So Dear Paul Letters Are Not New?

February 5th, 2010

A PINK SLIP FOR AN APOSTLE

by Rick Moeller

Missionary to South Africa and Scotland[Note: every missionary who has served for very long has been “fired” by one or more churches; sometimes, it is an economics-driven “layoff,” and every missionary is sympathetic to churches suffering due to the state of the economy beyond their control; but far too often, the reasons given--if any are given at all (some very unethical pastors drop support and never notify the missionary)--for terminating regular support to a missionary are patently absurd or blatantly disingenuous.  When we read Bro. Moeller’s satirical letter--of course containing caricature--illustrating this situation, it struck a cord with us and we wrote for permission to reproduce it here; we think it will prove thought-provoking to our readers.--Editor]

From: Rev. Alexander Demas

New Ekklesia Church, Thessalonica

To: Missionary Saul Paulus (The Apostle Paul)

C/c: Church at Antioch

Dear Brother Paul,

 Greetings, from your former disciple, Alexander Demas.  You will be excited and encouraged to hear that I have recently been called as pastor of the church at Thessalonica that has faithfully supported your ministry for many years.  Our church has recently heard of your health issues and your incarceration in Rome. Please know that we have been faithfully praying for you.  (I have especially been concerned for you, because I still fondly remember the short time that we served together in missions work before the Lord led me elsewhere).

 New Ekklesia Church is so grateful for your years of service to our Lord.  I know that you have had many long time friends in our church.  (Unfortunately, many of these friends have recently left our church for various reasons.)

 Since becoming pastor of this church, I have done my best to attempt to reorganize the church in such a way that it can function more effectively and efficiently.  One of the first things that I have done is to establish a Missions Committee in our church that I encouraged to make a detailed study concerning current Missions techniques and practices and how we can most effectively reach this modern world for Christ.

 After this intense study, our Committee concluded that we need to concentrate on certain specific areas of world Missions outreach at our church.  Our greatest desire is to find the neediest people of this world so that we can concentrate on taking the Gospel to them through modern business principles and current technology.  Missions scholars and our own meticulous research have made it clear to us who these persons are and how we can best reach them.  Of course, we know that souls need to be saved around the world, but we have come to the conclusion that New Ekklesia Church must concentrate upon the area of the “20-25 Window” for our Missions outreach.

 We have further concluded that in our modern world, it will be best to concentrate on supporting short term projects, rather than lifelong ministries since short term projects yield the most visible results in the shortest possible time period.  The Missions experts that we consulted have confirmed that this will be the best way to reach the world in our generation.

 We also feel that such short term projects are the most efficient way to get the members of New Ekklesia Church to be involved consistently in giving to Missions since they will be continually excited by the ever changing Missions opportunities that are presented to them.  We will support condensed, pithy Missions projects, not time-consuming, long term investments.

 Brother Paul, please know that we love you with all of our hearts.  (This is especially the case with me, because of our past history since you were such an incredible blessing on my life; I know you feel the same way toward me).  So, you can imagine how difficult it is for me to inform you that, after compiling our report, our Missions Committee has come to the conclusion that we can no longer financially support your ministry.  I know that this is a great disappointment to you and I apologize for that, but we know that you have many other supporters who can stand in the gap for you.

 Let me outline some of the factors that have led us to this difficult decision:

 1. YOUR AGE — Our Committee is afraid that because of your advanced age, you are no longer able to identify with the current generation.  You have had a significant ministry, especially when you served in Asia Minor, but we, as a Committee, do not believe that you will be able to make the difficult transition necessary to minister in Europe.  We feel that you are too tied to Oriental culture and so, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for you to adapt to ministry in Europe.

 Our research has led us to believe that the greatest hope for world outreach is to use young missionaries who can identify with the current generation.  You have had your chance, now it is time for us to go in a “different direction” with our financial support, and give someone younger a chance. I know that you, who have discipled so many young preachers yourself (myself included), will surely understand our decision.

 2. YOUR HEALTH — Our Committee is so thankful for your many sacrifices, but as a result, you have had too many life threatening situations which have caused too much wear and tear upon your body. To be completely honest, in your current health situation, we on the Missions Committee, feel that you would not be a good investment of our Missions denarii because your health will prohibit you from expending the energy that is necessary to do the ministries that our church envisions.  Again, we are thankful for your sacrifices, we know that the Lord will honor them, but we must think about the future of our Missions program.  There are so many projects that we desire to accomplish in the harvest fields of the world and this will require healthy bodies.  We cannot waste our hard earned denarii!  We know that you will understand and that the Lord will surely continue to provide for you from other sources.  (Besides, I am sure that you have an adequate retirement plan in place).

 3. YOUR FIELD  — You have left a fruitful ministry in Asia Minor, especially in Ephesus, where you proactively influenced a whole culture.  Our Committee does not feel that this move to Europe can possibly bear the same results.  Your talents were perfectly matched to the Asian mission field.  We believe that you will be a “duck out of water” in Europe. Now, we have learned of your incarceration in Rome.  This development will definitely further reduce your effectiveness.  How will you ever be able to have an effective ministry while being chained to those licentious Roman soldiers?  We are sorry for your situation, but we must think about getting the most “bang for our denarii“.  A missionary whose freedom of movement has been so curtailed just cannot get the job done that we have envisioned.  We feel that we would not be good stewards of God’s money if we continued to pour our resources into your ministry, since you are now incapable of free movement.

 New Ekklesia Church agreed to support you in Asia Minor, but since you chose to change your field of service to Europe, our contract with you can legitimately be cancelled.  This is not a judgment upon you or your future ministry.  We will continue to pray for you and for your release, but we must move on to fields that we think are more deserving of the Gospel than Rome.  (Please do not take this personally; we have had to take the same step with other missionaries who left a very successful ministry in Samaria to move on to Ethiopia).  After our research we have determined at New Ekklesia Church that our target field must be Asia.  So we are concentrating on Asian ministry, not European or African ministry).

 4. YOUR STATUS — Our Committee also believes that you have probably been out in field service too long.  Many of the people of our church no longer even know you or your ministry.  It has been such a long time since you last visited us. We just cannot pump our people up for Missions without regular personal contact.  So, we feel we must concentrate our efforts on new missionaries and partner with them to reach our targeted fields. We even plan to send teams from our church out to instruct these new missionaries in what our research has indicated is the best way to reach these targeted people for Christ.  I am sure that with your vast Missions background you can understand, accept, and appreciate this fact.

 5. YOUR CONTACT — Our Committee must also point out that you have been inconsistent with your reports from the field lately.  We realize that you have been in some awkward situations, but it is still absolutely essential that we receive regular reports from you in order to keep Missions before our people.  This is a very vital way for us to know whether our investment in your project is consistently bearing fruit.  Regular “prayer letters” are a “must” and their neglect for any reason whatsoever must result in missionary termination.  I might also say, as a word to the wise, that when we do receive your letters, they are good, but our Committee feels that they are much too long and wordy.  We feel that the best letters are those that are short and pithy; our people will never read them otherwise.  Furthermore, our people need to hear of exciting results from their missionaries, not to be preached to!!  You can see where I am coming from, I am sure.

 I hope that we can part ways as friends. Your termination is only a business decision that is in the best interests of our church; it is NOT personal.  We still love you in the Lord and will continue to be praying for you.  We do love you, my brother!  You are still important to us.  We apologize to you that we could not speak with you about this in person, but you understand that, due to your situation in Rome, this was impossible.  Also, our exciting and growing church does not have anyone that we can spare, at this moment, to come and visit you in your Roman prison.  When you are released, if you get back to Thessalonica, I would be happy to meet you over a cup of coffee.

 May the Lord continue to bless you, as He is blessing us.

 Yours in Christ’s service,

 Rev. Alexander Demas

New Ekklesia Church, Thessalonica

—

 I wonder how the Apostle would have felt if he had received such a dismissal. Perhaps he would have remembered this occasion when he sadly looked around his dark, damp cell in the cold Mamertine prison in Rome and wrote, ” .  .  . Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica . . .” (2 Timothy 4:10).

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Is compromise justifiable just because its a foreign field?

January 22nd, 2010

Why is compromise acceptable in the foreign field? What a loaded question. Is compromise right or is it wrong? Or maybe its subjective? The simple answer is that compromise is wrong, period. Compromise is also not subjective although some practice it as though it were. In my dealing with U.S. Independent Fundamental Baptist ministries and churches I have run into many situations where that compromise does indeed exist. In order to understand why compromise is wrong abroad one has to understand (or remember) why we believe what we believe as well as remember what it took to get us where we are as Independent Fundamental Baptists. The Independent Fundamental Baptists in this country and abroad paid a great price and suffered and actually continue to suffer for the Biblical position we have chosen to practice. While we do not trace our roots physically we can trace or roots in practice. Throughout the years we chose to do it Biblically which interpreted means doing it right. Could it have been easier? Yes. Would it have been right? Absolutely not.  I as well as many missionaries could have had it easier having a convention mission organization get us to the field without the labors of deputation. Many pastors could have walked into a fully funded work. All it would have required is that we disobey God’s Word as well as forsake the convictions that we hold dear. Its as simple as that.

We have chosen to do right rather than to compromise. In the U.S. we do not tolerate compromise in our circles and usually do not fellowship with those who do. Why? Because it would be wrong. We tell people that we understand that it may be difficult to do it the right way, but that should not affect our decisions. We will call people evangelicals and other names to differentiate them from us. That is until we deal with the foreign field. You see, we have many U.S. ministries, mission projects, missionaries, foreign nationals, etc. which we support who practice the very compromise that our predecessors rejected. We will use the excuse that “its different over there”. Or perhaps “we have to do it that way due to their government”. But wasn’t it once different over here? Didn’t some of the early fundamentalists have to work in spite of the government? Will we not again? Or will be use the excuse of compromise?

Okay so now comes the question. Why am I writing this? It is to warn sound Independent Fundamental churches that they are going against all we believe in and for the sake of good pictures, titillating prayer letters, and possible misguided intentions funding works that should not be funded. They will do this rather than seek out those that are willing to pay the price that our predecessors paid. Will they have as large ministries as the others? The answer is probably not. Will they run 12 buses and have hundreds of so-called converts every month? Again the answer is no. We are caught in the bang for the buck mentality. A good example of our misguided emotion driven zeal is obvious at Mission Conferences. It has oftentimes been reduced to presentations about shrunken heads and swollen bellies with reports of innumerable converts converted by the great white hope with lots of money.

So what’s wrong with that? The answer is everything. It’s about genuinely preaching God’s Word. It’s about genuinely doing things God’s way. It’s about trying to genuinely duplicate God’s plan for the local church. So the question remains. Do we continue to fund things that look good or do we start supporting things that are good? Now we are back to the subjective you might say. But are we really? Is doing God’s work God’s way subjective now? If so we are in far greater trouble than we can imagine.

What’s the crux? We need to be as faithful in reaching people God’s way with God’s Word no matter what else changes in this world. Forget about the impressive stories and focus on winning souls and teaching them the way God would have it done. If compromise is wrong here then it wrong there no matter where there is. I know that some will be offended as their toes may have been stepped on, but that’s okay. God never told us to hold back on His truth so as to not offend. My intention is not to offend intentionally. Regrettably some will be offended just the same. We have invested much erroneously in the same of “big results” rather than in the name of “obedience”. So next time someone tells you to get involved in a ministry that “does it different and has to compromise” make sure to remember that compromise is a choice. Compromising may make things less painful for them, but its also sin. Lets be sure to invest in solid investments and not in flashy entertaining ones. Ease of work should not be the determining factor of what we tolerate. If they are not willing to take a stand for right wherever they work then just what are they doing for God?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Missions | 2 Comments »

Is the mission field not far enough away?

June 20th, 2009

 

                 This is a question we must ask ourselves. Is the mission field not far enough away? Could you imagine telling someone that you turned down a very good paying job because it was too close to home? Or would you not go to a grocery store because it was too near to your home? Or would you reject a church solely because it was not far enough away? These questions would, or rather should seem ridiculous. But in our day that is in essence what we say about stateside missions. We are living in a very unique period in time. We may be seeing God giving us here in America a unique opportunity for the last great harvest of souls. What we have happening is that God is sending the mission field to America. Never before have we seen such an influx of foreigners in both numbers and variety. Now it is sad enough that many churches do not feel “led” to help plant churches in America for “Americans”. That is a travesty in itself. Some pastors feel that “bless God if he wants to plant a church then he should just get a job and support himself”. Yet the same pastor would not consider getting a secular job to help support himself as he needs the time to be able to minister. He knows the time required for the ministry. Many pastors walked into a church with a salary, albeit low, and had the flexibility to minister. But the local home church planting story is a sad one all by itself. But we are now experiencing a new travesty. Souls are coming to America by the millions. It is estimated that there are around 20 million Mexican nationals in America. Let alone the millions of other Spanish speaking immigrants, European immigrants, Asian immigrants, Mid-Eastern immigrants, and many more.
                 These are the very people we are sending missionaries to reach in other countries. These immigrants seem to be the victims of bad timing. Had they been in their native country they would have been the object of video presentations, prayer cards, countless millions of dollars of missions money spent to reach them, and most important lives dedicated to reach them. But due to “bad timing” they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. You see, they are not far enough away. A pastor once said that one reason they wanted to support “foreign” missionaries is because his people enjoyed getting prayer letters from far away places. But is the issue a far away place or a far away people? They are all the same. It is not a matter of the geographical location of the man, woman, or child but the spiritual condition of the man, woman, or child.
                 These immigrants oftentimes do not speak the English language and must be reached by those who do speak their language. Some will say “bless God they are in America let them learn English”. That’s all well and fine in the aspect of assimilating into a culture, but is our first focus to make them Americans or to help them become Christians? When working with foreigners the topic of their legality often comes into play. The problem of illegal immigration is a legitimate issue. But so is the topic of any illegality. Any illegal activity is wrong. In my experience I have made a point to lead them to Christ first then teach them what God says about living an honest Christian life. It is hard to tell someone to live like a believer when they are not a believer. But let me pose the following question. When and if you witness to strangers do you do a background check first? I mean after all they may be a child molester, maybe a thief, perhaps even someone who just fudges a bit on their taxes. I would think we would want to win drunks, thieves, fornicators, etc. to Christ. After all God tells us in His Word that we ourselves were those.

I Cor. 6: 9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

I think that we oftentimes forget from where God saved us. Some will say that “I never did those things”. Well the truth is you were still a sinner destined for hell. So will we now make comparisons as to who is worthy to hear the Gospel based on our view of severity of levels of sin? The Great Commission did not make a caveat to who we should reach. We are commanded to go and reach everyone we can.

 

Mt 22:9  Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

 

The verse did say “as many as ye shall find” did it not?

 

Mt 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

It also said to reach all nations. So is a nation a people or a place? Is there a limitation?

 

Ac 1:8  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

            We oftentimes hear the previous verse used to justify where we will send people. We often hear differing descriptions of what our Jerusalems, Judaeas, Samarias, and uttermost parts of the earth are. I have heard of pastors telling missionaries seeking support that they cannot have them in because they already have one missionary in that country. That was a country with tens if not hundreds of millions of inhabitants. So is one enough? Well then lets carry this thought over to the home and foreign mission field in America? How many are enough? We already know that we do not have enough fundamentally sound churches in America for “English” speaking people and we know that in many cases we do not feel a need to financially support those endeavors. Sadly this is also the case for reaching the foreign mission field that has come to us.

            We are now guilty of following the letter of the law versus the Spirit of the law. I chose to capitalize the word spirit in the previous use intentionally as we are not only dealing with the spirit of the law, but also with the Holy Spirit of the law. Or rather that Spirit that gave us the law to begin with. Historically we sent missionaries to reach foreigners in far away lands. We established Missions policies to reflect that. As a matter of fact many churches will not support a missionary unless he is ministering in a foreign field because of the policy. But the ground rules have changed. God has chosen, by His grace, to bring the mission field here to us. The problem lies in that God is not playing by the rules that we established. He has set before us a people that need to be reached and in many cases cannot be reached except by those who can speak their language and understand their culture. If you have not noticed they have also brought their language and culture to America. Just take a look for example at Hispanic immigrants. Wal-Mart now has bi-lingual signs throughout the stores. Many businesses are now seeking bi-lingual employees to meet the need, they are not sitting on their hands saying “bless God let them learn English”. Though their goal is different than ours they are being more productive in reaching foreigners in America than we are. For that matter the cults are doing a much better job in reaching the incoming mission field.

            We must ask ourselves a question. Do we reach the foreign field or not? Do we condemn a soul only because he came to the country from which a missionary was sent from to reach him?
Did he leave his country too soon and is no longer worthy to hear the Gospel? Will we be slaves to the letter of the law or will we be servants to the Spirit of the law? I can say without any hesitation that God would have us to reach the mission field wherever that may be. Whether they be Americans in America or whether they be foreigners in foreign lands or on American soil all of them are the mission field. God never said that a soul’s need for salvation was limited by international borders. The mission field is closer than you think. Hopefully it is not a case that it is not far enough away for you. The mission field is a people not a place. The mission field is here.

Posted in General, Ministry, Missions, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Women Missionaries – Are they Biblical?

February 23rd, 2009

 

Women Missionaries

This may be one of the most controversial topics one can take on. It is not controversial because it is defendable Biblically, but because we have created new doctrine in order to provide for feminism in the local church. Before we delve into why it is wrong we must first establish what a missionary is. Once we do then the issue of women missionaries takes care of itself. I will leave the full issue of feminism in the church for another post. First we must realize that we do not have the word “missionary” in the Bible although we accept that Paul as well as others took what we now call missionary journeys. We can also accept the fact that Paul while being an apostle was a missionary.

We find in Acts 13:1 the beginning of Paul’s first missionary journey. In verse 5 of the same chapter we are told just what these missionaries did  “And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister”. This leads to the first issue. If a missionary is a preacher is a woman to preach to men? We will solely rely on the Bible for the answer. 1Ti 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Now does this mean she cannot witness? Of course she can, but keeping in mind her testimony and avoiding any improper appearance in regards to being alone with that man as we are to avoid any appearance of evil, but back to preaching .The Bible was quite clear so we see already that in the context of the first missionaries a woman could not be one in the truest sense of the word. Now without pulling up every passage we know that Paul also planted churches. Now to plant a church one must start it serving as a pastor and eventually Paul would pass the work on to another man. So let us look at the qualifications of the missionary/pastor. 

I Tim. 3 says:

Vs. 1 “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work”. The first key is that he is a “he”.

Vs. 2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,” Here is our next tip off or rather confirmation as “he” is a husband. “vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” again this brings us back to I Tim. 2:12 in regards to a woman teacher. 

Vss. 3-4  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Here is another key “one that ruleth his own house”. As is the case the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible and we read regarding ruling the house that it requires that it be the man. Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. This should be clear enough.

Vss. 5-7 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. The previous verse should be self explanatory as it refers to “his” house.

 

This is proof positive that the missionary can only be a man as he is to preach as well as pastor. For the sake of brevity these examples should suffice in establishing that a missionary is basically a pastor who is planting a church. Whether this is in a home or foreign field is of no consequence as all the world is a mission field.

 

Having established the definition of the missionary as well as his responsibility why is it then that we try to justify having women missionaries? Obviously as we mentioned already one reason is feminism in the church. Feminism has stomped into the church and has demanded equality in the church when in fact it is not an issue of equality, but of God’s order and that cannot be altered, at least not if one wishes to remain Biblical. We can see good and well that there is no such thing as a woman missionary in the literal sense. But what of women missionaries in history? These women were obviously out of God’s will as they clearly violated Scripture. Just because it is being done or even if it has shown fruit does not make it right.

In our fundamental circles we are seeing women in missions evolve into “teams” where the husband and wife are co-missionaries. I have heard of women that go to the mission field and put their children in Christian School so they can tend to “their” ministry when in fact they are forsaking “their” ministry which is “their family”. Being a keeper at home doesn’t change because your husband was called to the ministry. There are endless numbers of missionaries fighting daily to raise support to fulfill a Biblical ministry when mission’s money is already consumed by women who are establishing un-Biblical works. We have young ladies going off to Bible Colleges to train for their mission ministries in order to be able to teach the women and children. Needless to say this is also something that I disagree with in the local church as well. So why then did Paul teach the men, women, and children? He did not have a lady teacher to teach the ladies. He did not have to give special classes for special classes of people. So why do we? Obviously because we have created a new doctrine in order to accommodate the desires of people rather than the will of God.

In our self induced condemnation of following the footsteps of the ecumenical movement we should only be a few years away from women pastors. Who knows perhaps we will digress to homosexual pastors as well at this rate and based on the pattern we are following. Am I being a chauvinist? No actually a Biblicist. If this article offends then I would suggest searching the Scriptures and justify what you do based solely on God’s Word as well as Biblically correct examples found in the same Bible.

So what is the bottom line? A woman cannot be a missionary in the truest sense of the word. We need to get back to basics and forsake ministries modeled after the ecumenical movement. We can choose to be progressive to the world and fulfill our lusts or choose to obey God and receive His blessing. What then do we do with all these women in the ministry? Send them back to the home where they were made to minister. Let them minister as only they can to the family. Their mission field is “their” family.

Posted in General, Ministry, Missions, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Fundamental or Fundamentalist?

February 9th, 2009

 

       If someone were to ask if you were Fundamental or a Fundamentalist some would answer “what’s the difference?”.  Well the truth is that quite often there regrettably is a difference. In today’s church there seems to be a prevailing mentality that being a fundamentalist has as much to do with affiliation as it does with keeping with the fundamentals of the faith. Some relate being a Fundamentalist with screaming, spitting, sweating, stomping, and hanky waving (sorry, I could not find an s-word for hanky waving). And no, this isn’t a criticism about genuine enthusiasm, but about pre-planned theatrics. They feel that being a Fundamentalist is dependent upon which schools you associate with and which publications you read. They believe if you are in with the right crowd that makes you a Fundamentalist. Those are some of the reasons I ask if you are Fundamental or a Fundamentalist.
           Today we are more occupied with having our names seen in “Fundamentalist” publications than seeing other’s names written in the Lamb’s Book of life. So-called “Fundamentalists” seek to expose those outside our circles who are guilty of sin or questionable practices while turning a blind eye to those of “our own” stripe. This has caused much damage to the view of those who truly are Fundamental. I am often asked what I am. Those who ask are obviously looking for the canned “Baptist” or some other denominationally associated tag. I like to answer that I am a Christian first, a Biblicist because I am a Christian, and a small “b” Baptist because I am the first two. I am Baptistic and Independent because its Biblical and I am Baptist because it best describes to others that I am baptistic. The reason for the small “b” is because my loyalty is to being baptistic  rather than to a denomination. Far too often we are more concerned with being known as Independent Fundamental Baptists rather than being Biblically Independent Fundamental Baptistic Christians. There is a difference as I said. To be fundamental is more than a name. It is a belief system. It is a belief system that affects not only what you preach, but what you live.             
          I believe that the first century Christians were Fundamental as well as baptistic. They were Fundamental in their beliefs and in their lives. It was more about their association with a Holy God and a firsthand knowledge of not only the Savior, but the way of life of the Savior. It was not about making a name for oneself, but spreading the name of Christ for the Glory of God. It was not about being served, but about serving. It was not about getting, but giving. It was not about name recognition, but humility. It was not about being seen by man, but by being seen by God. It was not about being heard by multitudes to be acknowledged by others, but about having a one on one conversation with the Lord and knowing you were being listened to by God as though you were the only person alive. It wasn’t about accomplishments, but about obedience, obedience to every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. That all sounds pretty “Fundamental” to me. I don’t wish to be known as a Fundamentalist unless I am known for being Fundamental.
         The Lord addressed this in John 21 when Peter was concerned about what John would have to go through after hearing what he himself would have to go through. Jesus told Peter “follow thou me”. Not John, not others, but Jesus. We need to stop following others and only follow Jesus. If others are doing the same we can’t help but run into each other in the process. Let’s make the focus to follow Jesus the way He commands and that is the most “Fundamental” thing we can do.

Posted in General, Posts | 1 Comment »