Why Don’t You … ?: Head Coverings

Posted on 11/12/2010 by Paul Pavao

A friend that I’m honored even to know, who always treats me with a respect I don’t deserve, wrote me to ask why I don’t talk about the kinds of things that a lot of other early church fanatics talk about.

The issues he mentioned were: head coverings; second marriages; procreation; and musical instruments.

If you’re wondering what those things mean and what the early church believed about them, then I’m glad. Subscribe to this blog, and you’ll get some in depth comments over the next three days.

I’m so impatient, it’s usually hard for me to write a group of posts over a few days.

Today, though, I found out I can schedule my posts to be published. So I can write these all right now—actually, I already wrote them in an email to my friend—and then schedule them to be published each morning over the next three days.

Awesome.

If you were to support my friend’s missionary work in Mexico and sign up for his newsletter, God would bless you eternally. What he’s doing is better and more necessary than any American can understand unless you’ve been to a 3rd world country.

Head Coverings and Bible Interpretation

Here’s the first one. This always gets me in trouble with the very literal Bible interpreters.

I don’t mind. The very literal, confident Bible interpreters are a problem to themselves and to others. God is often irritated with them and against them, and they’re usually unwilling to look at the problems they cause by their method of Bible interpretation.

Jesus talked about that some (Jn. 5:39-40).

If you’re a new Christian, don’t worry about it. You should be a confident, literal, over-zealous, offensive Bible interpreter. It’s a good thing. Stay honest, learn from your mistakes, and grow up to be a much less confident, much less literal, and still over-zealous and somewhat offensive follower of the Spirit of God, examining your walk by the Scriptures all the time.

Okay, here’s what I wrote:

Why We Don’t Wear Head Coverings

My wife started wearing head coverings back in 1990 or so. We were in Sacramento, and as far as we know, she was the only woman wearing a head covering in the entire city. I’m sure that wasn’t true, but we never met anyone else from Sacramento wearing a head covering in the 3 years we lived there.

We had almost no fellowship back then. We attended churches, Bible studies, and any other church event we could. I paid for a call-in talk radio program for six months that got plenty of calls. Still, we met no one at all with our kind of heart for the Lord.

One year, we even played on a church softball team. She used to play in pants and a long t-shirt that hung to her knees and with a head covering big enough to cover all her hair. As a result, it hung to the middle of her back. She played first base, and she was pretty good at it, too.

Mind you, this wasn’t a Mennonite league. She was the only woman with a head covering that we knew.

When we got to Rose Creek Village in 1995, they were wearing head coverings, too, though smaller. Around about 1998 or 1999, we began to feel God’s Spirit leading us to stop. Since we didn’t think that was scriptural, we didn’t stop.

After two years, though, all of us knew it was time. We told the ladies they didn’t have to wear head coverings anymore, and we were all convinced that God told us to do that.

Maybe we were misinterpreting Scripture. Maybe head coverings were cultural. Maybe God wants one thing in one century and another in another century. I just know we’re convinced God told us no head coverings.

Posted in Bible, History | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Harmonization vs. Conflict in the Scripture

Posted on 11/08/2010 by Paul Pavao

In my last post I talked a little about faith verse works. I mentioned that "faith plus works" is not a bad thing in Scripture, but a good thing. It’s only a bad thing in our fundamentalist Protestant tradition.

Why can I say that so confidently?

There are several reasons, but one of the main ones is this …

Any doctrine that pits one set of verses against another is a false doctrine.

Non-Christians can disagree with that principle, but to a Christian it should be self-evident.

Non-Christians can simply say, "No, a doctrine that pits one set of verses against another is proof that the Bible contradicts itself."

For Christians, however, that believe the Bible gives one consistent message, it follows logically that if we believe a doctrine that is contradicted by even one or two verses, then that doctrine is false.

Verbally, that is what we believe. Everyone would argue that what they believe is never contradicted in Scripture.

Practically, however, Christians have a practiced habit of interpreting the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.

Difficult Verses

Long ago I listened to a call from an unknown caller to a radio program called The Bible Answer Man, hosted by Hank Hanegraaff—a close-minded, 3-point Calvinist with no knowledge of Christian history pretending to be an open-minded, non-denominational Christian defending "the historic Christian faith." He can’t defend that faith, however, because he doesn’t know what it is.

Anyway, the caller suggested that 2 Peter 2:20 should be interpreted to mean that Christians can lose their salvation.

Hank Hanegraaff’s tradition doesn’t allow him to agree with that, so he quoted John 10:28 and explained that John 10:28 is a "clear" verse, while 2 Peter 2:20 is a "difficult" verse.

Not long after that, someone called Bob George’s radio program with a question. Apparently, Bob had made an unusual statement about the Trinity, and the caller felt it violated 1 Cor. 15:28-29. I don’t remember what Bob had said, but once the caller quoted those verses, it was clear that Bob was wrong.

Bob George, however, was having nothing of being wrong. He borrowed Hank Hanegraaff’s trick, and he said, "1 Cor. 15:28-29 is a difficult passage. We should just set it up on a high shelf until we grow up enough to be able to reach it."

Verses That "Seem" To Disagree

Bob George and Hank Hanegraaff are not atypical in their method of interpreting the Bible. Picking one set of verses over another is normal in Protestant circles.

The first time I ever picked up a "systematic theology," I turned right to the eternal security chapter because I was involved in some arguments about that subject.

Systematic theologies are books that explore doctrinal issues one at a time. Usually, they have very intellectual-sounding names for their chapters, like ecclesiology, soteriology, or eschatology. Other, less "educated" Christians would refer to those subjects as "the church," "salvation," and "end times prophecy."

This particular book did have a chapter on eternal security, which I don’t think is typical. I don’t read such books much, especially after my experience with that first one, so I can’t be certain on that.

Anyway, at the end of the chapter on eternal security, it said, "There are some verses that seem to disagree with what we’ve taught in this chapter, but study will show that the contradictions are only apparent."

I’m quoting loosely because I don’t have the book in front of me, but that was the point.

They then listed about 80 verses that seemed to disagree with what they’d taught.

I couldn’t believe it. I started laughing. They were dismissing 80 verses with a wave of their hand. Unbelievable!

Oh, Yeah, What About This Verse?

But it’s really not unbelievable. Everywhere around me I found Christians arguing just that way. Someone would quote Galatians 5:19-21 and say that if you practiced drunkenness, you won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven. In return, the other person would quote John 3:16 and say that only faith is required for eternal life. Then the first would quote Colossians 1:23 and say that you have to continue in that faith, not just begin in it. Then the second would quote 1 Cor. 1:8 and say that everyone who begins will continue; God will take care of it.

Back and forth they would go. The first person would find a new verse to argue with, and the second person would add to his verses.

Neither would stop to give a sensible explanation for how his theology fit into the others’ verses.

Don’t get me wrong. Both would have explanations for the others’ verses. Neither would have sensible explanations. Any explanation, it seemed, would do, no matter how nonsensical it was.

For example, almost no modern Protestant can endure James 2:24. It reads …

You see, then, that a man is justified by works and not faith only.

That is such a clear refutation of the Protestant version of salvation by faith alone that Martin Luther himself said that no one would ever be able to reconcile James 2:24 with Paul’s letters.

Martin Luther lived in a different age. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, there was not an official canon. He could just reject James 2:24, and he could call James "an epistle of straw."

Today we can’t do that. Fundamentalist Protestants have to come up with an explanation for James 2:24.

The most common one is, "Man is justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone."

Well, now, that’s a nice platitude.

But it doesn’t harmonize James 2:24 with Protestant theology, just with Protestant terminology.

James is saying that if you don’t have works you are not justified. That is not what modern Protestants teach when they say salvation is by faith alone. They teach that your works do not matter for going to heaven. They argue that we can’t judge members of their church who live like the world as lost. Even though they live like the world, they say, they may have real faith and thus be saved.

But James says such faith will not save you, and he says so very clearly. Faith without works is dead, and it will not save you.

Thus, he concludes, we are justified by works and not by faith only.

In the end, there is no way that any modern fundamentalist is going to say what James said. If you go around saying that a man is justified by works and not faith only, you are a heretic. There is absolutely no context in which you are allowed to say that.

But James said it.

And we claim he said it under the inspiration of God.

Harmonization

There is a difference between harmonizing and explaining away.

Harmonizing means you have a good, legitimate, reasonable alternative explanation for the verse that seems to agree with you.

For example, I argue in a page I wrote on the Word of God that the Scriptures don’t use "the Word" as a general reference to "the Scriptures."

2 Tim. 2:15 seems to be an exception, especially the way we modern Christians tend to interpret it. Most of us know it in its KJV rendering:

Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The truth is, however, that the word "study" is a terrible mistranslation. The Greek word spoudazo has nothing to do with studying. It means "be diligent," and it is translated in that sense all 10 of the other times it occurs in the NT.

The point of that verse is the point of other verses that talk about our handling "the Word" in the NT. It is a reference to the Word of God as a life, power, or message within us. It can grow (Acts 6:7), impart new birth (Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23), be given from person to person (Jn. 17:14), and it is to be handled by spiritual men who get skillful through practice (Heb. 5:12-13) and diligence (2 Tim. 1:7).

That is a reasonable interpretation of 2 Tim. 1:7 that leaves it saying something.

It doesn’t explain away 2 Tim. 1:7, nor divest it of meaning. In fact, it infuses it with rich meaning and restores a normal translation to it ("be diligent" rather than "study").

This is harmonizing.

It is the same with James 2:24 and the most seeming contradictory verse from Paul, Romans 3:28. James says we are justified by works not faith alone, and Paul says we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.

How do we harmonize these without ignoring them?

Well, to anyone who’s not already religious and biased, the answer that will leap out is that Paul and James are talking about different kinds of works. Paul specifically says works of the Law, and James makes no such designation.

That’s a possible interpretation.

Another, which I got from reading the early Christian writings, is that Paul is talking only about our being born again—separated from the world and our old life and brought into Christ—while James is talking about our whole course as a Christian. This, too, makes sense because Paul talks about works all the time when he’s talking about our future judgment (e.g.; Rom. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 5:5-8).

That is choosing a rational explanation that makes sense, harmonizes both verses, and allows both verses to actually say something to us. We must be born again by faith alone because obviously we who are slaves to sin cannot begin working our way to deliverance from sin. However, once delivered, then we are debtors to the Spirit that by the Spirit we would put to death the deeds of the body (Rom. 8:12-13).

Saying something like “Well, James is just saying that we are saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone” is just dodging the verse. James is not saying that at all. He is saying that your faith is garbage if it’s not accompanied by works.

While we may admit to that, we don’t admit to his conclusion, which is that we are justified by works.

Yes, justified by works. That’s what he said, so that is what we are allowed to say as well.

Wow, there was a lot of rambling involved above. I hope someone got something out of that because it’s all pretty important … that is, unless we just want to continue holding onto our traditions and only pretending to believe what the Bible says.

Posted in Bible, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Customs and Traditions

Posted on 11/08/2010 by Paul Pavao

This post was inspired by a quote from Mark Twain:

Laws are sand, customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment escaped but an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishment.

How true this is.

Recently, I wrote a page on baptism. Because I know that just showing Christians the Scripture is never going to be enough—pretty much all Christians prefer their denomination’s traditions to even the plainest teachings of Scripture or historical Christianity—I added a page answering objections to my teaching on baptism.

In response to several Scriptures I reference on the "Baptism Objections" page and dozens on the pages I link to from those pages, one person sent me a one-sentence argument: "If man cannot be saved unless man toils (water baptism), then man cannot be saved without works (faith plus works)."

Faith and Works

What Mark Twain said is so true. For Christians, never mind what the law of Christ is; never mind what the Bible teaches; it’s our traditions (customs) that matter.

Quote dozens of Scriptures, present James 2:14-26 as a concise directed argument that you cannot be saved without works … none of that matters. Our custom says faith plus works is a bad thing.

I have been told many times over the years that we must never "add to faith."

Is that what the Bible says?

I think what the Bible says is, "Add to your faith virtue" and knowledge and self-control and perseverance and godliness and brotherly kindness and love (2 Pet. 1:5-7).

Doesn’t it?

But in most fundamentalist churches, you can deny that verse all you want. You can explain it away using explanations as ridiculous and irrelevant as you want. Your explanations don’t have to make a bit of sense because 2 Pet. 1:5-7 doesn’t fit into our tradition.

On the other hand, use 2 Peter to contradict our tradition, and the hammer will begin to fall.

First, you’ll lose your teaching positions. Second, you’ll lose your welcome. Third, you’ll lose your membership.

Why? Because you violated Scripture?

No, violating Scripture is perfectly acceptable. I was once in a Southern Baptist Sunday School class with three other couples. We were in Matthew 6, and we came to verse 15, where Jesus says that your heavenly Father will not forgive you if you don’t forgive others.

Never mind that this verse is repeated in Mark 11:26. Never mind that the same thought is repeated even more strongly in Matthew 18:35. The real issue is that this opinion of Jesus’ contradicts our custom!

So, all six people in that Sunday School class with my wife and I came to the conclusion that what Jesus said isn’t true. Our heavenly Father will forgive us even if we don’t forgive others.

I was shocked. My wife was shocked. We almost couldn’t talk.

What Jesus said isn’t true???

Recently I heard Charles Stanley say the exact same thing.

Now, mind you, Charles Stanley is more theologically trained than the Pharisees/Southern Baptists who were in Sunday School class with us. So he added some fancy word to forgiven in order to distinguish the forgiveness of all our sins through the death of Jesus from whatever vague, undefined forgiveness Jesus meant in Matthew 6:15.

Nonetheless, Charles Stanley was making the same tradition over Scripture choice that our friends in the Sunday School class were making. He just did it more diplomatically. In some temporary, unimportant way, we don’t feel forgive on earth if we don’t forgive others, but of course, we are forgiven in the eternal and most important way because of Jesus’ death.

Just more Scripture dodging.

Let’s be real: we prefer our traditions to what Scripture teaches.

What Mark Twain said is true in modern Christianity. You can get away with violating the laws of Christ and the Scripture, but you cannot get away with violating custom.

Try telling someone in your Baptist church that they are not forgiven by God because they won’t forgive someone else. You will face justice for it. You will be called before someone, whether it’s the deacon board or the pastor.

I once dropped a note to an acquaintance who had dodged Galatians 6:7-8 in a Sunday School class he was teaching. That verse says that if you sow to the Spirit you’ll reap eternal life and if you sow to the flesh you’ll reap corruption.

Here’s how he taught that verse. He took his class to 2 or 3 other Scriptures, emphasized that we are eternally secure, and then he went on to ignore v. 9 and water down and miss the point of v. 10.

I dropped him a note saying that Paul’s purpose was clearly to present a warning to the Galatians. I asked this Sunday School teacher whether he felt he had passed on that warning to his Sunday School class or whether he had basically just skipped those verses. Even if eternal security is true, surely it would have been good to pass on some warning to the class. Isn’t that true?

He turned my note in to the pastor, and I was called into the office.

I was called into the office.

Why wasn’t he?

Whether or not I was correct was never discussed. All I was asked was why I was sending notes to Sunday School teachers.

Now, keep in mind, I’m not helpless. I was not raked over the coals by the pastor. If you’re a pastor, a supposed guard of God’s sheep, and you’re going to rake me over the coals, you’d better have at least some good reason, or I’m going to verbally and politely dump you on your head.

I did that. The pastor was speechless and embarrassed, especially because he was corrupt and intimidating people was his standard method for dealing with them.

I say that to tell you I’m not complaining about my ill treatment. I’ve suffered through very little ill treatment as human being. I’m simply pointing out what’s true.

What’s true is that it is violating custom that will get you in trouble in modern churches, not violating Scripture or the will of God.

My hope is that someone will read this and be brave enough to get in trouble with man by respecting the Word of God over the traditions of men.

Posted in Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

For the Sake of Learning: War and Mankind

Posted on 11/08/2010 by Paul Pavao

I have to pass on a very interesting article from Scientific American.

That article has some very interesting thoughts, backed up with some things we know about tribal societies, about why men engage in war. Those things are worth thinking about.

This blog post is written to encourage you to read that article, but I have to make a comment about assumptions and left vs. right-wing politics, too.

Politics and Assumptions

If you read my blog, you’re probably Christian and you probably lean towards the right politically. This means that for the most part, you don’t notice the untestable and unprovable assumptions behind right-wing thinking.

It also means that the assumptions behind left-wing thinking seem incomprehensible, perhaps even stupid, to you, despite the fact that they’re little different than your own assumptions.

As far as I know, there’s nothing in the article I linked to that is overtly left-wing, but it has the "feel" of left-wing assumptions that I find pretty annoying.

It starts with the assumption that…

Science Knows Everything

I say that because it begins by saying that war was invented 15,000 years ago.

It was?

Exactly how does anyone know that? They found abandoned tanks or a buried explosive dated to 13,000 B.C.?

If two tribes got in a war with each other, each tribe having probably a maximum of 50 or 100 people, then exactly what traces would they have left of their war?

Remember, written history only goes back to the Sumerians in 6,000 B.C., so there are no writings discussing war from 15,000 years ago.

The Scientific Method: Leaving All Options Open

If I’m going to talk about science, then I should be scientific myself. That means having an open mind.

Maybe, just maybe, there is some way to know whether tribes engaged in war 15,000 years ago. Someone figured out that ingenious trick, and I just don’t know about it yet.

Nope.

The reason I know they didn’t is because scientists still debate whether Homo sapiens put an end to Homo neanderthalensis due to conflict.

Fighting that puts an end to an entire race of humans is war.

If science is wondering whether there was war between modern humans and Neanderthals, which would have happened 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, then they don’t know that there was no war until 15,000 years ago.

Not Living in the Real World

Another left-wing habit that bugs me is not living in the real world.

I don’t know how many left-wingers have told me that homelessness is the product of a bad economy and that up to 50% of the people living on the streets are family men who can’t find a job.

That’s ridiculous. No one who says that gives a hoot about homeless people.

They’re like most fundamentalist Christians are with the Bible. Such Christians heap praise on the Bible and sometimes idolize it, but they don’t actually listen to it. Even so, many left-wingers, especially those in education, say really nice things about homeless people, but they don’t actually pay any attention to them.

If you spend any time with homeless people, then you know that they are not simply out of work family men. They are drug or alcohol addicts, mentally ill, or simply fed up with society and not desiring to live in it.

Statistics say that family men really are about 50% of homeless people. Those same statistics say that most family men are homeless for an average of 3 days.

Yes, that’s right; 3 days.

That’s because America has homeless shelters that help those interested in having a job and living in a house to do so. The organizations that help people do that are good at it, and they are in contact with people willing to help. Almost everyone that actually wants to be helped, and who isn’t shipwrecked by addictions, is helped.

So, back to the article I linked to …

It ends by saying that mankind has already invented a means to resolve conflicts peacefully … the United Nations.

What has the United Nations resolved peacefully? Are they mediating the talks between Israel and Palestine, or is the United States?

You can say the US is not doing a good job with that. Perhaps they’re not, but the U.N. isn’t even involved.

They are involved in Africa. That’s wonderful. I think it’s great they’re trying to do something.

But they’re completely failing. African nations are not less violent, less prone to civil war, or less prone to tribal warfare due to U.N. involvement.

The U.N. is a nice thought, but it us utterly useless unless there are nations that are already committed to peace. Thus, the U.N. is not an invention for peace. You must already have peaceful people and peaceful nations for the U.N. to play any part in creating or maintaining peace.

Education and Peace

As a side thought, having studied history and visited several 3rd-world countries, I can tell you what does work. Education and prosperity work. Educate most of the citizens of a nation, and that nation will be more peaceful. It’s government will also be less tyrannical because their people will not put up with tyranny. Tyrannical governments have to promote ignorance in the populace at large.

Hmm. This is a Christian blog, and there’s nothing very Christian about anything I’ve written above.

Truth, however, is truth, and since Jesus Christ is Truth, it is good for Christians to look at what’s real.

Speaking of which, you should go read that article on war.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The “I Found It” Bumper Sticker

Posted on 11/04/2010 by Paul Pavao

First, let me make a pitch again for people to check out the book I’m writing online and give me FEEDBACK. Ideas, arguments, support, editing … anything you’re willing to help with.

Basically, I’m just writing on a few topics that I think are either really important or really liberating, in the sense of answering nagging questions about the Scriptures. Because of the subject matter, it has a working title of Things As I See Them.

You can read the intro and get to the 4 chapters that are finished at Christian History for Everyman.

Okay … "It"

We’re out in California for a while so we can … uh … do something.

That something is hard to define. I asked one lady here what she’s looking for, and she said, "It."

She explained that she couldn’t explain "it," but that whenever we’re out here, she has it. She doesn’t know how to have it without us, so she wants us to come help her establish "it."

"I Found It" Bumper Stickers

I think it was back in the 60’s when the "I Found It" bumper stickers came out. Back then, it meant that they had been saved by King Jesus and they were excited about it.

Both back then and now, though, there is really one deeper meaning: We are craving something inwardly, something that satisfies the soul, and "it" is the satisfying of that craving. It’s the filling of that God-sized hole that Christians sometimes talk about.

I have a friend here at Rose Creek Village who told me about a rather large "home fellowship" that he had visited. I put "home fellowship" in quotes because it’s really too large to be a home fellowship. However, they eschew church buildings, and they meet house to house, so "home fellowship" fits the bill.

Anyway, that fellowship/church was everything my friend agreed with. It was what he would have pursued and tried to create.

Nonetheless, despite visiting them several times, he never felt like he should drop everything and move more than a thousand miles to be with them.

Then we came along.

We were not what he would have created. There were some odd things about us, and in some theological matters, there were significant differences, especially on the issues of works, judgment, and the role of rituals like baptism and the Lord’s supper.

Worse, there was a very serious practical difference on the subject of authority and leadership in the church.

But after we visited for one weekend, he emailed me to tell me we’d ruined everything. He couldn’t go back to his normal life. He, his family, and even a couple friends were longing to continue the fellowship we’d experienced that weekend.

What was the difference between that fellowship he visited and us?

"It."

What Is "It"

I know one thing about "it." "It" is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. "It" is supernatural. "It" comes only from heaven. You cannot create "it" on your own.

We cannot create "it," but we can preach the Gospel that is the source of "it."

The Gospel, as the apostle Paul once said, is the power of God to salvation. In it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith (Rom. 1:16-17).

The Gospel’s simple.

There is a King, chosen by God and proven to be divine and judge of all by rising from the dead. His name is Jesus, and those who believe him get to experience everything that God has from man. They get to become sons of God, partakers of his divine nature; their sins are forgiven; and they are made into brand new creatures by this King.

But don’t be mistaken. It’s no small thing to believe in King Jesus.

Jesus has no regard for the world. He has no regard for your comfort or anything else that concerns this world or your physical comforts. He has regard only to bring you into a love relationship with God and with God’s family—a relationship that goes deeper than the emotions, sinking down into your innermost being, the very depths inhabited by your spirit.

There the Spirit of God joins you to God and to everyone else that has been so joined by God.

Nothing is so satisfying; nothing is so right.

Nothing is so costly.

Consider your life over. Spiritually, you will know what you should and shouldn’t do. But that knowing is deep. It is easily overlooked by the lazy; it is easily ignored and explained away by those that find they don’t like discomfort, pain, or embarrassment.

But for those willing to suffer, it is the greatest and strongest power on earth.

You are joined to God. No one and nothing can stand against you in the will of God. You will speak in boldness to kings and princes, to presidents and governors.

Joy will sink into your soul, never to be removed.

"It" and "Us"

We all experience that in varying levels.

Together, however, we can advance in it (Eph. 4:11-16).

God’s not looking for a good program and powerful Sunday morning services. He is looking for a people, a family composed of his children, who will grow together into the full maturity of Jesus Christ—who together will give themselves up to serve as his body on earth, being joined to him in the Spirit.

Those people will be kind; those people will give; those people will lay their lives down all the time for everyone.

But those people are not about being good; they are about being joined to God. They do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, seeking to walk by laws, rules, and principles. No, they eat from the tree of life, and they are moved by the same heavenly life that mobilized Jesus the King through a life of poverty, humility, and immense power on the earth.

Those people have "it."

Others long to be joined to "it."

"It" is satisfying. "It" belongs to and comes from God.

"It" is simply paid for by dying and entering a new life.

Posted in Church, Gospel, Holiness, missions, Unity | 2 Comments

Genes Control Behavior?

Posted on 10/30/2010 by Paul Pavao

I don’t have time for a real post, so here’s a quickie.

Here’s an article on genes and behavior that makes a point I’m convinced from experience is true: Behavior can be changed; it is not merely controlled by genes.

You may have tendencies, but in the end, God will hold us accountable for our behavior.

The article, which refers to behavioral genetics as "Gene Whiz" science says:

Behavioral genetics, which traces behavioral differences among individuals and groups to genetic variance, receives an inordinate amount of attention, especially considering that its findings so rarely hold up to scrutiny.

Amen.

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Conflict Resolution

Posted on 10/29/2010 by Paul Pavao

I really like A-B-C sort of teachings. I like to look at a couple Scriptures, point out what they clearly say, and apply them to us as Christians.

I feel very secure doing that.

I also like to be able to examine our current experience as Christians, painting a picture of how things are versus how they could be, then call us to make the changes to necessary to experience "how things could be."

Can’t do that today. Have to get out of my comfort zone a bit.

We are making a list of subjects for the purpose of training the men of Rose Creek Village to carry responsibility and leadership. Some of those are simple—or not so simple—theological subjects, but some aren’t.

One of those is …

Conflict Resolution

Where there are two or more people who are not identical twins, there will be conflict.

If you don’t know that, then I don’t know how you’re reading this. Surely only children under 12 months could not know that putting people together produces conflict.

At Rose Creek Village, we have put lots of people together in a relatively small space—at least for Americans. We produce lots of conflict. Our children grow up with it as a normal part of life.

Our children also know that excluding people or dividing from people is sin. It’s as wrong as stealing or punching someone in the face. It happens, but it’s decidedly, unequivocally wrong, and if you exclude or divide you cannot be right with God.

That’s just how it is as a follower of Christ. At least, that’s how we see things, and that’s how we train our children to think.

So, how do we avoid allowing conflict to result in exclusion or division?

Well, I can only give one clear answer to that, but first I want to add all the unclear answers …

Conflict Resolution as an Art

How does an artist paint a portrait? How does a singer sing a song?

There’s a lot of things you can teach a budding artist and a budding musician, but a lot of the skill of painting and singing simply come out of yourself.

Conflict resolution is like painting and singing. You can teach anyone to paint or sing; you just can’t teach everyone to be excellent at it. There is some skill and natural talent involved.

It’s the same way with resulting conflicts. Some people have an incredible talent, others have even a gift from God, and others find it extremely difficult and are not very good at it.

But everyone, whether poorly or well, can do it.

The Secret of Conflict Resolution

For the Christian, the secret of conflict resolution is knowing that you must do it.

We can teach you some things about resolving conflicts. We can tell you that you can say almost anything if you will first communicate—probably non-verbally but possibly with words—that you love, understand, and care about the person with whom you are in conflict. We can explain "mitigating language" to you and how it helps with diplomacy. We can teach you about compromise, give and take, and "win-win" solutions.

But in the end, the ultimate Christian weapon to overcome conflict is knowing that you must.

Is that person across from you a Christian?

Yes, yes, I know he or she is a wicked, carnal Christian who doesn’t care about you and is causing you great harm and pain that you are being forced to bear with great self-denial and compassion, but is that person a Christian?

If so, that is your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, or your child.

More so than your biological relatives.

The tie between you and a fellow Christian is based on the precious, eternal blood of King Jesus, while your tie to your biological family is based on your personal, non-eternal blood.

You cannot separate. If Jesus Christ is showing them mercy, then so must you. If Jesus Christ intends to allow them into his kingdom, then you must allow them into your circle of acquaintances as well.

You are a servant of Jesus.

You are a servant of the greatest King of all time and eternity.

Think butler. Think housemaid.

Then picture yourself at his door, opening it for his guest, and then deciding that you don’t like that guest.

Imagine doing that for some mere human sovereign like Iran’s prime minister or the Russian president.

What would happen to you?

Would you remain in the employ of some mere human like Ted Turner or Bill Gates if you were hired as a host or hostess and you refused entry to one of their friends that you didn’t like?

You are a servant of the King of kings.

Yeah, you get the picture.

That picture is the secret of conflict resolution.

This isn’t about you. It’s about Jesus, and every time we shrug off that picture and ignore a brother or sister or choose to meet separately from other Christians over something as minor as our view of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, eternal security, or worse of all, how loud we sing and with what instruments, then we are telling the whole world that Jesus Christ is not much of a king at all, much less the King of kings.

"Nor do I pray for these [apostles] only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be one in us so that the world will know that you have sent me." (John 17:20-23)

Posted in Holiness, Miscellaneous, Modern Doctrines, Unity | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Where I’ve Been

Posted on 10/28/2010 by Paul Pavao

I haven’t had much time to write lately. This is only the 2nd post in about 4 weeks.

I’m in the process of moving to California—temporarily—to preach the Gospel and to help a couple families learn to live it despite the temptations of living in modern America. (The ultimate temptation? "All my needs are met; who cares about anyone else?")

It got busy trying to make things were going to be okay while I was gone and getting myself ready to have an office on the road. (I’m very impressed with GoToMyPC.com, by the way—and that’s not an ad; I’m not an affiliate, and I get no commission if you sign up.)

But it’s not the light difficulties that come up in life that I thought might interest you.

It’s this …

Wandering Through Colorado

As we made our way across the US in an RV towing a van packed with stuff while our dear friends David and Ari drove our Suburban with a trailer attached, I kept remembering the words of a couple children, now grown into impressive young adults, saying, "Traveling with you was a lot of fun, papa Shammah."

So, in the spirit of fun and adventure for the kids we brought along, I—and my brave as well as beautiful wife—opted for a windy, mountainous, and hopefully scenic drive on I-70 over the Rockies, rather than a tamer and less scenic trip on I-80.

We woke up Monday morning to reports that a snow storm was rushing over our route. We almost changed our minds, but weather reports indicated the I-80 descent into Salt Lake City might be treacherous as well. So …

I rushed everyone, and we headed out the door hoping to get to the Vail pass before the snow did.

Nope.

We didn’t get anywhere before the snow did. It hit us 20 miles into the trip, which was over a half hour into the trip because the RV couldn’t climb the hill any faster than 30 or 35 mph. (And I was still passing trucks doing that!)

Snow begins in the Rockies

Snow beginning on I-70

Is This a Good Idea?

As the snow increased, we began wondering if this was a good idea.

We had two issues. One, David was slipping and sliding in our Suburban, and even had to pull over at one point because he couldn’t keep going …

Pulled over in snow on I-70

That’s David standing next to the Suburban in the background of that picture.

Two, there was the issue of chain laws.

For those that haven’t heard of chain laws, it sounds pretty sinister. But what it means is that at certain times in the snow in the mountains, Colorado requires either snow tires or snow chains on all vehicles—beginning with commercial vehicles and moving on to everyone if conditions warrant it—and you can be ticketed for not complying.

We didn’t have chains or snow tires.

Worse, we were in the mountains. The towns are spread out in the Rockies, 20 and 30 miles apart or more, and as we were driving 15 MPH in the snow now, that meant the towns were spaced one or two hours apart.

Where we were going to get chains?

Tackling the Problem

A snowplow resolved our first problem. It came along a couple minutes after David had to pull over and cleared enough snow for David to press on.

By the way, his neophyte snow driving was astounding. He kept a cool head, never panicked, and never stomped on the brake or accelerator. Very, very impressive.

We also took a shot at helping our spirits by getting at least a little joy out of the snow …

Pictures in the snow in Colorado

Pictures in the snow in Colorado

The second problem scared us a bit. The conditions got worse and worse, and we were hearing on 511—the number to local state’s department of transportation—that there were road closures ahead of us.

I kept wondering, "So, if they pull us over for no chains, what will they do with us? Will they ask us to park on the side of the road and slowly freeze and starve to death until winter’s over in March, April, or May?"

We decided to press on to exit 205, which was Silverthorne, Colorado, and get chains there. We really weren’t certain the Suburban would make it that far, though the RV was handling just fine … at 15 MPH.

As it turned out, we simply drove for an hour and reached Silverthorne. The only incident, though that incident was heart-stopping to David, Ariel, and their 4 kids, was the Suburban and trailer beginning to jackknife on one of the downhills.

Hillbillies in the Rockies

It’s a crime that we took no pictures in Silverthorne, though our excuse that there were other things on our mind is valid.

The temperature in Silverthorne was 15, and the wind chill was 3.

The snow had just fallen, and so the roads weren’t cleared. Neither were the parking lots. Just as badly, snowplows were clearing the parking lots while we were in them, leaving huge mounds of snow that created an obstacle course for the RV.

We had to buy a first class set of chains for the Suburban, costing us about $40 extra, because the auto parts store was out of the normal kind. They did, however, have one very large set for the RV, so we were set.

The pictures I wish I had are pictures of me in tennis shoes, trekking through calf-deep snow, carrying heavy tire chains at 9,000 feet elevation and of the kids running into Target in sweaters and light jackets, then emerging in winter coats.

Chains on Tires?

Have you ever put snow chains on tires?

Yeah, neither have I.

Somehow, David and I managed to read the directions, melt snow onto our knees and hips and we knelt and lay in the Big Bass parking lot, freeze our fingers in wet cloth gloves or no gloves at all, and get the chains on.

The other picture I wish I had was a local who got out of his pickup truck in a t-shirt, stood there with a smile and without shivering, and warned us that we needed to secure the extra little length of chain that hung down after we tightened them on the tires.

If you don’t know what I mean by that extra, little length of chain, then enjoy your ignorance and pray that you never have to find out.

We couldn’t get it quite secured on the Suburban. We pulled over once on the freeway, then exited at 203, just 2 miles from Silverthorne, to buy clips at some grocery store.

Those worked.

Of course, by the time we left that exit, it was something like 2 pm. We had left at 8 in the morning. We had traveled around 70 miles in 6 hours.

Not fast going.

Was It Worth It?

When we got past Vail, Colorado, we were able to take off the chains. The sun came out, and we were treated to some of the best scenery in the world … mile after mile, turn after turn, all afternoon.

Cresting Vail Pass at 10,662 feet

It was worth it.

Admittedly, pictures don’t come close to doing the job, and they’re all the less sufficient when sized down for a blog.

You can look at some better ones on my Picasa Web Album, but even those are only a small glimpse. I’ll try to keep expanding those albums over the next couple days, though we’re still getting set up in California at the moment.

Here’s some blog-sized ones, though …

Driving with chains on

More while the chains were on

Colorado mountain lake

Colorado scenery on I-70

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Truth and Error, The Fall of the Church, and the Fathers

Posted on 10/17/2010 by Paul Pavao

Well, it’s been a while; over 2 weeks.

So this will lightly touch on several subjects.

Email Rumors: Taking Things With a Grain of Salt

I had an email forwarded to me titled "Interesting Facts." It read:

This October has 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays, and 5 Sundays, all in 1 month. It happens once in 823 years. These are considered money bags months, based on Chinese fengshui.

That is interesting!

That isn’t true!

Think about this a minute. Why does October have 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays, and 5 Sundays, all in 1 month?

It’s because October has 31 days and starts on a Friday.

Do you really think that a 31 day month—there’s 7 of them each year—only starts on a Friday once every 823 years?

The last time a month had 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays, and 5 Sundays was January, 2010. That’s not quite 823 years ago.

The last time October had 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays, and 5 Sundays was 2004. That’s also a bit short of 823 years.

The day a month starts on goes forward one day of the week each year because a year is 52 weeks and one day long. Thus, next year, October will start on a Saturday.

The exception is a leap year, when the starting day jumps two days of the week forward. So, normally, October will have 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays, and 5 Sundays every six years right on schedule, except when a leap year makes it jump from Thursday to Saturday. In that case, it will be 12 years between such Octobers, making it average out to exactly once every 7 years, which is what you’d expect since there’s 7 days in a week.

Back to Christianity

I was told that I spread "vile calumny" because of my teaching on the fall of the church.

I’ve been asked what I mean by that a lot, so I wrote a page explaining myself.

That page has a "What To Do About It" section that might be considered a wee bit controversial, but seems to me to be the only logically consistent step. I think that those who long for the purity of the church already know that’s what needs to be done.

On the Early Church Fathers

There’s a bloke (I hope that’s just a general word and not insulting in anyway; my English is a little lacking) from England who is probably going to think at some point that he provides most of the material for my blog. Half the time he writes me, I write a blog on the subject.

The truth is that the majority of everything that I write is prompted by questions. The rest is prompted by news reports or teachings I hear.

For example, the page I link above was prompted by a question from an Orthodox bishop in Jerusalem. Normally it would be gratifying to know a Jerusalem bishop is reading my site, but since he compared me to Jews who insult Jesus, I probably shouldn’t get too excited.

Anyway, I hope none of you think I’m recommending following everything the early church fathers said as though they’re some sort of second set of Scriptures!

The idea is to get as clear a picture as we can of the faith as it was practiced in the apostolic churches.

We can claim all we want that all we need is the Bible, but that’s not Biblical and it’s clear to see in real life that it doesn’t work. Look around. Real Christians who really have the Spirit and really want to know the will of God end up not only differing on Bible interpretations, but even dividing over them.

I bolded that for a reason. Division will send you to hell (Gal. 5:19-21).

That’s one key area where we’re off Biblically. We divide from one another like there’s no consequences. Oh, too bad, we think.

Yeah, well, Biblically and historically, that’s like shrugging off adultery or bank robbery. You don’t shrug it off. You confess, repent, and do everything in your power to make it right.

Anyway, the point of knowing what the early church fathers taught is not to do or believe everything they say. It’s to get a good general picture of the faith as it was known in the apostolic churches.

For example, Ignatius of Antioch puts an extreme emphasis on the importance of the bishop in the churches he writes to. He has 7 letters that he wrote in either A.D. 107 or 116, just 40 to 50 years after Peter and Paul were executed for the name of Jesus.

His letters stand out because there’s nothing else like them in his time period. Had he written his letters in A.D. 207 rather than 107, they would not have stood out so much. If he had written them in 307, they would not have stood out at all.

Ignatius wrote at a time that the gnostics were still in the church, dividing it and spreading false doctrines. John’s Gospels and letters had probably only been written a decade or two earlier, and the letters address gnosticism directly. So do Ignatius’ letters.

Ignatius, however, had a different solution than John did, a solution that must have seemed obvious to him: stick to the bishop.

Why? Schools of that day were simply homes or shops with a shingle hung out front. Gnostic teachers easily set up their own schools, took in students, and taught what they wanted without supervision and accountability. Then the teacher and his students would mingle with other members of the churches and spread their heresies (which at that time did not mean false doctrines, but doctrines which divided Christians).

Ignatius solution? Don’t go to those schools unless the bishop tells you it’s okay. Definitely don’t go to a baptism unless the bishop has approved it, or you could wind up baptized by an non-Christian heretic!

So what do we learn from Ignatius?

I don’t recommend simply following his suggestion unless your bishop—that word just denoted the head elder of a church in Ignatius’ writings—is a man you ought to follow.

What I do recommend is learning. The church in Ignatius’ day was free! Church members baptized freely, it seems, or Ignatius would not have had to tell them to stop doing so without the bishop’s permission. People taught the Scriptures freely, and church members were free to attend each others’ teachings, or else Ignatius would not have had to tell them to make sure those teachings were checked out by the bishop.

This is the purpose of the early Christian writings. There are important global things to learn! Such as …

They had a rule of faith that was the limit of what Christians were required to believed. How much of the canon was developed? You may also be surprised to learn what their focus was.

I hope that’s clear. I don’t recommend just following whatever they say. Overall, I do think there was a couple things that crept into the church early. They had a negative view of sex in marriage and honored lifetime virginity in a way that seems clearly unscriptural to me. The authority of and emphasis on church leadership, and the divide between "clergy" and "laity," grew quickly, though that did not really even begin until the middle of the 2nd century.

Things the Fathers Taught

I do recommend knowing what the church was like, however. It’s worth knowing that no one believed in a purely symbolic communion or baptism for centuries after the time of Christ. Baptism was the point of conversion, not a sinner’s prayer, and the believers all thought they received grace and power from eating the fellowship meal.

They were exceptionally gracious in allowing variance of opinions on doctrines, they did not all speak in tongues, and they did not believe in taking lives …. even in war. Their emphasis was on behavior, not theological doctrines.

All those things are global things that the church, not just any individual fathers, taught, and those things are worth knowing.

Posted in Church, History, Holiness, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Undoing the Devil’s Work

Posted on 09/30/2010 by Paul Pavao

I wrote a booklet that I really believe the Lord gave to me. I got the whole book practically dropped in my heart word for word on a 20-minute drive to work. When I got there, I sat down and typed the thing out in no more than 3 hours. I just gave it as I got it.

It’s a brief history of the first 300 years of the church from the devil’s perspective. It’s the story of how we went from a church that could boast that even its blue-collar workers and old women, even if they didn’t know how to express their faith, knew how to live it. They knew how to love and to turn the other cheek.

About 180 years after Athenagoras wrote that boast, Christians brawled in a church yard until the "gore" ran into the streets, according to Socrates Scholasticus.

My booklet describes, from the devil’s perspective, how that change happened.

I think it’s really interesting, and you can get it here. It’s for sale for $5 so that other web sites will be willing to help me get it out, but it’s not money I’m after. If it’s a problem to pay $5, just email me and I’ll email it to you.

This post isn’t meant to be about the book, though. It’s about how to undo the devil’s work …

The Devil’s Plan

The book outlines the devil’s very effective plan in 3 steps:

  1. Persecute hard and fast; drive off the weak and get the strong to be looking around them rather than upwards.
  2. Bring a boring peace afterward that a "war-torn" church doesn’t know how to handle.
  3. As soon as the church is complacent, fill it with nominal believers so the strong ones feel like outsiders.

I don’t know what you would think of that plan in advance, but in hind sight? Awesome plan. It was entirely successful, producing a violent and worldly church with leaders that were almost exclusively ambitious, politically-inclined appointees of the emperor.

Undoing the Devil’s Work: Step One

If we’re going to get back to apostolic Christianity, we’re going to have to undo what the devil did.

Primarily, what the devil did was fill the church with complacent, nominal believers who are not disciples of Christ.

How many times have you heard a pastor say, "If I preached that, I’d lose half my church"?

Most of the time that pastor is wrong. If he preached the Gospel Christ preached, complete with "Unless you forsake all you have, you cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33), then he’ll lose more like 95% of his church.

Hmm, no. Based on the experience of a couple pastors I know about, he’d lose half his church, and then the other half would drive him out.

The first step in undoing the devil’s work is for the saints to be together without those that are only church attenders.

That probably isn’t going to happen in a church building. The saints are probably going to have to "come out of her."

Undoing the Devil’s Work: Step Two

The "come out of her" part is happening. George Barna says that 20 million Christians have left institutional churches in the last couple decades. He calls it a revolution.

It’s not a revolution yet.

It’s not a revolution until we get those saints back together.

It’s not enough to pull everyone out of the harlot. No church is not really any better than a fake church.

We’ve got to learn how to be in unity.

And about that, we’re clueless.

Unity

I can’t address uniting today’s very misguided saints in one blog post, but let me throw out a couple thoughts that perhaps y’all can run with.

Unity is spiritual. If God provides spiritual unity between you and a brother or sister, you are not allowed to break up that spiritual unity over your stupid Bible interpretations.

Oh, yeah, that’s right. You don’t think your Bible interpretation is stupid. You think that you came up with a spiritual and accurate Bible interpretation in order to produce the evil fruit of division.

Only bad trees produce bad fruit.

Listen, God gave you a foundation to work from. That foundation says that the Lord knows those who are his and that those who name the name of Christ must depart from iniquity.

You’re allowed to divide from adulterers, drunkards, and even greedy people (1 Cor. 5:10-13).

You’re not allowed to divide from people who understand the Trinity or eternal security differently than you.

Doctrine and Division

Those who want to justify their division over doctrines point to verses like Rom. 16:17-18.

However, those who point to those verses do not understand what doctrine Paul taught.

Read what Paul says sound doctrine is in Titus 2.

If people agree with you on those doctrines in Titus 2—things like sobriety, sensibleness, faith, love, kindness, loving your spouse and children—then you’re agreed on doctrine. Every Christian must assent to departing from inquity. Every Christian is called to forsake their own lives.

Did you know the majority of the early church did not believe in the Trinity?

Mind you, they were wrong, but Tertullian excused them as ignorant and uninformed, and then says the ignorant and uninformed will always constitute the majority of the church.

But not the willfully sinful!

You are not supposed even to eat with those that are in unrepentant sin (again, 1 Cor. 5:10-13).

Overthrowing the Devil

Do you want to overthrow the devil?

Join forces with people who believe in following Christ wholeheartedly and who have agreed to depart from iniquity (even if there’s some weakness that you have to help with), and you will find incredible power.

You will find such incredible power that the devil will hurriedly rise up and fight you, too. He’ll apply all the same tactics he applied to the early churches.

Most likely, he’ll win because you’re poorly equipped, you don’t know what you’re getting into, you’re unaware that you don’t have the right to divide, and you trust your interpretation of the Bible more than you trust God to guide you (even though the Bible itself says that’s backward). You also don’t have an apostle to bail you out when you have big problems.

But since there’s no other way to win, you’re going to have to try it.

We’d love to help when you do.

Posted in Church, Gospel, Holiness, Unity | Tagged , , | 1 Comment