelines. For this brothers and sisters, we need "book, chapter and verse."

Ministry Lessons: Lesson 1

There are a lot of lessons that we as preachers need to learn. We need to learn many things about ethics, preaching and spirituality. This is the first in a series of blogs that I will do on these issues. I am not presenting  the need-to-be-learned lessons as a teacher, but as one who sees the needs to learn these lessons myself. I know great men that appear to me to have learned these lessons, and they inspire me. I will be using certain men more than once to illustrate these lessons. In each subsequent lesson I will refer to this person as the POI (Person of Inspiration).

POI: Bishop M. R. Couch.

Bishop Couch has many positive traits, and I will highlight more of them throughout this blog series. Out of all the men that I know, Bishop Couch was the best example I could think of for the current ministry lesson. This lesson is how to handle one's self around people who don't like you. The incredible, and almost unbelievable, truth is that not everyone  appreciates or likes Bishop Couch. This is hard for me to imagine, but it is true. There are people who are uncomfortable with him and his kind of ministry. Therefore, I have had the opportunity to watched him in various situations of varying degrees of hostility and he has always displayed the most incredible grace and poise. 

He is always self-possessed, positive and friendly, even to those who dislike him. He does not seek to avoid his "haters," neither is he confrontational. He does not seek to make the conflict a matter of public attention, yet he does not avoid addressing problems with the persons involved if he must. He involves no one in the situation that is not directly connected to it. He is the master of private rebuke and public love. I can testify to this one from personal experience. And I am thankful for each and every time. 

He does not let people rattle him and get him off his game. He knows who and what he is. He is a great example to preachers on how to handle themselves in various social, preacher contexts. Especially in contexts where there are others present that do not like you or have done you wrong. 

In this way I want to grow up and be just like Bishop Couch.

Lesson Summary: Called and confident persons/preachers must learn to be comfortable around those who are uncomfortable with them.

I am looking forward to the release of my new book on the Godhead in June! 

A Man's Gift Will Make Room For Him Part 2

For some reason I woke up off and on though the night thinking about my last blog on this topic. Consequently, I am revisiting this issue. I have returned to this issue to discuss it from a traditional point of view. By traditional I mean the way it is commonly used to refer to a man and his ministry. We often tell young preachers that if you truly are called of God you will not need any man's help. He certainly cannot aid God in the process himself. He is to tell no one that he is called. He is to just pray and study and God will do the rest. Strictly speaking, this is very seldom the way that it happens no matter how much we protest to the contrary. Thank God for when it does. 

The larger point that I want to make with this blog post is "the gift will make room" for the man. Certainly the gift will make room for the man, but men will always attempt to determine the size of the room. We tell the man that his gift will make room for him, but then tell him how big his room can be and where it must be built. 

I understand that a novice preacher will need fatherly direction, but the novice is not the only one who receives this kind of pressure. Men who have been consistent and faithful for decades are still receiving pressure about the size and location of the room their gift made for them. My dad at 66, who has been preaching since he was 17, is still receiving political pressure from local groups. Men began to feel like they are the lords of their territories.

If we are going to argue that a man's gift will make room for him, then we must let him operate in the room his gift has built. I understand that there are exceptions and parameters, but not many. Especially for the experienced man of God. We should never judge a man by a single place that he preaches. Neither must we judge a man by the minority of the places that he preaches. We should judge a man by the whole body of friendships that he has, not a nuanced list of men for whom he has preached. 

If we are going to insist that a man's gift—and not the man himself—will make room for him, then we have to allow room for the gift.

IndoctriNation Trailer from IndoctriNation on Vimeo.

How Persuaded Are You?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed: Paul was exhorting the Galatians in the truth of the gospel that they had received from him. It was the gospel and there was no other gospel forth coming. And since there was no other gospel that would come later, the Galatians was not be persuaded by any message or messenger that was contrary to what they had already received.

Paul used a hypothetical illustration about himself, or even an angel from heaven, being accursed if they preached another gospel to the Galatians to demonstrate how persuaded the Galatians should be in the gospel of grace that was originally preached to them.

How persuasive do you think Paul could be? It wass Paul’s job as a preacher of the gospel, as well as the job of all gospel preachers, to be persuasive. (2 Corinthians 5:11) Paul had persuaded some Jews, and a great many devout Greeks and more than a few women. (Acts 17:4) Paul had persuaded people to worship God contrary to the Law of Moses. (Acts 18:13) Paul had persuaded Jews in the synagogue about the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8) Paul had persuaded a great many people in almost all Asia to follow God. (Acts 19:26) If you are not yet persuaded of his powers of persuasion, then examine the arguments that Paul crafted in Romans. I believe Hebrews is Pauline also. Even according to modern secular standards Paul was a brilliant logician, philosopher and rhetorician. Paul was also equally great by first century Greek standards. Paul was indeed persuasive.

But if that was not enough, Paul stepped it up a notch and included the persuasion powers of angels from heaven.  How persuasive do you think that an angel from heaven could be? An angel persuaded a virgin she could conceive a child without the natural contribution of a man. (Luke 1:34-35) An angel convinced a reluctant Joseph who is about to put away his wife for fornication that she had actually conceived of the Holy Spirit and not a man. (Matthew 1:20) An angel convinced Mary Magdalene, and others, at the tomb of Jesus that their dead Messiah had actually been raised from the dead. (Luke 21:1-11) What persuasiveness!

Part of the powerful persuasion of angels is their imposing appearance. They have appearance like lightening and their clothes are white as snow (Matthew 28:2) and they shine with the glory of the Lord (Luke 2:9). 

Yet, Paul argued that the Galatian Christians were to be so settled in their conviction of the nature of the gospel that neither he nor an angel could turn them away from it. Obviously an angel from heaven would never preach a gospel other than the true gospel. Paul was using an absurd hyperbole to demonstrate the depth of conviction Christians should have concerning justification by grace. 

American Versus Liberal

If a man doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a man is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a man is hetrosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a man is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a man doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host they demand it be shut down.

The Pot Called the Kettle Black

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;

"You are dirty and ugly and black!

Sure no one would think you were metal,

Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;

"'Tis your own dirty image you see;

For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –

That your blackness is mirrored in me."

As the smut cover cauldron peers at the stainless kettle, all the cauldron can see is his own smutty image, and, therefore, perceives the kettle as black. It is the pot projecting his own blackness onto the kettle. When the pot calls the kettle black he is revealing himself. The accusation of blackness speaks to the character  of the cauldron and not to the character of the kettle. How often do we see this happen? How often have I done this myself? How often have you done this?

When the government calls its citizens greedy...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When Republicans call Democrats opportunists...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When Democrats call Republicans angry...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When one impugns the motives of another...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When independent Apostolics call organized Apsotolics political...the pot has called the kettle black. 

When organized Apostolics call independent Apostolics controlling...the pot has called the kettle black.