Australia will vote on whether or not to broaden the definition of marriage.

Australia will next month have a postal vote on whether or not we would like our government to change the definition of marriage.
Currently, in Australia, the definition of marriage is very specifically between a man and a woman.

There is a hugely vocal homosexual and alternative lifestyle grouping that has for a long time sought to  squash any sort of debate on the acceptability of their lifestyle choice in mainstream Australian culture.
I have been subjected to this myself on fora that has nothing to do with lifestyle choices.
In the general discussion section of one forum I was a member of, everyone could have an opinion but me.
And even when I did not express an opinion, I was attacked for my "bigoted views".
I will also say that often times those people misrepresented my views so that they could attack me, but in many cases I did not actually express a view at all, and still was attacked - because I am openly a Christian, and all views are acceptable in this matter EXCEPT those that come from the Bible.

I personally will be voting "No" to the postal plebiscite regarding the change in the definition of marriage. That will not surprise anyone who has read my position and statements of my faith elsewhere on this blog.

But I want to explain why, and here I can do so without being shouted down.

I have several reasons for my position.

First, those who choose these alternative lifestyles have full legal and political recognition under our civil unions legislation.
In every legal respect they already have the same rights as a married couple.
The only thing they lack is the right to call it a "Marriage".
And in fact, they can already use the name, just not in an official capacity. (Who is going to stop them calling it a marriage in everyday life?)

Some will then say "Well if there is no difference, then why bother to argue about semantics?"

But it is not semantics. And I will tell you why in a moment.

Before we get there though, I do want to point out that taking the marriage name IS semantics for those of alternative lifestyles. They think that by changing the name alone - for that is the only thing that will change - that their lifestyle choices will suddenly become legitimate in the eyes of the community.
They are wrong.
It is not the lack of the name marriage that is offputting for many mainstream Australians.
It is the lifestyle itself that the majority of Australians find unusual, even those who are accepting of it, but not part of it.
When a man talks of his husband, people's attitudes will not change regardless of them being allowed to say that they are legally married. And it won't change whether those people find it abhorrent, or just mildly unusual, or totally acceptable, or anywhere between. The change of name will not change anybody's attitude.
Do they really think that that who are vehemently opposed will all of a sudden become accepting because now the government has said they can call it marriage?
And will it change the attitudes of those who are wholly for alternative lifestyles? Will they wake up the next day and feel that their relatioships are stronger JUST because now they can call it a marriage?
The alternative lifestyle people will find that not one thing in reality has changed if they win this vote.
Not anything legally, and not any attitudes.
Neither their own attitudes, nor their opponents attitudes, nor the indifferent attitudes will have changed.

Now then, to the arguments that people put forth to oppose this vote:

There are those who have tried to argue about children being the product of marriage, but they are rightly pointed to heterosexual couples who either by choice or medical issues do not have children. Are these not legitimate marriages then?
This is a legitimate counter.
Children do not make a marriage.

When I got married to my wife, we were immediately married - we did not have to wait the five years that it took for us to finally have children - our marriage was a complete marriage immediately we said "I do".
And when our children leave home, as the oldest will shortly do, we will not cease to be married.


Another argument that is often put is that it is unnatural.
That was thought to be true in the past, but the alternative lifestyle mobs have produced "evidence" that it is entirely natural.
Whether their evidence is legitimate is still up for debate - for instance dogs "mating" with dogs is not legitimate evidence, because a dog with a mind to, will mate with anything that moves, and some things that don't. A dog "mating" with a person's leg does not denote a natural behaviour of dogs wanting to mate with men - it denotes a natural behaviour of dogs to satisfy themselves wherever they see the opportunity.

But regardless of the veracity of this evidence, just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it acceptable for people to do.
Many creatures eat their young, but I do not know of ANY MAN of any persuasion who would suggest that such a thing is acceptable simply because we see it in nature.
(And no, I am not saying that alternative lifestylers are to be compared to such animals. It is the argument from nature that I am discussing.)
And some female creatures, after mating eat the male, but I do not see anyone suggesting that because we see it in nature it should be acceptable for men.

The argument that it is natural is not the same as arguing that something is right or wrong.
In nature we see what we would consider "right" actions, and we see what we consider "wrong" actions. The "right" actions are not more right because we see them in nature, and the "wrong" actions are not more  wrong because we see them in nature.
The point is, nature is not our standard for right or wrong, for if it was our society would be very different to what it is today, and in fact our society would be full of argument about what is the right model from nature to follow.
Do we follow the lion's model, where the men do nothing but get first dibs on the meals, and lunge around, while the women do all the work of providing?
Or do we follow the be model, where there is one ruling woman, a number of male bees whose sole role is to mate with the queen and the whole place is run by the females who do all the work?

Neither of these models would be considered fair and equitable for human society.

So nature is not, and never has been our standard.
Therefore, whether or not we see these alternative lifestyles in nature is irrelevant - Nature is not the model upon which our society is built.


In fact, there is only one argument that holds any true weight in this matter:
Mark 10:6-9
(6)  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7)  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8)  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9)  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God designed marriage.

I have looked, and found no real theories on how marriage "developed" from a secular point of view.

It is simply accepted that marriage started in the lost history of time, and it is common among all cultures.

The details of it vary of course, but the basics that a man and a woman leave their families and join together to start a new family is the universal basic.

And the Bible tells us that this was God's design from the time of creation.

The fact that marriage is universal indicates a common link somewhere in the so called "lost history" of the past. It is not lost: the Bible explains it clearly.

But the important part of this, is that God designed and instituted marriage.

As the designer and maker of marriage, God therefore has the authority and right to define what he has designed.

And God said that it was between a man and a woman, a male and female, a man and his wife.

Why am I voting against the redefinition of marriage in Australia?

Because, whilst it will not gain the supporters of the change anything legally, politically, or attitudinally, it denies God's right to define His institution of Marriage.

Unfortunately, I think this is the real agenda - the removal of God from our society.

Men have removed God from our schools.

Men are trying to remove God from our courts.

Men are trying to remove God from our parliament.

Men are trying to remove God from our holidays and celebrations.

Men are trying to remove every trace of God from our society.

This is yet another step on this path.

In Australia they have the "Safe schools" program, which ironically masquerades under the banner of "Anti-bullying", but which as is becoming more obvious all the time, is really just a platform to promote alternative lifestyles.

The irony of this, is that if anyone speaks out against the alternative lifestyles agenda that is Safe Schools promotes, they are BULLIED into submission and silence.

The biggest bullies, the most intolerant group, the most violently opposing group in Australia today, are the alternative lifestyles groups.

For proof, just see the kind of reaction this post gets, if it actually gets noticed and not deleted by some sort of big brother.

I would urge anyone who reads this, to read it carefully and point out clearly where I have said anything hateful.

Fact is, that I do not hate anyone of alternative lifestyles. I do not approve of their lifestyle, but it is not my right to dictate to them how they should live. That is their choice.

I DO know what the Bible says about it, but it is still their choice, as it is every man's choice to either accept the Bible or reject it, and on that basis to accept or reject the gift of salvation that Jesus made available to all men, if they would believe on His name and confess (to God) their sins.

Romans 10:9-10
(9)  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10)  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Bible says that ....all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

All - not just murderers and thieves, but all men. And that even includes me, although I have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and so my sins have been paid for.

But back to the point - I am voting against this change because it will not do anything positive for anyone, and because God has already defined marriage in His Word.

God made it - God defined it.

I will vote "No" and I would urge every God fearing, Bible believing Christian to also vote for God's definition of marriage, which the current Australian definition agrees with.

Worship????

There is a lot of talk about right now regarding worship.
Styles of worship and importance of worship, and how we should go about worship, and how important worship is for a church and for Christians.

Well the other day in my daily reading I came across Mark chapter 5 and I noticed something in that passage that had escaped me previously.

Mark 5:1-13
(1)  And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
(2)  And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
(3)  Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
(4)  Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
(5)  And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
(6)  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
(7)  And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
(8)  For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
(9)  And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
(10)  And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
(11)  Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
(12)  And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
(13)  And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Jesus and the Disciples had just cross the sea overnight with the storm and Jesus calming that storm, and they came to Gadarea. When they got out of the ship and walked onto the land, a man came running up to them. This man was possessed with devils.

But the interesting thing I find about this passage is that it says in vs 6;

(6)  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

When he saw Jesus he ran and worshipped him. Now I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran and worshipped the Lord, as I read it the other day I noticed  something about this account.
The "he" spoken of in vs 6 is the same "he"spoken of in vs 7 through to vs 10.

You see, I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran to Jesus for help, but it was not the man that confronted Jesus and worshipped Him, it was the devil in him.

The devil is the one talking, the devil is the one begging (I adjure thee...), the devil is the one WORSHIPPING the Lord.
Let's look at this a moment: the devil calls Jesus "...the son of the most high God..." recognising exactly who the Lord is, and ascribing that honour to the Lord.
The devil recognises also the authority of Jesus, when he "Adjures" Him, or begs Him - this devil certainly knows that Jesus has the authority and the power.

The thing about all of this is that these devils - there were many for their name was legion (A Roman legion by the way was normally 5000 men plus support staff, and they affected 2000 pigs when cast into the herd), these devils are said in vs 6 to have worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ.

In that, they ascribed to Him the proper attributes, the proper authority, the proper power, and His proper position.
They cried out loud about who He is and what He can do.
No-one standing there that day could have missed that these devils recognised Jesus as the son of the most high God, or that He was stronger in power, and of greater authority than these devils - that at least 2000 of them too.

The Bible clearly says that they "worshipped" Him.

Now back to our present day emphasis on worship and the importance of it in our churches.
It occurred to me that not only Christians can worship - if these devils can worship the Lord, then there is no inherent need for the one worshipping the Lord to actually love the Lord.
These devils did not love the Lord, but they did worship Him.

James 2:19
(19)  Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

There is no requirement of saving faith for worship to happen.

In fact there will be a load of people who think they are doing various things for the Lord who will find out one day that their service was in vain:

Matthew 7:20-24
(20)  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
(21)  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22)  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23)  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(24)  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Many will say to Him "Have we not done all these great things in your name?", but Jesus will say "I never knew you".

I wonder how many people are caught up in this current flow of "worship focussed" ministry who actually have never trusted Jesus Christ as their Saviour?

They think they are serving and honouring the Lord because they "Worship" the Lord, but these devils also worshipped the Lord.

No, worship does not make a person saved.

Romans 10:9-13
(9)  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10)  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11)  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(12)  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
(13)  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That is what makes a person saved - believing in thine heart and confessing (to God) that Jesus raised from the dead.

Those people who think they are honouring God by what is often called "good worship" (a subjective view anyway), may very possibly be wrong. You don't have to love the Lord to worship Him.

Also, recently I have been looking again at the Great Commission and strangely enough I don't find anywhere in the various statements of the Great Commission a call to worship the Lord in that work.

We are told to teach all nations, to baptise, and teach them what Jesus taught - but there is no mention of worshipping the Lord in those calls - it is SERVING HIM, in the way that He calls or commissions us to that He wants.

Should we forgive and restore, or just bash them to death?

It has on occasion been an issue that I have seen that someone wanders astray from the Lord, and then church discipline is invoked.

I, thankfully, have never had to deal with this matter directly in any church I have been in. The only people I have had to deal with have been those who are not members but trying to cause trouble or influence doctrine, and the Bible has a different way of dealing with them as it does with church members.

I have however been involved on occasion with the restoration of a wayward saint.

Let's look then at the relevant passages:

Matthew 18:15-17
(15)  Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
(16)  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
(17)  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

It is interesting that if there is an issue between two Christians, it should be resolved within the church. And also there is an order to this Bible directed way of dealing with a problem between Christians.

The first step is between the parties directly involved in the matter; but look at the end of the verse - the goal for this process is TO GAIN YOUR BROTHER, or to restore the fellowship between you.

The next step is to take two or three witnesses - this is still not public, but only dealt with by a close group of members of that church.

And note that there is no mention of what happens if he hears and the problem is resolved - it is implied in the passage that the result mentioned in vs 15 is also what is relevant here - to gain your brother.

Then, after these two procedures have been followed, the third step is to make it public WITHIN THE CHURCH - this is not a free for all public accusation and humiliation.

And the final result IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, is to consider him as a Heathen man.

The interesting thing about this is that we are not told to treat the person as persona non grata. We are to treat them as an unsaved man.

How do we treat an unsaved man?

Well, if we look at the way that some have been treated under what is sometimes claimed to be church discipline, then we would not talk to them, not acknowledge them in any way, not answer the phone if we know it is them, not walk down the same street at them, and not return a "hello" in the street if they say hello to us.

I just have to ask at this point..... Is that really how we treat unsaved men?

Of course it isn't. We are friendly and try to lead them to meet the Saviour.

This then is the real way that we should treat the person subject to these verses - in such a way that we might lead them to be restored to proper fellowship with the Lord and with us.

We DO NOT ACCEPT their sin. But then we don't accept the sin of an unsaved man either.

We do not join with their sin. But again, we do not with an unsaved man either.

The point of church discipline is not to punish but to restore. We want to bring this person back into proper fellowship with the Lord.

How does that happen if we won't even talk to them?

The kind of action that is often called "church discipline" only really serves to enhance bitterness in the person, and drive them further away from the Lord.

The first part of this process is designed to "Gain thy brother" not damage him or drive him away. The rest of it carries the same implied purpose.

There is another passage which is a bit wider in scope than just an issue between Christians: 

Galatians 6:1
(1)  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

This is talking about a Christian who falls into sin - I say fall, because that is the way we commonly refer to it, but in truth many times we don't fall, we jump into sin headfirst.

But if we see a brother who is in sin, we have a duty to try to help. 

I actually love this passage because it is very simple and very plain about the matter of a sinning brother.

First of all, it is up to "ye which are spiritual" to deal with the matter. If you are not spiritually mature and in good fellowship with the Lord, then you should not be applying for this job.

Secondly, the very next word tells the purpose of this "RESTORE".

The purpose is not to beat them into submission, nor is it to punish them for their wrongdoing. Sin always has a price and the Lord will make sure they pay their price - it is not our job to do that.

Our job in this is to RESTORE them - or to bring them back into fellowship with the Lord.

Thirdly, this is to be done in a spirit of meekness, not out of anger or pride or self righteousness, but in meekness.

And finally it is to be done "considering thine own self, lest thou also be tempted".

Really, this is meekness explained - it is keeping in mind that I also am less than perfect, and that I also could fall (or jump) into sin at any time.

So many times I have seen church discipline used as a weapon to beat up on someone. So many times I have seen someone "dealing with a sinning brother (or sister) with the intent to hurt or punish, not to restore. These people, by their very actions are showing that they are not spiritual, and their actions also display no meekness or humility that comes with understanding that I too am a sinner.

I have gotten into trouble at times for trying to restore a fallen christian. 

People who may or may not be involved have accused me of helping them to sin, or of encouraging them in their sin.

The reality of the matter is that I will not help any unrepentant sinning Christian. The first step in that case is to bring that person to repentance for their sin.

But when a person comes to our church in humility, and genuinely wants to get back on track for the Lord, I will do everything I can, and I will lead our church to everything we can, to help such a person get back into right fellowship with the Lord.

I am not told to deal with their sin - that is up to God. Once they come willing to "hear the matter", then my job, and the job of our church, and in fact the job of every Christian, is to restore them, not to beat them up.

I will never apologise for trying to restore a fallen Christian to right fellowship with God.

I will always try my best to help them see their sin and to deal with their sin in a godly fashion.

There may be people who lie to me about their heart and intent, but so far I have been pretty good at picking that up. I will no doubt make mistakes in this matter, but I do so KNOWING that I am trying to honour the Lord in this matter.

And I don't care about those who pass judgement on me for it.

I know what the Bible says about it.

I know what I have to do in these matters.

And I will ALWAYS try to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.

Final note: I am talking about restoring a Christian to fellowship with the Lord, not about him "getting saved again". The Bible is plain that eternal life is... well.... eternal - and that means you can neither lose it, have it taken away, or even give it back. The RELATIONSHIP of a saved man can never change, but the FELLOWSHIP of a saved man with God changes all the time.

Losing sight of the best whilst looking at the good.

Let me set out before anything else that our church sings hymns accompanied by piano and violin, and I am in now way endorsing the movement to "modern music" in churches simply for the sake of being "relevant".
I do think that there can be songs written in recent times that are absolutely acceptable for Godly worship. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but the "Olden days writers" did not have a monopoly on true spirituality. And of course there is a lot of rubbish which is passed off as "Christian worship music".

With that laid out at the start, I want to address something that I have noticed in recent times: a heavy focus on Church music, making sure it is "right", and warning at every point of the way that "bad music choices lead to forsaking right Doctrine".
I agree with the general premise of that, but I wonder if some of the problem is that people are making up complex and technical standards for "right music" which quite frankly just baffle the average person, and at the same time NOT warning these people to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God".

There are two basic issues that I see with this approach:

• With the complexity of the musical standards, there is no genuine way for the "layman" to check if the standard is biblical, so the argument basically falls to "You may not understand it but I have done the study so you should just trust me". Forgive me for this, but that is exactly why the Catholics wanted to keep the Bible in Latin all those years ago - so that the poor old regular man would have to trust the "experts". 

I for one believe that God has made His Word understandable for the average man, and if something like this is so complex that only a musical expert can understand it, then I seriously doubt it is biblical. It drives many to just say, "if it is so hard to understand, then I just won't even bother to try, and I will just listen to whatever I want". The "technical boundaries" that some put up are incomprehensible to many, and so they just give up on the whole matter. It is basically saying to these people that they are not smart enough to understand God's Word, so they just give up trying.

What you end up with are people who simply listen to whatever they want OR whatever they are told, but they don't bother to study the Word of God about it.

This argument is in fact teaching people to either accept whatever they are told by the "experts" or to ignore whatever they are told by the "experts" but NOT TO STUDY THE WORD OF GOD for themselves.

In my mind I think we should set out what we perceive as Biblical standards for any issue, but we should teach people to study for themselves.

• The second issue is that some appear to spend so much time warning about the "slippery slope" effect etc, that they forget to teach strong doctrine, and they forget to warn others about having strong doctrine. It is sort like they are yelling so loud about "Right music" that nobody notices the wolves sneaking quietly in while everyone is distracted by the "Music issue".

I think it is entirely possible for a church to accept much of this music AND STILL retain a strong doctrinal position. I think it is incredibly difficult, and most probably very unlikely, but I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it states plainly that right music leads to right doctrine and wrong music leads to wrong doctrine. 

I DO think we see it happen often, but I wonder if it is partly because the warnings are about wrong music, and while everyone is concentrating on the music the false teachers sneak the bad doctrine in the side door.

Don't ignore the warnings, and the encouragement on doctrine. Doctrines are after all fairly well defined in the Bible.

I have been studying through the seven churches of Revelation lately, and I don't recall any warnings about music to any of these seven churches,but almost all of them are warned on doctrine in some way, or encouraged to stay strong on doctrine.

If music was itself inherently important in such matters, then I would expect it make the list of warnings to these seven churches.

There absolutely is instruction on music - I am not a denier. I just wonder if ALONG WITH the warnings about right music, we ought to also be making AT LEAST as much noise warning these people to jealously guard their doctrine while they consider their music.

I think  maybe some are putting too much emphasis on the wrong focus point.

Blackmailing Missionaries for the percieved faults of their sending church?

(I wrote this some months ago, and never posted it because I felt I maybe overstepped the mark a little, but I have recently heard of another missionary who has been affected by this phenomenon, and so I am posting it now.)

Missionaries: how dare you treat them like that!

An exclamation mark, not a question mark.

I don’t want you to answer – I want you to feel rebuked.

For many Pastors and churches out there you will not feel any sting in what I have to say, for you are not the cause of my anger. Unfortunately those who should feel the sting will most likely put my name in their box marked “Do not touch with a barge pole”.

Yes, I am angry, and unfortunately while I think my anger is justified, I don’t feel my anger is in line with the Paul’s words in:

Eph_4:26  Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

I am angry you see, and whilst it is justified in my mind, I am sure that my anger also has some sin in it. I will try to keep that sin away from this article, but what I have to say, I must say.

Missionaries are the ones who are actively living out the great commission in their daily lives. Yes, Pastors should be too. In fact every Christian should. Most of us don’t, at least not as well as we should, and I am sure there are some missionaries that also do not work for the Lord as well as they should.

But most missionaries have put everything on the line and given up their comfy lives back at home to take the Gospel to lost souls who need to know that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them, so that they might have a way of salvation.

Many of them rely on the financial support that is promised from “home churches”, but they would rather not have to go begging for that support, and in fact, most of them would rather not have to even care about it. But it is necessary. To live in this life costs money.

I can honestly say that I do not remember having a missionary ask me anything about how much we could support them or how much we would give them as a gift if they came to speak for us. The ones I know would be embarrassed if they heard of a missionary doing so.

But we all know these things. What has any of this got to do with me being angry?

Because I have spoken to several missionaries of late who have been threatened by churches. Yes, threatened by churches and Pastors.

And it has been associated not with doctrinal matters to do with the missionary themselves, but with matters to do with their sending churches.

And to make it worse, these “Matters” are not doctrinal matters at all.

But the final straw is that in neither case of my personal experience, nor of those that I have been told about, has the matter had anything to do with the missionary themselves. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the “matters” have not been discussed with the sending church in any way, but simply accused and passed around.

Now don’t misunderstand me about this – I am not saying the “matters” are unimportant, or that they should not be discussed. But this is NOT doctrine we are talking about, and it is NOT THE MISSIONARY we are talking about.

Make no mistake, if there is a serious doctrinal issue with a sending church then no good missionary would continue involvement with that church, and would of course find another sending church.

But what we are talking about is not doctrinal – it is stylistic and it is preference. And I will also say that in certain cases it is not a style that I would care to follow. But it is NOT DOCTRINAL matters that are at issue. And we are independent – let these guys answer to God for their choices, and get on with your own choices.

I know now of several missionaries from different sending churches – good, strong, faithful, doctrinal, missionaries, who have been threatened with removed support unless they separate from their sending church.

Whoever you are – and I don’t know because the missionaries are far too gracious to tell tales about you – you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

How dare you attempt to blackmail a servant of the Lord into complying with your preferences?

Do you honestly think these men are your hirelings?

Joh 10:12  But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

Joh 10:13  The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

That is not an apt description of any missionary I know.

These men (and their wives and families) care about the flock that God has given them the oversight of.

But you think that because someone else has offended your preferences, that you have the right to control these servants of the Lord.

How dare you treat a man who is surrendered to the service of the living God, whose life goal is to see souls saved for the glory of the Lord, as though he were a hireling to be bought and sold, to be commanded and controlled?

You already know that they will not be so, for they have refused to heed your calls of extortion, and have sacrificed the monetary support of such as you, for the integrity of faithfulness and serving the Lord.

If you have a beef with a supporting church, then be man enough to contact the Pastor directly and talk it out with him.

How about this for some direction on the matter?

Gal 6:1  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Be spiritual and go to him – if you have a strong BIBLICAL argument then you may have a chance to bring that man back on the right track.

But how dare you try to punish a Pastor who disagrees with your preferences by attacking a missionary who most likely does not even follow the preference of his sending church – if indeed there is anything wrong with that church.

One final reminder – I am not talking about Doctrinal issues, but matters of preference, method, and style.

I am probably amongst the more conservative among us in fact – not right at the outside edge, but I certainly lean heavily that way. I have heard certain things about certain churches, but they are nowhere near me, and they do not directly affect me, and they are NOT DOCTRINAL issues, so I leave them to themselves. If they were to ask me, I would advise them to tread carefully on the path they seem to be going, for I see danger nearby. But they haven’t asked me (probably because I am pretty much a nobody), and in any case they will have to answer to the Lord for their choice, not me.

Heb_13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Leave the missionaries alone to serve the Lord. If a missionary falls into Doctrinal error, then revise his support by all means. None of us wants to be paying for a man to lead the lost into a ditch. But if you have an issue with his sending church, then take it up with that church: don’t you dare threaten the missionary.

It is probably a misapplication of the Scripture, but I can’t help thinking of:

2Ki 2:23  And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24  And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

These kids were torn to pieces because they made fun of the man of God: I wonder what sort of punishment awaits the man who blackmails and threatens a man of God?

And you will note that I have not mentioned any names at all. This is partly because the missionaries would not divulge those names (not that I asked), and I do not care to divulge the names of sending churches involved either. I can’t see that naming names like that is any way to restore such an one in a spirit of meekness.

But then again, I am well aware that this has not been very meek either. At least I have not set out to personally embarrass or attack anyone. If you feel attacked or embarrassed, maybe you should ask yourself why? I haven’t mentioned any names at all. 

And to end, I in no way endorse any church that might be straying from the "traditional ways" of Independent Baptist Churches - I am just angry at those who would punish an innocent missionary for the faults (real or perceived) of their sending church.

Meetings with church people.....

I have recently been reminded of some experiences that my wife and I have had over the years when meeting with church people.

It is a funny thing (not funny ha ha, but funny strange!) that people seem to think that they can talk to a pastor however they like, and even more out of place is that they think they can talk to his wife about issues they are having with him.
Can I point out that in a godly church, the wife is not on staff - she is simply a lady who loves the Lord and supports her husband.
A Pastor's wife ends up doing all sorts of things that people expect "from a Pastor's Wife" but it is not actually her job.
I probably need to have a post here on Pastor's wives that discuss these things more fully, but for now, just know that a Pastor's wife does what she does because she loves the Lord and loves her husband, not because she is paid staff. Leave her alone, and if you have an issue with the way her husband is Pastoring, then TALK TO HIM about it.

Anyway, back to the actual issue.
I have had a few times when I have been approached by a member of our church wanting to have a fairly heavy discussion about something with me and my wife(!), and so we have made an appointment and set up the meeting. In two cases it has actually been about my leadership ability and style, and so I have no idea why they wanted my wife there as well - she hates these sorts of things, and will do just about anything to avoid them.
The funniest part of all this to me is that I have to brief and remind my wife to stay calm and to be meek no matter what is said, because she hates - absolutely hates it - when I am criticised. It takes all her strength to sit quietly while the discussion proceeds.

I have found that in these situations there is one verse that is absolutely vital to keep in mind:

Proverbs 15:1
(1)  A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

It is amazing how well a meeting goes if you determine beforehand not to react to accusations and not to make ANY counter-accusations.

It simply takes the wind entirely out of the sails of the "assailant" (because that is what the person feels like when you are sitting there!)

Can I tell you a phrase that needs to be memorised and repeated by anyone who is likely to find themselves in this situation?

Repeat after me: 

Thank-you for your information. I will think on it and see how I can improve in that area.

Saying something like that even in response to outlandish accusations causes the accuser to pause and think about what is going on here.

You see, most of the time they expect that they are going to have a fight on their hands, and they actually WANT you to react quickly and harshly to their accusations - most of the time they even phrase their questions and accusations in the worst way to exaggerate their grievance.
They want a fight, but if you don't give them that, but instead take on board their criticism and let them know you will consider it, they simply don't know where to go and what to do.

We had one particular meeting where my wife and I both had notebooks in front of us at the table.
This meeting was organised at a neutral location and with a moderator there to step in if things got nasty - it really was that intense.
When our accuser came in and sat at the table she asked us "What are the notebooks for? Are you going to write down everything I say to keep it as ammunition?" I answered, "No, we are going to write down the things that you think we need to change or that you think we are not doing well so that we can look at them alter and consider them properly, and so we don't forget something that we need to look at."
She was shocked, and it immediately put her down a notch.
It still wasn't a nice meeting, but it had lost the aggressive edge.
There were times during that meeting when the pressure cooker in my head was close to blowing but we both managed to keep it inside and not let of the steam during the meeting.

The car ride home was another matter - full of steam and also a bit of laughter at some of the ridiculous charges that were brought.
The accuser left our church soon after, but in my experience these people are looking for a reason to leave anyway, and having a big fight with the Pastor and his wife is a great excuse to leave a church - then you can go around and tell everybody that they yelled at you and how uncharitable they were. (Just conveniently forget to mention that you badgered them until they exploded!)
This person however could not do that because it didn't happen - they ended up leaving with the excuse that "I have outgrown this church and need to find somewhere where I can grow."
Oh yeah, and the person who was moderator for this meeting gained a whole new level of respect for us, and the relationship between him and me was vastly improved because of this meeting.

The thing is, to say that you will consider the accusation should not be just words.
I have found that people rarely just make up outright lies about others. People will definitely blow something right out of proportion and the saying  "to make a mountain out of a molehill" survives for exactly that reason, but it is rare that an accusation has absolutely no foundation. Sometimes that foundation is irrelevant, and sometimes it is minuscule, but it is rare that there is nothing at all there.

So genuinely consider every accusation made against you. Most of them will be small things, some of them will be silly things, and sometimes you will find something that really does need attention, and possibly even more than that person even realised.
And of course every now and then there will be not even the smallest grain of truth in it.

For an extreme example, an accusation of immorality might be entirely untrue, but it might reveal to you that you are allowing situations where the accusation can be made, and you then change that habit to a "safer" one where even the possibility of accusation cannot happen.

But always keep in mind with things like this that the problem in most cases is not actually with the Pastor, nor with his wife, but it is with the person making the accusations. Most of the time they want to leave the church for some reason, but they don't want anyone to know that reason, so they have to find some sort of "cover reason" so that no one knows it is their own heart that is the problem.
And someone in leadership - the Pastor, the youth Pastor, the Sunday School leader - it doesn't actually matter who - becomes the target. They start compiling a list of troubles and faults, and then they talk to others about that list, and they get more worked up about it, until they "Just have to do something about it".

Why don't they do the godly thing and go to that person in private without talking to others first. Then if they won't listen to that one on one, find a spiritually mature person and ask them to come along for another talk. Then...... well the Bible tells us the rest of that situation, but in my experience these people would never get past the second part without the "spiritually mature" witness dealing with it in a godly fashion.

Now don't get me wrong here - it is not always the accuser who is wrong - Pastors make mistakes and sin as well, but that is why we always need to listen to criticism, even that which we feel is unjustified. It may just reveal something that we do need to address.

But I think we all know the kind of accuser I am talking about.

Missionaries II

Well, I have now asked and heard back from many of our missionaries, and also had the opportunity to talk a few people who have been associated with missions work in the past.

And I have to report that every one of the missionaries that our church financially supports, and the others that I have spoken to, are singing the same tune: They hear very little from a very few people on a regular basis.

In fact most of them said that they have not one person who keeps in regular touch with them, and the only one who said otherwise, has one single pastor who has been keeping in touch on a fairly regular basis, but that has only been the last year or so - this missionary has been on that field for around 25 years.
And the biggest tragedy of that is that this includes even the sending church and the Pastor who is their authority.
One mentioned that he knew of another missionary who basically never heard from his sending church Pastor, and that Sending Pastor simply had no idea what the missionary was doing in the field, and how the support was being used nor even whether or not the missionary was actually serving the Lord.

I have not had the privilege of sending a missionary to the field - I hope to one day - but I would like to think that I would care for at least "our own" missionary enough to keep in touch and keep him encouraged. But that is probably a bit like the person who said that they knew all about being a parent until they had kids......

What this shows me is that there is even more need and even more importance to keeping in touch with our missionaries regularly. We simply don't know how many and how often people are keeping in touch with them, and one thing we should all realise is that out there on the forefront of the battle, away from family and friends, these soldiers need to know that they have people "back at home" who really do care for them - and care enough to give them a call on occasion, to send them emails, even to send letters the old fashioned way.

As I read response after response, my heart was breaking with pain for these hardworking servants who never murmur about all of this, and my heart was filling with shame at my own lack of care and my own selfishness.

But I need to acknowledge one thing - I am likely to slip in this at times. I actually wrote back and told the missionaries to give me a kick if I start to get slack. Or maybe that should be when I start to get slack - I know me. Please pray for me on this.

But also I need to ask anyone reading this to get in touch with your own missionaries.
I cannot believe that the missionaries that we support are the ONLY ones who are experiencing this. Sorry folks, just not possible.

So get in touch with your missionaries, and let them know what is going on in your church and your life, and ask them how you can pray for them, and say hi, and chat a while...........

And I think that we need to start calling them "My Missionary".
We know they are God's missionaries, but when I think of my kids I think differently to the way I think of other kids.
Maybe if we start to call them "My Missionary" we might start to think of them as "My missionary", and then we might just care for them more.

Am I rambling about this? I feel like I am, but this is my thoughts blog and if it wasn't already obvious, these last two posts and what they relate to in my life just prove that I have named it right - these are the thoughts of a dumb bloke.......