#REFORMED AUDIO SERMON

[battleforgodstruth]

Joy, Its True Source - Pastor Patrick Hines Sermon Psalm 94:19

▶️Pastor Patrick Hines has recently had a brand new book published, called, “Earth’s Foundational History – Part 1: Genesis Chapters 1 Through 5.” (Paperback – May 4, 2023) https://cutt.ly/16RCeZ0 These two books are also available on Amazon. All proceeds go directly to Pastor Hines: ▶️Am I Right With God?: The Gospel, Justification, Saving Faith, Repentance, Assurance, & The New Birth…

[revdavidbsmith]

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

[itwasrealtome]

AGENT GRAY

Chapter 21 • This Is How It Ends

TAGLIST FORM

Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

⚠️ DO NOT READ IF THIS MIGHT TRIGGER YOU

Olivia Benson x fem! FBI Agent OC

Summary:

Content Warning: Usual SVU & Violent Crime talk • Human Trafficking - religious case - mention of religious words - children trafficking - bruises - hospitals - violence - youth facility - people fighting, blood, people arguing

*

Elias Grant believed in order.

Not justice, not compassion–order. The kind that justified control over the powerless. The kind that made children property, and fear currency. He'd built his version of salvation brick by brick, hidden in plain sight behind sermons and safe spaces, youth mentorships and reformation programs. To the public, he was a reformed ex-con turned community advocate. To those beneath him, he was a quiet storm with God on his side and blood on his hands.

He didn't recruit. He selected. Found the children no one would come looking for. He knew how to make them compliant, how to break the ones who resisted without leaving a mark that would hold up in court. Most of them didn't speak up. And if one tried? He had people for that, too–like Hale, the middleman. Like those paid to make the loud ones disappear.

But someone had spoken.

Her name was Maria Cortez. Fourteen years old, small for her age, with wary eyes and a spine that hadn't yet learned to bend. She wasn't supposed to be at the front of the church that night. Just another quiet girl in the background, handing out programs, smiling when told. But between one song and the next, between hollow praise and polished lies, the young girl stumbled–then collapsed–right there on the marble steps beneath the pulpit, in full view of the congregation.

It was the second charity gala Grant's church had hosted that week. City officials had attended, donors had smiled. Elias himself had been mid-sermon when Maria's legs gave out. The audience gasped. Ushers rushed forward. He'd crouched beside her, played the concerned mentor, one hand on her back, his voice low and steady as he whispered something no one else heard. But his protégée flinched.

And when she looked up–her eyes found Olivia's.

She wasn't even supposed to be there. The lieutenant had come with a city liaison, covering for another captain. She hadn't known what she was walking into. Not until she saw the bruises just above the girl's collarbone. Not until the latter reached for her hand as the paramedics arrived.

Later, in the quiet of the hospital room, Maria didn't say much. She didn't have to. Olivia knew the language of the silenced. And when her detective showed her the matching marks on another girl they'd found three days earlier–this one still missing the words to name her abuser–the brunette knew. This wasn't neglect. It was orchestration.

And it was going to take more than SVU to tear it down.

*

SATURDAY, JUNE 10

Manhattan — Surveillance Van

5:42 PM

The inside of the van was cramped and dim, the kind of space that seemed to hum with a low, constant tension, as if the walls themselves knew the stakes. It was cluttered in the way most surveillance vehicles were–functional chaos. Coils of cable curled like vines at the base of steel equipment racks, while monitors flickered with grainy feeds in shifting light, each one offering a different window into the mentoring center down the street.

The glow of blinking LEDs bathed the space in soft, pulsing reds and greens, strobing against the metal casing of the gear and the pale skin of its occupants. The air was stale and dry, thick with the scent of dust, aging plastic, and wiring that had run hot too many times. Somewhere near the back, a paper cup of untouched coffee sat cooling on a metal shelf, forgotten hours ago. The faint static of live audio feeds layered in the background like a heartbeat beneath the silence.

Alexis sat closest to the main console, angled slightly forward as though any moment might demand movement. One boot pressed flat to the floor, the other perched on the narrow bench ledge beneath her, giving her a low, grounded posture that read casual at a glance but wasn't. Her forearm rested lightly on her raised knee, fingers loosely curled, her entire body still except for her eyes–sharp and restless as they followed the shifting feeds across the monitors.

Hidden cameras inside the youth facility offered narrow glimpses of rooms that looked like safety on the surface: art tables, chairs in a circle, cheap motivational posters about healing and change. But the commander saw the spaces between the frames. The dead zones. The corners where silence lived.

She hadn't spoken much since they parked.

Not even to Robbins, the gruff tech agent who'd been manning the equipment since before either of them were with the Bureau, or to Miles, seated just a breath away on the opposite side of the van. Her silence wasn't cold–it was the kind that formed when thought hardened into vigilance. The kind that came from knowing you couldn't afford to miss a single flicker on the screen.

And the longer she stared, the more that stillness set into her like gravity, like tension coiled deep in the marrow of her bones and settling there without invitation. She looked like someone holding her breath without realizing it, waiting for something to break the surface.

The agent shifted beside her, his shoulder brushing hers slightly as he reached forward to adjust the gain on one of the audio channels. His eyes flicked to the screen, then to her profile, and lingered.

—You slept at all last night? he asked, voice pitched just above the static hum.

Alexis didn't look at him. Her gaze stayed locked on the grainy overhead view of a rec room, where Amand–undercover in jeans and a heather-gray hoodie–was handing out notebooks to a cluster of teens seated in an uneven semicircle. Her voice fed in through the van speakers, calm and level. Just another counselor trying to build trust.

The brunette exhaled slowly, the breath tight in her chest as it left her nose.

—I closed my eyes.

Her partner waited. She didn't look at him. Didn't go on.

Then, quieter–more tired than she meant to let slip–she added, "Didn't do much else."

He nodded once, mouth drawn into a line. He didn't need her to explain. He knew. Not since the fever. Not since she'd finally crashed in that bed with a damp cloth on her forehead and Olivia watching her like she might slip through her fingers. Not since she let herself sleep because, for the first time in weeks, someone had been there to make sure she could.

She didn't mention any of that. She didn't have to.

Miles didn't say a word. Just leaned back slowly, one hand resting on his thigh as he returned his gaze to the monitors. Let her keep her silence.

Across from them, the oldest agent–grizzled and irritable in a way only twenty-five years of wire taps and grainy feeds could make someone–grunted under his breath as he tapped at the controls.

—Mic three's crapping out. Switching to backup. Your counselor's headed east wing–looks like she's walking one of the girls toward the rec side.

The brunette gave a faint nod, her voice low.

—Copy.

She leaned forward, elbow balanced on her knee, eyes sharp and fixed. Her fingers twitched once, the only sign that her body was already calculating movement. Robbins tapped at the console, the monitors flickering in delayed sync as camera feeds shifted angles.

Then he sat up straighter, brows furrowing.

—Hold up, he said, squinting at the feed. That guy just came in through the service door. East hallway camera. You see him?

Alexis leaned in further, the grainy image resolving into a tall man in a windbreaker with a too-relaxed gait and something unreadable in his face. She didn't need a second glance.

—Hale, she said under her breath, pulse sharpening.

Robbins glanced at her.

—Thought he skipped town.

—Looks like he came back for cleanup.

On screen, Grant's middleman approached Amanda in the hallway, casual like a colleague. His hand landed lightly on her arm–too familiar. He was saying something, but the lip sync was just a second off from the backup mic. Then the detective nodded, visible hesitation masked by her undercover calm.

The grizzled man adjusted the audio delay.

—Here we go. Picking up their exchange...

Hale's voice filtered in, smooth and businesslike: "She's new. Quiet one. Barely conscious, but she's been moved around a lot. Probably just needs rest."

Then, too low for anyone else in the room to hear, but just loud enough for the upgraded mic to catch: "We can process her offsite. I need you to help me move her."

The words came with a casual ease, too practiced. Too used to getting away with it.

Alexis stiffened, her spine going rigid as if the sound alone had wired directly into her nervous system. Her hand had already left her knee and curled into a tight fist beside her. She didn't blink. Didn't breathe. Just stared at the monitor where the suspect leaned in toward Rollins, a hand lightly resting on the girl's shoulder like he owned her.

Like she was just another thing to be moved.

Beside her, Miles caught the shift in her body and leaned forward. His voice was low, trying not to tip the balance.

—She's setting him up, he murmured.

He knew that tone in their SVU colleague's voice–steady, measured, stalling just enough to keep Hale from rushing. Trying to buy time. The blonde was good. But Langford also knew Alexis. And right now, she wasn't hearing him.

The SEAL was already somewhere else. Already slipping into the place she went when things stopped being just tactical and started being personal.

The middleman had made that shift for her the moment Maria Cortez collapsed on the marble floor and looked up at Olivia like she was the first safe thing she'd seen in months. The moment they found the second girl, silent and shaking with the same marks on her ribs. The moment the evidence began to stack into a pattern that pointed not just to a system of abuse–but to the fact that someone had built it, carefully and strategically, to avoid being caught. Hale had been at the center of that pattern. And now he was about to vanish into the margins again if they didn't act.

—I'm going, Gray said, her voice flat and focused, more like a decision than a statement.

Miles reached out, hand catching her arm before she could stand fully.

—Wait. We loop in Benson. Carisi and her are right there–

—We don't have time.

Her voice didn't rise. It didn't need to. The steel in it was unmistakable.

Her partner knew that look in her eyes. Knew it from field raids, from missions that hadn't made it into official reports. It wasn't recklessness–it was precision under pressure. But it was also something else tonight. Something quieter. Something that had less to do with Hale as a target and more to do with the quiet fire still smoldering inside her from the last time Olivia had touched her arm and told her she needed rest. The last time she'd slept through the night because her friend had sat beside her and simply stayed.

—You stay with Amanda, Alexis added, already rising. Make sure the girl gets out.

—Lex–

But she was gone, sliding the van door open and dropping to the pavement without another word. She moved like shadow–low, fast, silent–as she ducked into the alley. No comms, no backup. No waiting.

Robbins muttered something under his breath, but neither man tried to stop her.

*

Inside the Center — East Wing

Amanda kept her breathing even, deliberately matching the sluggish rhythm of the barely-conscious girl she supported, one arm wrapped firmly around the child's narrow shoulders. The girl couldn't have been more than thirteen, maybe fourteen if that, though the bruising beneath her eyes and the thinness of her limbs aged her by more than years. Her sneakers scuffed and dragged with every step, soles slapping the linoleum floor like she'd lost track of her body hours ago. Her lips were dry and split, eyes half-lidded and unfocused. Whatever they had given her had long since crossed the line between sedation and suppression–this wasn't medication; this was control by chemical leash.

The detective adjusted her grip slightly, gently shifting the weight without drawing attention, just enough to keep the girl upright without appearing too careful. She couldn't risk seeming too compassionate.

Not here.

Hale moved beside her with an infuriating calm, the same casual stride he might've used to give a tour or hand out pamphlets. There was no hesitation in his voice, no indication that he was aware just how deeply he'd exposed himself minutes earlier.

—She came in last night, he said as if he were talking about a stray cat or a defective shipment. Family's long gone. Bounced between three placements. No one's gonna chase her. She'll fight a little, maybe. But she'll fall in line. They always do. A week, tops.

He looked over at Amanda with a faint smile, like they shared some private understanding.

—You've got the touch. Thought it'd be better if it came from someone like you.

The blonde nodded, and nothing more. Her stomach had curled in on itself the moment he said a week. She could already picture what that week would look like, what it had looked like for the others who never made it out. But on the surface, she stayed steady. Eyes neutral. Posture compliant. She was still the counselor, still the careful new recruit who hadn't asked too many questions. She couldn't afford to be Amanda Rollins, not yet.

Not until they had something real to tie back to Elias Grant himself. Not until she could name the pipeline, the accounts, the so-called "upstate cabin" that Hale kept referencing like it was some sanctuary rather than a private holding site. The way he said I've got a system chilled her–because he meant it. He believed in it. And as a detective, she needed him to keep talking.

The girl beside her sagged heavier, her legs barely cooperating now. The detective tightened her hold in response, seamlessly, like this wasn't the hundredth time she'd caught a child on the verge of collapse.

The hallway narrowed as they turned the corner, the overhead lights blinking in lazy stutters. She recognized the blind spot–Robbins had flagged it during setup. It was one of the few areas left without visual coverage. Perfect for what the middleman had in mind. And Rollins? She kept walking. Because to break cover now was to lose everything. She had to walk into the dark with him.

Hale gestured to a locked storage door up ahead.

—We'll wait here. I've got someone bringing the keys for the back lot. There's a van coming. He looked over at her again, this ime with a touch more calculation. You've been good with them. Thought maybe it's time we loop you into the bigger picture.

Amanda tilted her head just enough to seem curious, not eager.

—What bigger picture?

Her tone was quiet, her Southern drawl worn down to something calm and cooperative. The perfect counselor's voice.

He gave her that smile again.

—Grant's expanding. We've got too many mouths and not enough rooms. Cabin's just the start. You keep showing up like this, there might be a place for you in the new phase. Offsite placements. Permanent care. You get what I mean.

The woman nodded again, this time slower. Her eyes never left his.

—He ever come around here?

—Sometimes, Hale shrugged. But he keeps things clean. Doesn't like to be seen with the day-to-day. That's what people like me are for. He turned then, pacing a little, one eye on the hallway behind them. You meet him when he wants to be met. Until then, you prove yourself.

Amanda swallowed once, carefully.

—And when's that?

—Soon. He looked back at the girl, then at his new colleague. Helping with her–that's part of it.

It took everything she had not to move, not to betray the shiver crawling up her spine. The girl whimpered softly, barely audible. The blonde angled her body, shielding her just slightly more with her frame.

Before she could respond, the man reached for his phone, his brow furrowing.

—Where the hell is—

And then came the voice. Behind them. Sharp. Commanding.

—Hale!

He spun, startled–and the detective turned just in time to see Alexis emerge from the hallway shadows, sidearm raised, stance wide, her presence filling the narrow corridor like a storm breaking through glass.

—FBI, the agent said, voice low and lethal. Step away from the girl.

Amanda didn't move. She kept the girl against her, eyes flicking between the two. This hadn't been the plan–not yet–but something in the commander's face said there was no more waiting.

And their suspect?

He ran.

*

SATURDAY, JUNE 10

Manhattan — Behind the Youth Mentorship Center

8:42 PM

The alley behind the youth center was a breathless pocket of heat and grime, tucked between brick walls that sweated in the heavy press of summer. The air was thick with the stench of baked garbage and something darker–acrid and sour, like oil and old fear. A row of dented dumpsters slouched against one wall like broken teeth, their lids cracked open just enough to let the rot breathe. Something buzzed near the nearest bin–flies, maybe, or something worse.

Farther down, a rusted chain-link fence marked the alley's end, its top twisted and bent where someone had once scrambled over in desperation, the links still glinting faintly beneath a flickering streetlamp that cast light in unreliable pulses. Every few seconds the glow faltered, and for the briefest of moments, everything dipped into shadow–then snapped back into sharp, silvery clarity.

It was in that uncertain strobe of light and dark that Alexis caught him.

There hadn't been time for words. Hale had bolted the second Amanda's distraction failed, and Alexis had given chase without hesitation–out through the back door, over a stack of broken crates, heart hammering not from exertion but fury. She'd had enough. Of the pretending. Of the process. Of watching victims slip through their fingers while men like Hale disappeared into bureaucratic smoke.

No more.

She caught him mid-turn, the heel of his boot scraping against asphalt as he tried to pivot, to run. But she was faster. She grabbed the back of his collar, slammed him sideways into the nearest wall so hard the brick shuddered beneath the impact. He let out a sharp, choked noise–half grunt, half plea–but she didn't let up. She didn't even pause.

Her forearm pressed hard across his throat, pinning him flat to the wall. Her body weight angled forward, leveraging every inch of her into the hold. The middleman's fingers clawed weakly at her wrist, nails dragging down her sleeve, but she didn't feel it. Didn't care. His lip was already split from the first hit she'd thrown just seconds earlier–an instinctive blow, raw and unplanned, that had caught him across the jaw hard enough to ring his ears. Blood trickled down from the corner of his mouth, bright against the stubble on his chin, and his right eye was beginning to puff shut.

He smelled like panic and decay. Sweat soaked through his collar, mixing with cheap drugstore cologne and the underlying stench of nerves. But beneath it all was something fouler. Something old. Alexis didn't have a name for it, but she'd smelled it before. In holding cells. In interrogation rooms. In other alleys just like this one, where men like Hale met the wall after thinking themselves untouchable.

She stared into his face, breath shallow, jaw clenched. Her fingers flexed once, involuntarily, as if her body still debated whether to hit him again or hold him still. Dust from the mortar rained lightly across her shoulders as he writhed and failed to gain leverage. He wasn't just trapped.

He was cornered.

—You run again, Alexis said, her voice low and razor-sharp, carved from stone. And I will not be this polite.

The words landed like a second blow–cold and final. They didn't need volume to carry weight. There was nothing theatrical about her threat, nothing she'd need to justify later. It was a promise. And for the first time, the suspect seemed to hear it for what it was.

He coughed–a wet, scraping sound that might've been a laugh, or might've been the ragged aftermath of his failed attempt to breathe around the pressure of her forearm. His lips twisted into a grin, but it was sloppy now, streaked red. Blood coated his teeth and painted the cracks at the corner of his mouth like war paint. He blinked slowly, one eye already purpling, and rasped out, "Agent Gray... Didn't know you liked it this rough."

She didn't answer. She just hit him.

Her fist landed clean across his cheekbone, not full-force–she didn't need him unconscious–but hard enough to make his head snap sideways into the brick, hard enough to steal the breath from his lungs and replace it with the taste of rust and regret. He sagged slightly under her grip, wheezing through his teeth, and for a moment, the bravado slipped. For the first time since she'd laid eyes on him, Hale looked afraid.

And Alexis leaned in closer.

—No more hiding behind children. No more soft hands, no more lawyers, no more sermons. You're done, Hale. You and your little brotherhood of monsters.

The words echoed between the alley walls, swallowed and spit back by the heat that clung like wet cloth to their skin. Hale's head lolled slightly against the bricks, one eye nearly swollen shut, the other gleaming with something twisted. His lips parted with a wet sound, and then he coughed–a sharp, painful burst that shook his chest. Blood frothed at the corner of his mouth, dark and thick, bubbling into the mockery of a grin.

—You think this ends with me? he rasped, voice hoarse, splintered. You really think I'm the worst of it?

The commander didn't hesitate.

—I know it doesn't, she snapped, the words slicing clean through the space between them.

Her breath was coming faster now–not from the sprint that had led her here, not from the blow she'd landed, but from the slow, suffocating pressure of everything that had led to this exact moment. The weight of months. Of years. Of silence endured and lines crossed. Of girls like Maria, like the one Amanda had just walked out with–drugged, used, and discarded like ghosts in borrowed bodies.

Her chest rose and fell, each inhale feeling too small for the fire beneath her ribs.

—I  know exactly what you are, she hissed. You're the delivery boy. The middleman. The smiling face they send to make it all feel less monstrous. But I've got you now. I've got the thread. And you better believe I'm going to pull it–hard. I will unravel every last knot you bastards tied. I'll drag it all into the light. Grant. His funders. The cowards who wrote the checks. Every man who called it mentorship while he watched girls fall apart under him.

Hale chuckled again, but the sound cracked in the middle. Blood painted his teeth, too bright against the raw pink of his gums, and something broken lived in the way his mouth curled. His expression had lost all pretense of civility–it was animal now, cornered and defiant. He shifted slightly under her grip, not trying to escape, just to speak close enough that she couldn't mistake the edge in his voice.

—You've been warned.

The words slithered through the heat-thick air, slow and deliberate, like venom sliding down a blade. Alexis didn't move right away. She didn't speak. But something in her went still–an imperceptible shift. Her jaw remained locked, her face unreadable, but her spine straightened in that military way that betrayed more than any expression ever could. Not fear. Not hesitation.

Recognition.

Hale saw it. And smiled.

That grotesque, broken mouth widened through blood and bruises, his lip split and leaking. He leaned forward as far as the cuffs and the wall behind him would let him, emboldened by her silence, by the thing she hadn't said.

—Oh, he crooned, voice dragging like nails across rusted metal. He told you, didn't he? His breath wheezed through his teeth, bloody and gleeful. Called you directly. That's special. Usually he just lets us handle things. But you... He let the word hang in the heat between them like a smirk. He sees you. And her. The one with the badge. And the boy.

The brunette's fist curled before her mind even caught up. Tight. Controlled. Dangerous. Her breath didn't hitch from panic–it caught from fury barely leashed, a slow, coiled inhale as she stared down at the man like she was memorizing every inch of his face for later.

—You want to see what I do when someone threatens a child?

Her voice wasn't raised. It didn't need to be. It carried the kind of stillness that silenced rooms. The kind of calm that came before the breaking of something fragile–or the breaking of someone who deserved it.

—You picked the wrong agents, Hale. Her eyes didn't flicker. You picked the wrong case. And if you think Grant scares me... She stepped closer, just a breath, her presence like a storm closing in. You should be afraid of what happens when I stop caring about the rules altogether.

His expression flickered–just a twitch at the corner of his mouth. Not fear. Not yet. But it was close. It was the beginning of understanding.

She stepped back slowly, boots scraping softly against the grit of the alley floor, and let his weight collapse downward. His knees hit the pavement with a sound that was swallowed by the hum of the city and the approach of footsteps from the rear lot. Sirens hadn't come yet–but they would. She could hear the pounding of tactical boots drawing near, could already see Carisi's flashlight catching motes of heat-thick dust in the corner of her vision.

The middleman was on his knees, shoulders slumped, hands bound behind him, blood streaking his cheekbones like war paint gone wrong. But Alexis didn't look away. Not yet. She stared down at him with a kind of gravity that belonged to people who had seen too much and decided to keep going anyway.

—You tell him I'm coming. Tell him I'm not scared. And tell him next time? I don't wait for a warrant.

The light swept in then, strobing against the alley walls. Voices rose—Olivia's voice, the shout of uniforms moving in. Flashlights bounced off brick and chain-link, and the faint smell of burning wiring mixed with sweat and blood.

Hale looked up at her one last time as they dragged him to his feet. His smile returned–weak now, cracking with pain but still there. Still rotted with arrogance.

—Then I hope he kills you first.

*

SUNDAY, JUNE 11

Manhattan — 16th Precinct

Benson's Office

02:14 AM

The blinds were drawn, but they could keep everything out. The faint orange wash of Manhattan's sleepless glow still bled in at the edges, slipping between the slats in sharp, uneven streaks. It cast narrow cuts of light across the dark floor, across the paper-strewn desk, carving shadows across Olivia's office like a crime scene frozen in amber. Outside, the city breathed in sirens and exhaust, but inside, it was a different kind of quiet–thick, heavy, almost sentient.

The room felt suspended in the kind of stillness that only comes in the dead hours between night and dawn, when the weight of everything said and unsaid doesn't fade with exhaustion but grows teeth. The overhead light had been switched off hours ago, leaving just the desk lamp's low flicker to fight the dark, and even that seemed hesitant to burn. The air was dry, the HVAC system groaning with age in the ceiling like a tired beast trying to pretend it wasn't dying.

Somewhere beyond the glass walls, the faint murmur of voices drifted in again–Miles, maybe Amanda, maybe Carisi–tones low and careful, like they all knew better than to raise their voices with the storm still trapped behind that office door. The bullpen, dim and mostly abandoned, carried the echo of movement–chairs shifting, shoes brushing the floor, the occasional rustle of a file being restacked–but none of it touched the silence in here.

In here, there were only two people.

And too many things they weren't saying.

Alexis stood near the window, arms folded tight across her chest like armor that no longer fit right. The amber light from the city sliced across her features, highlighting the fatigue clinging to the edges of her jaw, the hollowness carved beneath her eyes. Her shoulders were tense, too straight for someone who'd been awake this long, too rigid for someone who'd already delivered a suspect into federal custody.

She hadn't sat down since they stepped into the office. Olivia hadn't invited her to, and the brunette hadn't dared to ask. It was a standoff, but not the kind you trained for. This was slower. Meaner. Heavy with the weight of betrayal that hadn't been named yet.

The lieutenant leaned against the edge of her desk, fingers curled around the wood like she needed something to hold on to. Her gaze hadn't left the commander once. Not since the door shut behind them, not since the reports came in from the Bureau and confirmed what she'd already suspected–that the arrest was clean, that Hale was in federal hands, and that SVU wasn't just out of the loop, they'd been cut from the case entirely. And Alexis, the woman Olivia had started to trust–not just as an agent, but as something more human, more personal–had done it without a word. Without warning. Without her.

—How long were you planning to keep me in the dark? The oldest woman asked, finally. Her voice was low, brittle with restraint. It didn't rise. It didn't need to. It cracked between them like old glass.

Gray didn't flinch, but her throat moved with a swallow she couldn't disguise.

—It wasn't about trust.

—No? Olivia laughed, bitter and quiet. Because it sure as hell felt like a decision made behind closed doors. You handed Hale over to your unit, walked away from the squad, and now we're supposed to... what? Stay in our lane?

—You were never supposed to be in danger, Alexis said, and it came out sharper than she intended. Her voice folded back into something steadier, more contained. This was always FBI jurisdiction, Liv. You know that. You said it yourself–interstate transport, drugging minors, organized trafficking. The moment we had probable cause on the cabin upstate, we moved.

—You moved. You didn't loop us in. You didn't call me. Not even a heads-up. We could've helped. We've been helping.

The brunette looked away then, toward the window, where the edge of a distant billboard flickered through a break in the blinds. Her hand flexed once at her side before curling back into a fist. There were words she wanted to say, words she couldn't. Not without putting the SVU boss in more danger. Not without dragging her son into the darkness Elias Grant had promised. And that was a line she wouldn't cross. Not ever.

—I did what I had to do, she said quietly. It was the closest she could come to the truth without cracking open everything she'd sworn to protect.

But Olivia pushed forward now, frustration blooming into something deeper–hurt, betrayal, something more complicated than either of them had language for.

—You're not the only one who cares about these kids, Alexis. Don't stand there and act like this burden is yours alone. We're a team. Or we were.

That hit harder than anything else could have. Alexis's jaw twitched, and for the first time since they walked in, her expression faltered. She wasn't good at this–lying to people she respected. Lying to her. Especially her. And Benson didn't know. Didn't know about the call. The voice that had slithered through the SEAL's burner line days earlier, calm and certain, promising blood if she didn't step back. Promising Noah. By name.

Alexis hadn't slept since.

And yet, in this room, in this moment, none of that mattered. Not to Olivia. Not when all she could see was the woman standing in front of her acting like the case they had been working side by side for days had never really belonged to both of them. That it had always been Bureau-first, command-first, chain-of-command, jurisdiction, and all the other bureaucratic shields that came up when things got too real, too personal.

She felt it bloom hot behind her ribs–the rage, yes, but more than that, the wound. Because this wasn't just a partner cutting corners. This was Alexis, who'd fought beside her, who'd laughed with Noah in her kitchen, who'd sat across from her with quiet eyes that had made the lieutenant feel–for a flicker of time–less alone.

—You know, she said, her voice low but serrated now. I thought you were different.

The agent turned back toward her, slow, cautious, like approaching a ledge. Her lips parted, but nothing came out at first. Her friend didn't wait.

—I really did,  she went on, her arms folded, but it wasn't a defensive gesture anymore–it was containment, a dam holding back something volcanic. You weren't like the others. You didn't treat us like we were in your way. You didn't talk down, didn't disappear behind closed doors and NDAs and jurisdictional bullshit. And I let myself believe–for one second–that maybe the feds weren't all the same.

—I'm not— Alexis started, too fast, too brittle.

But the oldest steamrolled past it.

—You are. You pulled us in just long enough to make use of what we had. Then, when it got too hot–when you had what you needed–you locked us out. And you didn't even have the decency to tell me to my face.

—That's not true. That's not what I—

—Then what is it? Olivia snapped. Because right now, all I see is another federal agent who got what she wanted and left us out in the cold.

The commander's breath caught. She looked down, jaw tightening, hands flexing once before curling into fists at her sides. She couldn't even meet the woman's eyes now. Not because she was wrong–but because she was right in every way that mattered. Alexis had shut the door. She had walked Hale into federal custody and pulled the entire case with her. Not because she didn't care. Not because she thought she was better. But because Grant had spoken Noah's name like a vow. Because she'd spent every second since imagining how she'd rip him apart if he ever touched that boy. Because she would burn every part of her career, every part of herself, to make sure Olivia and her son stayed safe. And she couldn't even tell her that.

So she stood there, suffocating on silence. Letting the lieutenant believe the worst of her. Because that was the cost. Because protecting them meant being the villain, even if it broke her in the process.

—I didn't mean for it to happen like this, she said, finally. Her voice cracked somewhere between the words, and she cleared her throat like it might bury the sound. You have every right to be angry. I just–there are things I can't tell you. Not yet.

Olivia let out a sharp, incredulous breath and pushed off the desk.

—Right. Of course. Classified. National security. The usual excuses.

Alexis didn't move. She couldn't. If she reached for the lieutenant now, if she even stepped forward, she might do something reckless–say something that would unravel every hard line she'd drawn to protect them both.

—I'm not your enemy, she whispered, not even sure the woman would hear it.

But Benson had already turned toward the door. Not to leave. Just to put space between them. Her hand hovered near her hip, like she wasn't sure whether she wanted to scream or brace herself on something solid.

—You should go, she said. Her voice had dropped to something quieter, something colder. You've got what you wanted. And it's not like I need another reminder of how dispensable this squad is to people like you.

The brunette stood frozen in the center of the office,staring at the woman she wanted more than anything to protect–and realizing that in doing so,  she may have already lost her.

And outside, the city didn't care. The lights kept humming. The sirens kept moving. And somewhere, far below the glass and steel of Manhattan, a man named Elias Grant smiled in the dark–knowing his words had hit the right target.

*

TAGLIST: @certainlychaotic @ginasbaby @nciscmjunkie @thefatobsession @makkaroni221 @hi-i-1 @kiwiana145 @kobayashi-fr @alexis042499

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

1 Corinthians (Sermon Series) by Kim Riddlebarger | The link leads to a page containing Audio files of Dr. Riddlebarger's sermons. Click on the sermon title to listen or right click to download the MP3 audio file.

[sheetmusiclibrarypdf]

Remembering James Brown (1933-2006)

Remembering James Brown (1933-2006)Best Sheet Music download from our Library.DiscographyStudio albumsFilmographyPlease, subscribe to our Library.James Brown Greatest Hits Full Album - Best Songs Of James BrownBrowse in the Library:

Remembering James Brown (1933-2006)

James Brown (b. May 3, 1933, Barnwell, S.C., U.S.—d. Dec. 25, 2006, Atlanta, Ga.), known as “the Godfather of Soul,” American singer,songwriter, arranger, and dancer, was one of the most important and influential entertainers in 20th-century popular music. His remarkable achievements earned him the sobriquet “the Hardest-Working Man in Show Business.”

Brown was raised mainly in Augusta, Ga., by his great aunt, who took him in at about the age of five when his parents divorced. Growing up in the segregated South during the Great Depression of the 1930s, Brown was so impoverished that he was sent home from grade school for “insufficient clothes,” an experience that he never forgot and that perhaps explains his penchant as an adult for wearing ermine coats, velour jumpsuits, elaborate capes, and conspicuous gold jewelry.

Neighbors taught him how to play drums, piano, and guitar, and he learned about gospel music in churches and at tent revivals, where preachers would scream, yell, stomp their feet, and fall to their knees during sermons to provoke responses from the congregation. At age 15 Brown and some companions were arrested while breaking into cars. He was sentenced to 8 to 16 years of incarceration but was released after 3 years for good behavior. While at the Alto Reform School, he formed a gospel group. Subsequently, secularized and renamed the Flames (later the Famous Flames), it soon attracted the attention of rhythm-and-blues and rock-and-roll shouter Little Richard, whose manager helped promote the group. Intrigued by their demo record, Ralph Bass, the artists -and-repertoire man for the King label, brought the group to Cincinnati, Ohio, to record for King Records’ subsidiary Federal. Brown’s first recording, “Please, Please, Please” (1956) eventually sold three million copies and launched his extraordinary career. Along with placing nearly 100 singles and almost 50 albums on the bestseller charts, Brown broke new ground with two of the first successful “live and in concert” albums—his landmark Live at the Apollo (1963), and his 1964 follow-up, Pure Dynamite! Live at the Royal. During the 1960s, Brown was known as “Soul Brother Number One.” His hit recordings of that decade have often been associated with the emergence of the black aesthetic and black nationalist movements, especially the songs “Say It Loud—I’m Black and I’m Proud” (1968), “Don’t Be a Drop-Out” (1966), and “I Don’t Want Nobody to Give Me Nothin’ (Open Up the Door, I’ll Get It Myself)” (1969). In the 1970s, Brown became “the Godfather of Soul,” and his hit songs stimulated several dance crazes and were featured on the soundtracks of a number of “blaxploitation” films (sensational, low-budget, action oriented motion pictures with African American protagonists). When hip-hop emerged as a viable commercial music in the 1980s, Brown’s songs again assumed center stage as hip-hop disc jockeys frequently incorporated samples (audio snippets) from his records. He also appeared in several motion pictures, including The Blues Brothers (1980) and Rocky IV (1985), and attained global status as a celebrity, especially in Africa, where his tours attracted enormous crowds and generated a broad range of new musical fusions.

Yet Brown’s life continued to be marked by difficulties, including the tragic death of his third wife, charges of drug use, and a period of imprisonment for a 1988 high-speed highway chase in which he tried to escape pursuing police officers. Brown’s uncanny ability to “scream” on key, to sing soulful slow ballads as well as electrifying up-tempo tunes, to plumb the rhythmic possibilities of the human voice and instrumental accompaniment, and to blend blues, gospel, jazz, and country vocal styles together made him one of the most influential vocalists of the 20th century. His extraordinary dance routines featuring deft deployment of microphones and articles of clothing as props, acrobatic leaps, full-impact knee landings, complex rhythmic patterns, dazzling footwork, dramatic entrances, and melodramatic exits redefined public performance within popular music and inspired generations of imitators (not the least Michael Jackson). His careful attention to every aspect of his shows, from arranging songs to supervising sidemen, from negotiating performance fees to selecting costumes, guaranteed his audiences a uniformly high level of professionalism every night and established a precedent in artistic autonomy. In the course of an extremely successful commercial career, Brown’s name was associated with an extraordinary number and range of memorable songs, distinctive dance steps, formative fashion trends, and even significant social issues. A skilled dancer and singer with an extraordinary sense of timing, Brown played a major role in bringing rhythm to the foreground of popular music. In addition to providing melody and embellishment, the horn players in his bands functioned as a rhythm section (they had to think like drummers), and musicians associated with him (Jimmy Nolan, Bootsy Collins, Fred Wesley, and Maceo Parker) have played an important role in creating the core vocabulary and grammar of funk music. Brown was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986. Discography For an extended list of albums, compilations, and charting singles, see James Brown discography on the Wikipedia. Studio albums Please Please Please (1958) Try Me! (1959) Think! (1960) The Amazing James Brown (1961) James Brown and His Famous Flames Tour the U.S.A. (1962) Prisoner of Love (1963) Showtime (1964) Grits & Soul (1964) Out of Sight (1964) James Brown Plays James Brown Today & Yesterday (1965) Mighty Instrumentals (1966) James Brown Plays New Breed (The Boo-Ga-Loo) (1966) James Brown Sings Christmas Songs (1966) Handful of Soul (1966) James Brown Sings Raw Soul (1967) James Brown Plays the Real Thing (1967) Cold Sweat (1967) I Can't Stand Myself When You Touch Me (1968) I Got the Feelin' (1968) James Brown Plays Nothing But Soul (1968) Thinking About Little Willie John and a Few Nice Things (1968) A Soulful Christmas (1968) Say It Loud – I'm Black and I'm Proud (1969) Gettin' Down to It (1969) The Popcorn (1969) It's a Mother (1969) Ain't It Funky (1970) Soul on Top (1970) It's a New Day – Let a Man Come In (1970) Hey America (1970) Sho Is Funky Down Here (1971) Hot Pants (1971) There It Is (1972) Get on the Good Foot (1972) Black Caesar (1973) Slaughter's Big Rip-Off (1973) The Payback (1973) Hell (1974) Reality (1974) Sex Machine Today (1975) Everybody's Doin' the Hustle & Dead on the Double Bump (1975) Hot (1976) Get Up Offa That Thing (1976) Bodyheat (1976) Mutha's Nature (1977) Jam 1980's (1978) Take a Look at Those Cakes (1978) The Original Disco Man (1979) People (1980) Soul Syndrome (1980) Nonstop! (1981) Bring It On! (1983) Gravity (1986) I'm Real (1988) Love Over-Due (1991) Universal James (1993) I'm Back (1998) The Merry Christmas Album (1999) The Next Step (2002) Filmography The T.A.M.I. Show (1964) (concert film) – himself (with the Famous Flames) Ski Party (1965) – himself (with the Famous Flames) James Brown: Man to Man (1968) (concert film) – himself The Phynx (1970) – himself Black Caesar (1973) (soundtrack only) Slaughter's Big Rip-Off (1973) (soundtrack only) The Blues Brothers (1980) – Reverend Cleophus James Doctor Detroit (1983) – himself, the Bandleader Rocky IV (1985) – The Godfather of Soul Miami Vice (1987) – Lou De Long James Brown: Live in East Berlin (1989) – himself The Simpsons (1993) – himself (voice) When We Were Kings (1996) (documentary) – himself Duckman (1997) – Hostage Negotiator (voice) Soulmates (1997) – himself Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) – Reverend Cleophus James Holy Man (1998) – himself Undercover Brother (2002) – himself The Tuxedo (2002) – himself The Hire: Beat the Devil (2002) (short film) – himself Paper Chasers (2003) (documentary) – himself Soul Survivor (2003) (documentary) – himself Sid Bernstein Presents (2005) (documentary) – himself Glastonbury (2006) (documentary) – himself Life on the Road with Mr. and Mrs. Brown (2007) (documentary; release pending) – himself Live at the Boston Garden: April 5, 1968 (2008) (concert film) – himself I Got The Feelin': James Brown in the '60s, three-DVD set featuring Live at the Boston Garden: April 5, 1968, Live at the Apollo '68 (DVD version of James Brown: Man to Man), and the documentary The Night James Brown Saved Boston Soul Power (2009) (documentary) – himself (archive footage) Get on Up (2014) – himself (archive footage)

James Brown Greatest Hits Full Album - Best Songs Of James Brown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eepdUoyhpdk&t=237s

Read the full article

[andrewpcannon]

The Failings of Human Religion: Ep. 14/69

The Failings of Human Religion: Ep. 14/69

1 Samuel is a crucial part of the Jewish and Christian story. In 1 Samuel, God selects the earthly king through whom He established His own throne within His creation. 1 Samuel is a doctrinally rich historical narrative. Join Andrew Paul Cannon as he journeys through 1 Samuel lectio continua, exploring the depths of the text. This is a limited podcast, containing 69 episodes in preparation for…

[incoherenci-blog]

In The Black Hole: James M. Dorsey on the Battle for the Soul of Islam

Pakistan ranks high on the list of Muslim-majority countries in which significant segments of the population are in religious terms militantly ultra-conservative. It’s a country where the impact of decades of Saudi funding of ultra-conservative religious thinking has left deep inroads.

It’s also a country in which numerous people over the years have been killed or lynched by outraged individuals or mobs over allegations of blasphemy or for expressing opposition to harsh laws that mandate the death sentence for blasphemy. Since 1990, more than 80 people have been killed in such violence. This month, a Chinese national was remanded in custody after protesters accused him of blasphemy.

This makes a discussion with a Pakistani audience about the battle for the soul of Islam, the rivalry in the Muslim world over what constitutes ‘moderate’ Islam, the need for reform of religious jurisprudence, and the competition for religious soft power in the Muslim world, particularly interesting.

Pervez Hoodhboy, a prominent nuclear scientist and human rights activist, hosts regular in-person and online discussions at The Black Hole, a community center in Islamabad that seeks to foster critical debate. This week, Pervez kindly hosted me for a discussion about what I describe as The Battle for the Soul of Islam. This is a transcript of the discussion, lightly edited for clarity. The discussion is also available in audio and video.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (00:08):

Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to The Black Hole.

We are talking today about important changes happening in the Muslim world from where we are here in Islamabad. This is a city of madrassahs, of mosques, and we can hear what sort of kutbas (sermons) are given over there, but living here in Pakistan, we don't know very much about what is happening in the rest of the world. Important changes have happened and are happening there to tell us exactly what's going on.

We've invited Dr. James M. Dorsey, who is a journalist, a very fine journalist, has won many awards. He's based in Singapore, is the author of many books and his area of expertise is the Middle East and Indonesia, Malaysia. He has been looking at these areas of the world with the particular eye of what is happening at the level of society, at the level of government, and how religious leaders over there are changing Islam.

(01:50) Now, I know that this very title, the Battle for the Soul of Islam and the subtitle that Islam is changing. Well, some people may not like that very much. They think that Islam is something that is fixed for all times to come. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but think about Christianity. Is the Christianity today the Christianity of Jesus Christ? Is it the Christianity of the Middle Ages and the Popes, or is it the Christianity of the reformation that followed? Or is it the Christianity that is now in Europe where it is rapidly losing ground or is it the Christianity of the United States where it is gaining ground or at least has gained a huge amount of ground. So, all these are issues that one must keep in mind when last, what is a religion? Is the religion what is in the holy text or is it the practise of that religion? Well, now I'll go to Dr. James M. Dorsey. James, welcome and it's so good to have you here. Thank you for speaking to us.

James M. Dorsey (03:17):

It's great to be with you Perez and with the audience and it's a pleasure to be in The Black Hole. Thank you for having me.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (03:27):

Well, perhaps you could tell us your impression of the changes that that are happening in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia, in the UAE (and) elsewhere, wherever you are looking and you have been writing very prolifically about these issues. You have a book and  you also have a blog and you have many interviews and podcasts and so forth, so you have an enormous amount to tell us. I'll leave it up to you to give us a bird's eye view and then we can get into a conversation.

James M. Dorsey (04:09):

Sure. Let me make some introductory remarks if you wish. Let me draw one distinction, which is I think an important distinction in the comparison that you made with Christianity and that is that Christianity, of course is a centralised institution, at least the Catholic church, and it's a hierarchical institution and that's what sets it apart, both from Islam, whether Shia or Sunni, as well as from Judaism that are in a sense decentralised religions, not centralised religions. Now having said that, the reason I call this the battle for the soul of Islam is the following. Certainly ever since  2001, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim leaders, both religious and political, went to great pains to emphasise that Islam was a peaceful religion, which I'm not denying and that the extremist expressions of it, be it ultra-conservative forms of Islam such as Wahabbism, be it  jihadists in the form of Al-Qaeda or the Islamic state, that those were not Islamic expressions. They were beyond the pale of Islam and the Muslim religious and political leaders were supported in that by world leaders who didn't want to be seen to be anti-Muslim as such.

(05:52) And so what you've had is a quest for what is then called moderate Islam. What that meant over the last two decades was until about eight years ago, roughly until the rise of Mohammed bin Salman and King Salman in Saudi Arabia, what you had was what I would describe as a lot of formalistic, celebratory conferences by Muslim leaders in which they issued declarations in terms of interfaith dialogue, in terms of minority rights, in terms of condemnations of extremism and jihadism. But it all remained in the realm of declarations. Nothing on the ground changed. With the rise of Mohammed bin Salman and also the increasing power that Mohammed bin Zayed  in the United Arab Emirates acquired, first as Crown Prince and now as president, we've seen significant social change, lifting the ban on women's driving in Saudi Arabia being an example, and far more liberal legislation in many ways in the United Arab Emirates and also in Saudi Arabia.

(07:25) The introduction of western style entertainment as an important sector of the economy, loosening of gender segregation measures and so on. What we have not seen, or let me put this differently, all of these changes and reforms are driven in my mind by three things. One is a new generation of leadership. Mohammed bin Salman is in his 30s. Mohammed bin Zed is in his fifties. They're not octegenarians like the older generation of Saudi rulers. That's one reason. The second reason is the need to reform, the need to reform economically, the need to build economies that are less dependent on oil and gas exports, the need to create jobs. And that leads me to the third driver, which is regime survival. These leaders understand that they need to cater to at least social and economic, perhaps not political aspirations, in countries whose populations are in majority under 30. In other words, a very young population. That whole notion of social and economic reform that does not incorporate reform of religious law has been the driver of what I would call an autocratic form of moderate Islam.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (09:35):

What I would like to know is: these changes in Saudi Arabia have happened and they have been acclaimed by the younger generation there, but certainly there was a lot of opposition from the old guard, from other people in the royal family too. So how could these changes have been implemented without some religious decree who has been saying that it's okay for women to drive it? Isn't there a fatwa which says that it's okay or it's not okay? Who's giving the fatwas in Saudi Arabia and UAE?

James M. Dorsey (10:26):

I think there are several issues here and let me take what you said further in terms of potential opposition to these changes. It's not just the older generation. There's a young Saudi scholar who did an informal survey a couple of years ago among Saudi youth, among his peers in which he asked them what was important to them and they said first they wanted jobs. Second of all, they wanted to have fun and third of all they wanted to date. And so the young scholar asked the people he was polling, oh, does that mean that your sister can date? Oh no, was the answer. Not them. So, with other words, you're dealing with a country that has been ultra-conservative for all of its existence except for the last eight years, and changing those attitudes is not something that's going to happen overnight.

(11:39) In addition, you have a social stratification, so with other words, you are going to find that some segments of youth in second and third tier Saudi cities are more conservative than those that are in Riyad or in Jeddah or Dammam. And that has another consequence, which is a risk factor for Mohammed bin Salman. The opportunities are first and foremost in Saudi Arabia's top tier cities, and he needs to ensure that those benefits get broadened out so that others beyond the top tier cities benefit in into an equal degree. Now he's been able to enforce these changes and let's be clear, Saudi Arabia in many ways has changed. Those reforms are real, and if you are a woman who can afford the driver's lessons and who can afford a car, life has changed fundamentally. So I think you got to recognise that. But the way Mohammed bin Salman has achieved that is by creating the most oppressive regime that Saudi Arabia has known. There is no space for any kind of criticism or dissent, and, if anything, it's become, remember the Ritz Carlton where Mohammed bin Salman took down parts of the elite in 2017 when he arrested them basically in a power and money grab, shook them down, or the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Just in the last several months, you've had people who've sent out a tweet sentenced to prison sentences of up to 45 years in prison.

(14:00) So whatever criticism there may be cannot be voiced in any form or fashion. Now the final  point I want to make is that Mohamed bin Salman is quoted as saying, and I think he's probably right, in defence of the lifting of the ban on women's driving was that women rode camels at the time of the Prophet. If they were able to ride camels of at the time of the Prophet why would they not be able to drive cars or trucks or whatever else today? I think part of what we saw in terms of ultra-conservative practice in Saudi Arabia, but you also see in parts of Pakistan of course, is more grounded in cultural history rather than in religious law. Let me just finally say that this is not to say that, and we'll delve into that somewhat deeper later in this conversation that there is no need for change of religious law. There is, without question.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (15:22):

If one looks at Islamic history, Al-Ghazali looked at the issue of the Islamic state, which of course is not specified in the Qur’an or the Hadith (the sayings and deeds of the Prophet_ It's absolutely silent there. But Al-Ghazali, through his legalistic reasoning came to the conclusion that a Muslim should obey the ruler, and even if the ruler is unjust, he must be obeyed. Is this the kind of argument that Muhammad bin Salman is using to justify his actions that I am the ruler, I have legitimacy because of my dissent and therefore you must do, as I say,

James M. Dorsey (16:19):

As you well know, there's been great debate within Islam for centuries about the principle of obedience to the ruler. I think that part of the notion of that obedience and the role of the state goes back to basically Ahmet Kuru, a Turkish-American Islam and Middle East scholar at a university in California, who talks about the state-ulema (Muslim religious scholars) alliance. And in a nutshell, what he says is that up until the 10th or the 11th century, the ulema were independent. In fact, they were often merchants and if they were not merchant Hanafi (the founder of one of Sunni Islam’s four legal schools) was a merchant and a wealthy merchant. And if they were not merchants themselves, then they were funded by the merchant class. And what happened in the 11th century is that the military state arose in the Islamic world and in that military state, the ulema lost their independence and more or less were forced to become state employees and therefore the principle of obedience became much more central. It's not a principle that is universally accepted, but it is what grounds my notion of a autocratic form of moderate Islam.

(18:14) It's a debate that is now being fueled by what is the Muslim world's most powerful and largest civil society movement. And that's a movement in Indonesia. In February, so two month ago, the movement held an international conference of Ulema, which was attended by very senior Saudi Saudi clerics, including Mohamed Al-Issa from the world Muslim League , as well as Sheikh Shawki Alam, Egypt's Grand Mufti and various Al-Azhar luminaries. And in that conference, Nahdlatul Ulama, the Indonesian group, called for the abolition of the concept of the caliphate. And the argument behind that was twofold. One is that the notion of a nation-state is not anchored in Islamic law, yet we live in a world that is organised around nation-states and we live in a world in which the notion of a caliphate, a unified state for all Muslims, no longer is fit for purpose. And so that revives the whole debate about what is the state in Islamic law and what should that state be.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (20:12):

So glad you raised this issue of the caliphate or the khilafa as we call it. You're absolutely right. It's not mandated in Islam, certainly not in the Qur’an or the Hadith. And we know that Prophet Mohammed did not nominate a successor. Had he done that, maybe we would've been spared the Shia Sunni divide. We would not have had the bloody wars of succession that came later. But the fact is that the caliphate has been around for a very long time until it was abolished in 1924 in Turkey. And for a long time, it remained dormant and then came along Daesh (the Islamic State) and Daesh. It revived the caliphate with Al-Baghdadi as its caliph. So, it's good that Nahdlaltul Ulama has come out with such a strong statement that the caliphate does not belong to Islam. What exactly did they say? Can you tell us?

James M. Dorsey (21:48):

Let me be clear. I think I would differ with you on one point. The caliphate is grounded in Islamic law and that is the problem. What is not grounded in Islamic law is the notion of a nation-state. So, in terms of the notion of what statehood constitutes in Islamic law, it is in a state structure that encompasses the whole Muslim world, and yet we live in nation-states. Nahdlatul Ulama’s argument is that that needs to be addressed for Islamic law to be able to function correctly in a modern world. There's also a second reason why it is and that is that what you correctly noted the Islamic state or Daesh grounds its ideology, its religious beliefs, in the notion of the caliphate and in various other concepts within Islamic law. And so, if you really want to be struggling against extremism and against Jihadism, you're going to have to deprive extremists and jihadists of the opportunity to justify their actions and their beliefs with Islamic law.

(23:39) And that is the whole thinking behind this. Now, let me just briefly explain what Nahdaltul Ulama constitutes. Indonesia is a country of 270 million people, 90 million Indonesians follow Nahdlatul Ulama. That is to say one third of the population. This is an organisation that is a hundred years old. It was founded a century ago for two reasons, one to counter Wahhabi incursions in parts of Sumatra, and two, because as you referred to earlier, the abolition by a Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924, which Nahdlatul Ulama at the time believed created a void that needed to be filled.

(25:11) But what I think is important here is the way Nahdlatul Ulama is positioning a lot of this stuff. It is not just simply Islam is in need of reform and that's what they are going to do. This is  an organisation with a religious structure and authority of its own. So, when it started with reforms, it was a convention of 20,000 religious scholars in 2019, that abolished the concept of the kafir (infidel) and replaced it in a fatwa with the concept of a citizen. On doing so, what it's trying to do, and we can get into that in greater detail later if there's interest in that, is not just reform Islam, but also constitute a model for the same kind of reform that is needed in other major religions, be that Judaism, be that Christianity, be that Hinduism, and it is actually engaging with groups in the Hindu world, in the Christian world, in the Jewish world, to try and further that notion,

Pervez Hoodbhoy (26:34):

If we look at reforms in various religions, Christianity began with Luther and the Reformation. That then affected the Jews in Europe as well. If we look at Islam and Hinduism in the 18th century or so, well, you had people like Muhammad Abdu and Rashid Rida (two late 19th, early 20th century Muslim scholars) in Egypt who were inspired by some of the enlightenment ideals and they sought to bring conformity between Islam and the modern world in the subcontinent. You had a few people, not very many, but there was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and there was Ameer Ali. Yes, they were under the influence of the British colonial masters, and they wanted India and Indian Muslims to go along that path. The Hindus were also affected by the British in that way. And so you had the reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and they wanted to end the class system, et cetera. What is driving Nahdlatul Ulama? It's clearly something that's pretty big that you've got a hundred million followers or 90 as you said, but where does their impetus come from? Is it by looking at the modern world? Are they striving for enlightenment, ideals island, the European Enlightenment, what do they want?

James M. Dorsey (28:37):

Before I answer the question, let me draw one or two distinctions. I mentioned earlier in Christianity that you had a centralised institution, which I think makes a major difference. And Martin Luther was in essence a split-off from that centralised institution and the bargain that ultimately was concluded in Christianity was that the institution, the Catholic church, retreated to the realm of spirituality. It surrendered its worldly, temporal powers to the secular state and retreated to the Vatican, a small island in Italy, in Rome. That model is obviously not applicable to Islam, or for that matter to Judaism. I think the second distinction one has to draw is, and in a sense you drew that implicitly in your remarks just now, is that past proponents of reform in Islam were individual thinkers, maybe small groups of thinkers. They were not organisations with the kind of power that Nahdlatul Ulama represents. And to give you two more indications of its power, it has a five million-strong man and woman militia, aparamilitary militia. Its political party has four cabinet ministers.

(30:30) None of the past reformers could even come near to projecting that kind of power and that kind of influence. What drives them is that they're a movement comes out of Java. They're not a liberal movement, they're a conservative movement, a socially conservative movement, perhaps even a politically conservative movement, but they're grounded in Sufism, they're grounded in Javan culture. The socialisation of Islam in Indonesia was not one that was carried out by the sword, it was through assimilation, an accommodation, and I think that's what makes Nahdlatul Ulama in a lot of ways different from the kind of Islam that you see in the Middle East or for that matter in Pakistan.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (31:39):

Yes, it's fascinating. Islam came here through the sword, but in Indonesia it came via trade and that made all the difference. We can't even imagine that a person like (prominent Pakistani Islamic scholar) Javed Ahmed Ghamidi would ever be leading any kind of a big movement. He does have an organisation called Al-Mawrid. But it's handful of people, nothing much more than that. And there you say it's 90 million and they've got ministers and everything. They also have had one president. But explain one thing. You said that they're politically conservative and socially conservative. What does that mean?

James M. Dorsey (32:36):

What it means is in in terms of social conservatism, in contrast to the developments that you're seeing in the west, it views the family as the core nuclear unit of society They’re also politically conservative. Nahdlatul Ulama’s relationships are on the centre right, and in some cases, even on the far right. Now, I would argue that its relationships with the centre are where Nahdlatul is politically, whereas it's relationships with certain far right groups, for example, the (Hindu nationalist) RSS in India is really designed to achieve a strategic goal rather than based necessarily on a common ideology. But they are, having said that, they are conservative.

(33:51) Democracy is a core principle to them. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim majority state and the world's largest Muslim democracy, and that's not something they want to change. On the contrary, that is something they want to uphold. They're strong believers in pluralism and as I mentioned before in the example of abolishing the category of a kafir and replacing it with the notion of a citizen, it's equality and equity for all irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion. To give you one example, last year the Minister of Religious Affairs in Indonesia who is a member of Nahdlatul Ulama, he's the former head of their militia, was criticised for congratulating the Bahais on one of their holidays and in response to the criticism, he said, they are Indonesian citizens, even if it's not one of the six religions that Indonesia officially recognises, they are Indonesian citizens and that's as such I greet them.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (35:29):

So, would they subscribe to the UN Declaration on human rights? Would they have reservations about it or would they endorse it wholeheartedly?

James M. Dorsey (35:42):

One of the major distinctions I think between Nahdlatul Ulama and many other Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, which only conditionally endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are particularly concerned about the articles 18 and 19 that relate to religious freedom, Nahdlatul Ulama endorses the declaration, unambiguously no conditions, no restrictions.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (36:31):

Okay, I'll ask just one question and then open it up to the audience. The Pakistani notion or the sub continental notion of Islam is that it's a complete code of life that everything that you want to know about the world is there in the Quran or can be interpreted from it through [inaudible]. Is there a break with that in Indonesia with the [inaudible]?

James M. Dorsey (37:08):

Look, I think that Nahdlatul Ulama like any other Muslim or Muslim organisation views the Qur’an as the word of God. I don't think that they view the Sharia and the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence as the word of God and therefore unalterable and in fact that what they're doing and what they're arguing for is change and reform of those, some of the concepts within the Sharia and within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly those that propagate supremacy, that propagate differences based on religion or ethnicity or race. So, I think that's the distinction one has to make.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (38:18):

Okay, good. Then we move on to the audience and questions from there.

Question 1 from the audience (38:28):

I do not have a question because I'm very clear about it. There are clarifications which I want to make. First of all, as far as the obedience to the state is concerned, the concept of state is within the Qur’anic verses. You are the one nation that has been arisen for the whole people. So, the nation and the state is within the Islamic concepts. Secondly, there is also a verse which says: ‘Obey Allah and his Prophet Mohammed, and the one who is in power. The third point, which I want to raise, is that there are certain things which under Islamic law or within the Qur’anic principles cannot be changed. And for that matter, since you are a very learned person, I will request you to read Ashatibi Almoafika Lashati. Please write it down, and especially it's volume five, then you would understand and differentiate between the concepts of Islam that cannot be changed at all, whether the whole world likes them or not.

(40:33) Like jihad, like haj, like prayers, like zakat, like right to live, right to own property, like right to one's honour. They are the things which are very much settled within the Qur’anic verses and the sayings of the Prophet. So that were my comments. Otherwise, your lecture was good and it is an eye-opener and I am really delighted, but I think that we should also try to distinguish between those concepts which are not changing at all and the concepts which can be changed, and those concepts are those which do not directly interfere with the set principles. Likewise, you are saying, you have given quoted an example of Indonesia that they are trying to reform. Reformation is always there, and the reformations can be done when these reformations do not directly contravene the set principles of Islamic law or what has been enshrined within the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (41:59):

Okay, thank you for the comment. We will go to the next question, but before that, let me say that the question of nation-state is not a solved one in Islam. In fact, if you read (prominent 29th century Pakistani Muslim thinker) Maulana Maududi what he wrote in 1934 or so about the Islamic riayasat, Islamic state. He said Islam does not specify a state because the concept of state did not exist. The concept of a geographical boundary came with the treaty of Westphalia om 1648, much, much, much later. And this is why he said: ‘I do not approve of the concept of Pakistan.’ This is why he was against Mohamed Ali Jinnah and until he was convinced by (South Asian philosopher)Allah May Iqbal he remained in opposition to the idea of Pakistan. So you cannot say that here is a man who did not know nothing. He was after all a very learned person.

James M. Dorsey (43:26):

First of all, thank you for the comment. Let me be very clear, I'm not an Islamic scholar, nor am I a lawyer, and so I do not pretend to have an expertise in Islamic law as such. Now having said that, I think what is evident is that there is great debate about a lot of the points that the speaker and the audience just raised, and that debate is among Islamic scholars. That's not a debate among laymen. What I am doing is taking note of that debate and taking note of the fact that one of the most powerful movements in the Islamic world today is challenging a lot of those notions. Now let me be very clear. What I'm not saying is that Nahdlatul Ulama or those that favour reform, and you similar kinds of calls for reforms in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere today, in fact published in official Saudi media.

(44:43) What I'm not saying is that the call is for a wholesale setting aside of Islamic law. A lot of those rights that you mentioned are not being questioned. Yes. What is being questioned are very specifically at least three things. One is what Perez just noted, the issue of what constitutes the state and whether that, and I, unless I misunderstood you, read what you were saying as a concept for the state for all Muslims, that notion is being challenged in a world in which we live in nation-states. We don't live in a Christian state that encompasses Christians across the globe. We don't live in a Jewish state that encompasses Jews across the globe and we don't live in a state of Hindus or Muslims that encompasses all Hindus or Muslims in the state. In that sense, the argument is that Islamic law needs to be updated and adjusted to come to grips with the reality that we live in.

Questioner 1 (45:59) My name is Ave and I'm also a masters in Sharia and I'm a masters in corporate law and I'm a lawyer as well.

James M. Dorsey (50:28):

You are everything I am not.

Questioner 1(50:34):

So whatever I have said that I stand by it and I am pretty much sure that there are so many things with actually need reformation and Islamic jurisprudence, but these reformations have to be seen on the touchstone of the set principles of Sharia and if they are not against it, then the reformations can be made, whatever they may be. Thank you. Okay,

James M. Dorsey (51:04):

Fair enough, This is a debate among Muslim scholars, which I am describing. It's not a debate in which I claim to want to take the position. I may have my personal views on it, but that's neither here nor there nor there. Professionally, if you wish, my obligation is to describe this debate and to watch this debate and observe it. 

Questioner 2 from the audience (51:39):

Sir, is it true that Indonesia had a president from Nahdlatul Ulama? Wahid or Wahidi in the last century. The other day I interviewed an Indian, an American scholar who is of an Indian background and he told me, he's a Muslim, Dr. Muktader Khan, that 57 per cent ofAmerican Muslims are okay with gay marriage. So, is that an indication of reformation within Islam? Others will describe it as heresy. So, there was Jabber Al-Alwani in America. He was the head of the Fiqh Council of North America. So he came up with some interesting ideas and some ideas came from (Tunisian Islamist) Rashed Ghannouci and there was another guy in Sudan who was initially a Muslim brotherhood person, but then he changed many of his positions. I think Hasan al-Turabi was his name. So how do you rate these individuals and these movements?

James M. Dorsey (52:48):

Okay, several things here. First of all, it may very well be that a majority of American Muslims favour LGBTQ. I don't know if that's true or not true. What I do know is that for example, last year you had a joining of forces of a Muslim community in Dearborn, Michigan with conservative Christian elements to object to the inclusion in school libraries of certain literature which would indicate that there there's division on that issue within the American Muslim community. What I do think, just to take this a step back, and I've been involved as Pervez knows, in quite a bit of discussion around the LGBTQ issue, particularly as it arose in connection to the Qatar World Cup and whether or not Qatar should be recognising the rights of LGBTQ fans coming to Qatar to attend the World Cup.

(54:12) And the argument I was making and still make in various debates, is that in the debate about rights in Qatar, there was in my mind a serious distinction between workers' rights, where by and large Qataris did not have a fundamental problem with it. There were issues that they thought needed to be resolved to ensure certain things, for example, the safety of bank accounts being accessed by expatriate managers in a country with no extradition treaties. So, therefore you could essentially go to the bank, empty the account and head for the airport and nobody was going to stop you. That there was a distinction between those kind of issues and rights and the issues of LGBTQ, and what I think the experience is, and again, if you look at Turkey or Indonesia, both countries that do both Muslim majority countries that do not outlaw LGBTQ and yet those are socially difficult issues and therefore if there were to be any change, it would be change that would have to be gradual, and in which you would have to have a popular buy-in. You can't impose it from the outside or from the top down.

(55:47) With regard to people like Hassan Turab whom you referred to, I don't know that Turabi really moved away from his positions. Turabi was a western educated, highly intellectual, religious and political thinker who was very influential together with Sadiq al-Mahdi in terms of where the of regime of Omar al-Bashir was going. But I don't know that they fundamentally changed their views in the later stages of their life.

Questioner 3 from the audience (56:41):

Hello, this is far. I got your emails as well. Thanks for all of them.

James M. Dorsey (56:46):

Well you're welcome. I'm glad to hear a reader.

Questioner 3 (56:50):

Two quick questions and comments. First, the battle for the soul of Islam I think should also be looked through the first women revolution that is happening in Iran. I would like to know your views on the ongoing movement there. Secondly, what about the political economy of Nahdlatul Ulama? Do they get petro dollars? Which classes economically support them in Indonesia? How do they maintain their massive network economically? Number three, the Protestant movement was also a response to massive changes. Feudalism broke down and a new economic system was taking shape when it came up. That kind of thing is not happening in the Muslim world. Hence I think when we keep looking at the text, this is very problematic to understand the religion and the critical expressions of it, such as Nahdlatul Ulama, what we need to do is to look at the material forces which enable them, which empower them. Looking at text remains a sort of an orientalist practise. I would like to know your opinion on that too. Thank you.

James M. Dorsey (58:11):

Sure. With regard to the uprising that we've seen in Iran, I lived in Iran during the revolution. I lived there from 1978 to 1981 and have been back there frequently. Iran is a revolution that's gone off the rails and most revolutions frankly go off the rails. Ultimately you have an Iran and a autocratic, totally corrupt regime, and if you ask many Iranians today, they will tell you we know what an Islamic group state is, and we have no desire to maintain that. And that's what you're seeing expressed in those demonstrations. Again, I don't think those demonstrations are about jurisprudential reform. They're about social and political reform and they're about a population that is being economically squeezed on the one hand by mismanagement of the economy domestically, but obviously also as a result of crippling and harsh US sanctions, which one can question whether they work or not.

(59:39) In terms of, and I'll come to your second question in a moment, but in terms of whether or not one needs to focus on jurisprudential reform rather than social political reform, what I'm not arguing is that one should not focus on social and political reform reform. Absolutely, one should. What I am arguing is that unless you also look at jurisprudential reform, you're going to have certain sets of problems irrespective of what happens. So, if it's talking about Islamic law and we're talking about the quests that a minority, but nonetheless a substantial number of Muslims supported in terms of the jihad as propagated by the Islamic state, for example, that is grounded in what Nahdlatul Ulama would call obsolete, outdated, or problematic notions of religious law. The same can be said about this government in Israel and the way the grounding of its notions. In my mind, you can trace the kind of humiliation and brutality that Israel exercises in Palestinian territories back to Jewish law.

(01:01:38) Or for that matter, some of the RSS ideology. So with other words, there is relevance and importance to the need to reform religious law, but it's not the one and only thing, it's not the panacea for the solution of all problems. It's one significant element of a broader pallet of reforms that countries and religious groups need to undertake. And regarding your third question, this is in terms of social stratification of the movement, it's goes across social classes. If you're talking about a third of the population, you're talking about significant social stratification. So, it goes from the elite all the way down to people in villages in Java. The movement is largely, if I'm not incorrect self-funding. There's funding for certain institutions, for example, universities, religious seminaries, but by and large this is an independent, a totally independent movement, independent in every sense of the word. Yes, it's correct. Abdurhaman Wahid, who was probably one of the movement's great visionaries was the first democratically elected president of Indonesia after the overthrow of the Suharto regime in 1998, and he was the leader of Nahdlatul Ulama.

Questioner 4 from the audience (01:03:46):

Thank you very much for the enlightenment. My question is about  religion. Okay, keep the Islam outside of that for the moment, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, is there any basic law which is established in their sacred texts and they are challenging with time? This is one question. Is there some example that in different religions except Islam. A second question is about the Islam. There are some rules which is established in sacred text like slavery. You cannot declare it salvery in your constitution law or any law other, although it is established in the sacred text. The second is the banking system, the interest which is established all over the world, including the Islamic world, but they cannot say, they cannot deviate from them. So there are many examples which is, so I want these two opinion from independent interpreter. Thank you very much.

James M. Dorsey (01:05:06):

Thank you for the question. First of all, I think that Islam and Judaism, in contrast to Christianity and Hinduism, and I frankly don't know a lot about Hinduism, but as a matter of principle, Islam and Judaism have clearly defined bodies of law and bodies of jurisprudence far more so than either Christianity or Hinduism. In Judaism, there's constant debate. In fact, one of the principles of the Jewish equivalent of a madrassa is debate and continuous questioning, which is one reason why, for example, the Israeli military is one of the very few militaries where soldiers can question an officer's command. Most militaries are hierarchies. I tell you what you do and you march and what happens if you don't march. So, there is continuous debate. Like all religions. Christianity is a very fractured religion, and those fractures essentially are reflections of questioning. So I would argue that the issue of debate about reform within religion or within faith groups is more or less universal, certainly among the major world's major faith groups. I think what the difference is, and that's the difference both within Islam but also certainly with Judaism, that at the moment you have a movement questioning a number of these things that is very powerful. It's not just an intellectual exercise and it's powerful and that makes a substantial difference.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:07:38):

I'll just make one comment over here that Hinduism has a lot of stories about gods and goddesses, but it is not codified the way Islam and Judaism and Christianity are. There are the laws of Manu. It is said that if you have a war, then how should the bounty be distributed? Who should be king? How shoud your temples are to be preserved. Those sort of details are present over there, but they don't tell you detailed laws about inheritance and so forth.

Questioner 5 from the audience (01:08:19):

Sir, my question is, as you say that Islam is a peaceful religion, so on the other hand, in Islam, the Qur’an, also give us the order to do jihad. So I would like to know what is a peaceful religion?

James M. Dorsey (01:08:40):

Look, first of all, I think just as a matter of principle, and this you know as well as I do, jihad means different things to different people. And so what I do think is, and I think that's true for Islam as well as for Judaism and for Christianity, you can find in the texts whatever it is you want to find, and you can interpret that in whatever way you wish to interpret it. So extremists, jihadists interpret that in a certain way, a majority of Muslims interpret it very differently. And I think what this whole debate about reform of Islam is about accommodating to the world we live in, but it's also trying to shape what these laws mean and what these legal concepts entail so that we don't get into the issues of religious extremism, whether that's jihadists or whether that's Jewish messianism or Christian nationalism or Hindu nationalism. for that matter.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:10:15):

Okay. If there are no more questions then, or there is one small question.

Questioner 9 from the audience (01:10:26):

Do you think Saudi, the regime which is doing so many changes, would they also stop funding jihadist groups, especially in Pakistan where we are the victims?

James M. Dorsey (01:10:39):

Look, I think they have stopped. There's been, first of all, certainly from the period of the early 1970s, but starting with the 1960s when Maududi was a key player in the formulation of the concepts of the Rabita, the Muslim World League as well as the Islamic University in Medina, and going forward from the 1970s until 2015, Saudi Arabia spent a humongous amount of money on supporting not just Wahhabism, but I think supporting ultra-conservative Muslim movements. And the key there was not so much the religious aspect, but as long as they were anti-Iran and anti Shiite, they qualified.

(01:11:35) If I'm not incorrect, there's a famous letter that Abdulaziz Bin Baz, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, wrote in I think the 1980s to the Deobandis in which he said, paraphrased, we differ on multiple issues, but we will support you because it serves the purpose of the Saudi state. I think you've seen a significant cutback in terms of Saudi's support for ultra-conservative religious groups since the rise of the Salmans and in fact, look at the Grand Mosque Brussels, which was very problematic because it was one of the few Saudi funded mosques outside of the kingdom that was actually being run by Saudi nationals who were Wahhabis and were increasingly coming into conflict with the Belgian government. And Mohammed bin Salman basically said, here's the mosque, take it over, want nothing more to do with it. I think what you're seeing now, and you've seen over the last eight years that it may not be Saudi Arabia as the country, the Arab country, that is the foremost funder of all kinds of non-state actors. There's a lot more of that coming out of the United Arab Emirates today. And to the degree that the Saudis were willing to do that under the Salmans, and even that is starting to change now with the geopolitical changes we're seeing in the Middle East, it was to serve a geopolitical purpose rather than a religious purpose.

Questioner 2 (01:13:38):

Yeah. The other day somebody told me that there are so many incomplete mosques and madrassas in Punjab because the Saudi funding has stopped.

James M. Dorsey (01:13:58):

That I don't know. What I do know was, I was about four years ago part of a research that was funded out of Denmark but conducted in Pakistan that looked at the funding structure of madrassa in Pakistan. And at the time we concluded that only seven per cent of madrassas’ funding came from outside of Pakistan.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:14:32):

That could very well be true, but there's also one other factor, which is that the money transfer from Saudi Arabia or the UAE doesn't necessarily go through the government. It could go through private individuals who have business interests in Pakistan, and that's the more usual way of transferring funds, I think.

James M. Dorsey (01:14:54):

Well, that's certainly true. That's something we've looked at. It's something that I've looked at in great detail. So with other words, when we talk about Saudi funding, it's sort of one of these catchall phrases and it's particularly imprecise. There were monies that were going through the Dawa departments of Saudi embassies overseas. There were monies that were going through what I would call governmental, non-governmental organisations such as the Muslim World League and other organisations that have since been closed down by the Saudis. There were monies that, for example, Sipah-e-Sahaba was collecting where the Saudis, in my mind looked the other way, but was they had their own operatives in Mecca and elsewhere in the kingdom who were collecting significant funds and there were monies of private individuals who when their employees returned back to Pakistan would be given a sum of money to build a mosque, which he did. He probably benefited from part of that money, but he built the mosque and that gave him in his hometown or home village significant prestige.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:16:27):

Okay. One very quick question before we go to the online questions.

Questioner 3 (01:16:33):

Just a hypothetical question regarding the Saudi. Had there been democracy in Saudi, could there this reform possible in Saudi uae?

James M. Dorsey (01:16:48):

Sorry, had there been democracy, what would be possible?

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:16:51):

Would reform had been, have been possible if there had been a democracy rather than an autocrat in charge?

James M. Dorsey (01:17:02):

Well, the simple answer is in my mind, yes, but it raises a much more fundamental question that goes back to one of the very first questions that Pervez asked in terms of resistance to reforms in Saudi Arabia. And the question is whether these kind of reforms can be initiated top down or whether they have to come bottom up. Democracy obviously is the framework that would allow for a bottom up approach to reform.

Question 1 from the online audience (01:17:54):

James, since this session is running live on the Black Hole's Facebook page, we have online audience as well and for their representation. I would like to put just a few questions out of many. Number one. Keeping the current trajectories that the UAE and other countries are following, what would be the possible future or what would be the consequences for Pakistan?

James M. Dorsey (01:18:42):

First of all, I think that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are very different countries. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as opposed to Pakistan, are very different countries. So I don't know that that one can necessarily draw that comparison. And I think I would also be cautious to draw that a comparison because what is happening is in Saudi Arabia and the UAE is social and economic reform, but accompanied by increased political repression. And I'm not sure that that's necessarily a model that Pakistan would want to follow. Now having said that, I also think that Pakistan has serious  problems when it comes to issues of mutual respect, of pluralism. I mean, what you don't see in Saudi Arabia, the UAE are lynchings as you've seen in Pakistan for example. So as Pervez knows, I've travelled extensively to Pakistan over many decades and I think my impression has been that Pakistan is fundamentally an ultra-conservative country and once you leave the bubbles of the big cities, it's a different world that you enter. So that process of change is probably going to be generational in Pakistan.

Pervez Hoodbhoy3 (01:20:41):

Go ahead.

Question 2 from the online audience (01:20:41):

The second question is from Remo. He asks, all those reforms you talked about in the recent years seem to be coming from the government due to the due to economic necessities. Why don't we get to see a revolution from the grassroots level in Muslim countries, especially when their political and other freedoms are so bloodly repressed?

James M. Dorsey (01:21:11):

Okay, let me just clarify. When I was talking about Saudi Arabia and the UAE, those were reforms that were coming from the government. In Indonesia, it's a different question. First of all, it's a civil society movement and Indonesia is a democracy. Now, the government may be empathetic to much of what the civil society movement is doing, but it is a civil society movement. It's not a government as such.

On the point of revolutions, let's look at the last 13 years. You had in 2011 uprisings in multiple Arab countries. You had four Arab leaders toppled. I think that the counterrevolution that you saw primarily coming out of the UAE but also out of Saudi Arabia, that led to that was one factor, not the only factor, one factor that led to the 2013 military coup in Egypt, that has led to civil war in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria, that I think that had a dampening effect. But even if it did have a dampening effect, go to the last years of the last decade, so 2019, 2020, again, you had popular revolts that overthrew the leaders of four Arab countries, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan. Now again, you have a situation in which there's been enormous strife in Sudan. We're watching that at the moment as we speak with the confrontation between the Sudanese military and the RSF.

(01:23:38) We've seen political instability in Iraq, the revolt in Algeria has stalled, and Lebanon is on the brink of collapse. Now, that's not to say that we won't see more revolts and, of course, now we've seen the revolt in Iran. I think we will continue to see revolts. The problem with it is that going from a revolt that is successful in terms of overthrowing a leader to structural change is a very difficult process that would be difficult even if you did not have external intervention in an attempt to roll things back. So, I would argue that the last decade has been a decade of defiance and dissent, and there's no reason to believe that we won't see more of that, at least in significant parts of the Middle East. I think in the Gulf, we probably for a variety of reasons, even though in the Gulf, if you go back to 2011, it took a military crackdown backed by the UAE, by Saudi Arabia, to squash the revolt. In Bahrain, you had protests in Kuwait, you had protests in Jeddah, and you had protests in Oman. Now with the exception of Bahrain, none of those evolved into a popular uprising and it's going to take quite a bit. You would have to have total economic mismanagement and failure in a country like Saudi Arabia or the UAE to do that. And add to that, a majority of the Gulf countries are a minority indigenous population, the citizenry is a minority and that's a risky situation.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:26:04):

I think we are done with the questions or do you Just one. Okay, one last question.

Question 3 from the online audience (01:26:10):

Abul Hamid Mayer asks: Had the ijtihad (legal reasoning) as advocated by some thinkers like Iqbal been accepted by most of the Islamic clergy, one would have been optimistic about changes in Islam. Since that is not happening, does it not show that the Islamic clergy is still resisting change in Muslim societies?

James M. Dorsey (01:26:49):

Well, I think this goes back to an earlier remark where I was quoting Ahmet Kuru. A lot of the clergy, certainly in Muslim autocracies, essentially are aligned with the state. That's where their bread and butter comes from. So they're not going to be the people who are pushing for reform. It's going to be independents. Now in a country like Saudi Arabia, those that are independent of the state are in prison, and if they're not in prison, they wisely prefer to remain silent, which means, again, that if you have an independent civil society movement that can speak out, that adds importance to what it's saying and what it's doing because you either have a clergy that is totally aligned with an autocratic state or a clergy that is being prevented from speaking out.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (01:27:59):

There's a simple phrase in Pakistan, military-mullah alliance, and that has survived the last 40 years. It's been a symbiotic relationship between the military and the mullah, and they've been joined together because of jihad, because of wanting to conquer Kashmir and make it Pakistan. And they have, so far, been good to each other. But now I think there are serious problems arising over there because the state has come under attack earlier and now it is coming under attack again with the rise of the TTP (the Pakistani Taliban). So with that, I think we should end. Thank you very much, James. It's been a great session with you. You took out the time and everyone here much enjoyed it and learned from you. Thank you.

James M. Dorsey (01:28:55):

Well, I learned from you and I enjoyed the questions. It was a pleasure. Thank you for having me.

[mideastsoccer]

Will They or Won’t They? Saudi Recognition of Israel is the $64,000 Question

Will the Saudis formalize relations with Israel or will they not? That is the 64,000-dollar question.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa during wide ranging talks at Bahrain's Sakhir Air Base in 2018 (Photo via Saudi Gazette)

The odds are that Saudi Arabia is not about to formalize relations with Israel. But the kingdom, its image tarnished by multiple missteps, is seeking to ensure that it is not perceived as the odd man out as smaller Gulf states establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Bahrain’s announcement that it would follow in the footsteps of the United Arab Emirates was as much a Bahraini move as it was a Saudi signal that it is not opposed to normalization with Israel.

Largely dependent on the kingdom since Saudi troops helped squash mass anti-government protests in 2011, Bahrain, a majority Shia Muslim nation, would not have agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Israel without Saudi consent.

The Bahraini move followed several other Saudi gestures intended to signal the kingdom’s endorsement of Arab normalization of Israel even if it was not going to lead the pack.

The gestures included the opening of Saudi air space to Israeli commercial flights, and publication of a Saudi think tank report praising Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s stewardship in modernizing the kingdom’s religious education system and encouraging the religious establishment to replace“extremist narratives” in school textbooks with “a moderate interpretation of Islamic rhetoric.”

They also involved a sermon by Abdulrahman al-Sudais, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca – the world’s largest mosque that surrounds the Kaaba, Islam’s holiest site, that highlighted Prophet Mohammed’s friendly relations with Jews.

Mr. al-Sudais noted that the prophet had “performed ablution from a polytheistic water bottle and died while his shield was mortgaged to a Jew,” forged a peace agreement with Jewish inhabitants of the Khaybar region, and dealt so well with a Jewish neighbor that he eventually converted to Islam. 

The imam’s comments, a day before US President Donald J. Trump was believed to have failed to persuade King Salman to follow the UAE’s example, were widely seen as part of an effort to prepare Saudi public opinion for eventual recognition of Israel.

Criticism on social media of the comments constituted one indication that public opinion in Gulf states is divided.

Expression of Emirati dissent was restricted to Emirati exiles given that the UAE does not tolerate expression of dissenting views.

However, small scale protests erupted in Bahrain, another country that curtails freedom of expression and assembly. Bahraini political and civil society associations, including the Bahrain Bar Association, issued a statement rejecting the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel.

“What results from normalization will not enjoy popular backing, in line with what generations of Bahrainis have been brought up on in terms of adherence to the Palestinian cause,” the statement said.

Bahrain has long been home to a Jewish community and was the first and, so far, only Arab state to appoint a Jew as its ambassador to the United States.

The criticism echoes recent polls in various Gulf states that suggest that Palestine remains a major public foreign policy concern.

Polling by David Pollock of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy found that Palestine ranked second to Iran.

Earlier polls by James Zogby, a Washington-based pollster with a track record that goes back more than a decade, showed Palestine ranking in 2018 as the foremost foreign policy issue followed by Iran in Emirati and Saudi public opinion.

The same year’s Arab Opinion Index suggested that 80 percent of Saudis see Palestine as an Arab rather than a purely Palestinian issue.

Mr. Pollock said in an interview that with regard to Palestine, Saudi officials “believe that they have to be a little cautious. They want to move bit by bit in the direction of normalizing at least the existence of Israel or the discussion of Israel, the possibility of peace, but they don’t think that the public is ready for the full embrace or anything like that.”

Gulf scholar Giorgio Cafiero noted in a tweet that “Israel formalizing relations (with) unelected Arab (governments) is not the same as Israel making ‘peace’ [with] Arab people. Look at, for example, what Egypt’s citizenry thinks of Israel. Iran and Turkey will capitalize on this reality as more US-friendly Arab [governments] sign accords [with] Israel.”

This year’s Arab Opinion Index suggest that in Kuwait, the one country that has not engaged with Israel publicly, Turkey—the Muslim country that has taken a lead in supporting the Palestinians—ranked highest in public esteem compared to China, Russia, and Iran.

A rift in a UAE-backed Muslim group created to counter Qatari support of political Islam and promote a state-controlled version of Islam that preaches absolute obedience to the ruler serves as a further indication that Palestine remains an emotive public issue.

In Mr. Al-Sudais’ case, analysts suggest that the criticism is as much about Palestine as it is a signal that religious leaders who become subservient to the whims of government may be losing credibility.

Mr. Al-Sudais’ sermon contrasted starkly with past talks in which he described Jews as “killers of prophets and the scum of the earth” as well as “monkeys and pigs” and defended Saudi Arabia’s conflict with Iran as a war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The criticism coupled with indications earlier this year that Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment was not happy with Prince Mohammed’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic may be one reason why Saudi Arabia is gesturing rather than formalizing already existing relations with Israel.

Authorities reportedly arrested in March Sheikh Abdullah al-Saad, an Islamic scholar, after he posted online an audio clip criticizing the government for banning Friday prayers. Mr. al-Saad argued that worshippers should be able to ask God for mercy.

An imam in Mecca was fired shortly after he expressed concern about the spread of the coronavirus in Saudi prisons.

Scholars Genevieve Abdo and Nourhan Elnahla reported that the kingdom’s Council of Senior Clerics had initially drafted a fatwa, or religious opinion, describing the closing of mosques as a violation of Islamic principles. They said that government pressure had persuaded the council not to issue the opinion.

Concern among the kingdom’s ultra-conservative religious scholars that the ruling Al-Saud family may break the power-sharing agreement with the clergy, concluded at the birth of the kingdom, predates the rise of King Salman and Prince Mohammed.

Indeed, the clerics’ concern stretches back to the reign of King Abdullah and has focused on attitudes expressed both by senior members of the ruling family who have since been sidelined or detained by Prince Mohammed and princes that continue to wield influence.

The scholars feared that the ruling family contemplated separating state and religion. This is a concern that has likely been reinforced since Prince Mohammed whipped the kingdom’s religious establishment into submission and downplayed religion by emphasizing nationalism.

Ultra-conservative Saudi religious scholars are also certain to have taken note of post-revolt Sudan’s recent decision to legally remove religion from the realm of the state.

Ultra-conservative sentiment does not pose an imminent threat to Prince Mohammed’s iron grip rule of a country in which many welcomed social reforms that have lifted some of the debilitating restrictions on women, liberalized gender segregation, and the as yet unfulfilled promise of greater opportunity for a majority youthful population.

It does however suggest one reason why Prince Mohammed, who is believed to favor formal relations with Israel, may want to tread carefully on an issue that potentially continues to evoke passions.

An initial version of this story was first published by Inside Arabia

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud, Itunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, Spreaker, Pocket Casts, Tumblr, Podbean, Audecibel, Patreon and Castbox.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. He is also a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute and co-director of the University of Wuerzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture in Germany.

[isaiah504blues-blog]

An Eternal Gospel to Proclaim

An Eternal Gospel to Proclaim

The Gospel has no Expiration Date. God’s grace in Christ always remains good for you.

Hear the full audio of “An Eternal Gospel to Proclaim“

A sermon on Revelation 14:6-7 / Reformation Day (Observed) / 27 October 2019

[dailyaudiobible]

8/17/2017 DAB Transcript

Nehemiah 12:27-13:31; 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; Psalms 35:1-16; Proverbs 21:17-18

Today is the 17th day of August. Welcome to the Daily Audio Bible. I’m Brian and it is wonderful to be here with you for another day and another step forward together. And in this step, today's step, we will conclude the book of Nehemiah. So, from the Holman Christian Standard Bible this week. Nehemiah chapter 12 verse 27 to 13 verse 31.

Commentary:

Alright. So, we concluded the book of Nehemiah just a few minutes ago. And Nehemiah is not a super long book but it gives us a really, really good depiction and look at leadership, especially in its first part. We saw that Nehemiah brought great reforms and restoration to the traditions of Israel among exiles who did not grow up with the temple in Jerusalem but came back and rebuilt it and were re-inaugurating the customs and rituals of Judaism. And, so, Nehemiah and Ezra were both very instrumental in this on the ground with the exiles rebuilding. But Nehemiah had to return to the king. And then he was able to come back at a later time, only to find out that it was starting to crumble again. Things that should not be going on were going on and it was sort of the beginning of the slide backward again. And it was horrifying to him. And there's plenty that we can look at in our own lives in the ways that we begin to slide in certain directions that aren’t going to be healthy or helpful or we can see this going on in communities or in other’s lives or in societies. And, so, Nehemiah has done and does all that he can do and then he turns to God as we all should. And for Nehemiah, his prayer is, remember what I've done of done my best, remember me with favor. Because he knows, although he is very influential, he only has so much influence. And although he would like to see certain things happen there's only so much you can do. And, so, his ultimate concern is that he's done all that he can and that he himself, in his own heart, has stayed true to his convictions. And sometimes that's how it works in leadership, since Nehemiah is so much about that. Sometimes that's all there is. People are going to do what people are going to do. And once you've done everything that you can and have committed to your own integrity, then you can only go to God and say, continue to make me better, continue to make me stronger and truer, continue to grow my understanding in what it is you're calling me to do, remember me. And, so, it's fitting way to end the book of Nehemiah.

And then we get to Paul's letter to the Corinthians and we run headlong into a fog. We’ve got to talk about authority. We’ve got to talk about Angels. We’ve got to talk about head coverings. We’ve got to talk about men and women in roles. And since I happen to have the microphone I have to do one of three things - not talk about it, talk about it as if I know what I'm talking about, or tell you the truth. I don't. And I don't know why that's so hard this day and age - for a leader to say I don't know. But I think it comes from a tradition of needing to have all the answers in a nice linear fashion, so that everything makes complete logical sense, so that an airtight dogma can be wrapped around a subject that is universally true. And that's mixed with the subtle pressure for leader to have all the answers, to somehow have transcended all mystery. I just don't think that's possible. And this passage, in First Corinthians, if nothing else, brings that front and center. Because the interpretations for this particular passage have been wrestled with for centuries coming to a wide array of conclusions that are all over the map. And usually how that works is that a scholar will look at previous scholarship and a pastor will look at scholarship trying to find the path. And, so, you may have heard brilliant sermons or teachings or read amazing things on this that make perfect sense. And that's awesome. But I know that in the course of my faith journey, I’ve spent hours and hours on this - consulting old and new scholarship. So, rather than me trying give you a teaching us something that I'm not hundred percent sure about, I think I’ll just be honest and kind of show you how this works and share some conclusions that I think are safe and true. So, one of the biggest issues, you know, should a woman cover her head in church? And it looks like Paul is answering a question that he hasn't been asked. So, allot of this letter Paul's answering questions. But in this case, he’s just saying, I'm glad you are following the tradition I gave you about this. And he begins to unpack why give the tradition in the first place. So, Paul begins, I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of the woman and God is the head of Christ. So, from a scholarship perspective, just that one verse, the one thing you’ve got to know is, what are we talking about when we’re talking about the head? What does that mean? Are we talking about authority or are we talking about a person's head? And the way that this gets complicated is taking the paragraph as a whole. So, the way that it goes is, I want you to know that Christ is the head of everyman, the man is the head of the woman, God is the head of Christ. And then he immediately says every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. So, it’s like, we’re talking about authority, maybe or are we talking about the real head? Because it's all in the same paragraph, all in the same breath. What are we talking about? And it gets even more complicated when cultural nuance language, where there may be a play on words, doesn't translate into another language well. And, so, if there is a scholarly consensus, it would be that the first part of that is using the term head as a reference to authority and the second part is a person's head. And, so we could say that Paul is revealing that there is an order to things that is then outwardly expressed physically. And I think that’s a safe enough reading of it. But even in that, embedded into that, is a tradition that almost nobody practices. I mean, I’ve been to hundreds of churches in many, many countries and if a woman has her head covered in church it's more a matter of style. It's like the outfit that she's wearing as opposed to a spiritual discipline or expression. And I’ve been in lots of churches where men are wearing hats and covering their heads. So, why are we so willing to blatantly disregard this? And it gets even more complicated because in different traditions around the world covering your head to show reverence for God is part of the tradition. So, in the Jewish tradition, a man does cover his head. That's what the yamaka is about. So, if you're in Israel and you want to go pray at the Western Wall. Number one, men and women will be segregated from each other, they don’t pray together. And if you're a man…I mean…like I’ve never been on the women’s side…because I’ve never been a woman…but I've been to the men's side of it many times. So, if you’re going to approach the wall to pray and you’ve got a baseball hat on, you’re good. But if you have nothing on your head then they’ve got these little throw away yamaka’s that you can throw on your head because you need to cover your head to go approach God that way. Whereas Paul’s saying, you shouldn’t have a hat on at all. And the Jews are just following their traditional interpretation of the Torah. So, with Paul, we can at least clearly say that he's making gender distinctions and saying that within those distinctions are different components that make up a whole. So, let’ just read through this and I will stop at the places where there have been differences of opinion and interpretation and you can pray into it yourself. I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man. So again, what is the head? We just talked about that. Of every man. What are we talking about? Males or mankind? And the man is the head of the woman. Okay. Pause. Is Paul instituting a patriarchal new way of looking at things or is Paul simply stating what is obvious in the culture in which he lives? And God is the head of Christ. So, we have this head thing again. Does that mean that God was actually Jesus physical head or was God in Jesus physical mind or brain or is it that God has the authority over Christ in some way, even though they are one in the same? What I think is safe to say is that Paul is revealing that there is an order to things. And in referring to the order, Paul then talks about covering or not covering your head. Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. So, is he dishonoring his head? Like, you know, where his eyes and nose and mouth and ears and hair are or is he dishonoring the authority to which he has submitted himself? But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. Before we get to that, the way that this passage kind of moves around, some scholars have wondered if this whole portion of the letter isn't a part of, maybe of that earlier letter that Paul talked about, or some other letter and these have been kind of consolidated. I don't particularly think that because there's no evidence for it and most scholars don't but some do. But anyway, a woman should cover head because if she doesn't she’s dishonoring her head. So, maybe her head with her face or that which she has submitted to, which would be God, which could also be an indicator of the fact that she's in the covenant of marriage and you see that allot of these can be both. And, well Paul says if she doesn't, she should have her head shaved, which, I mean, that's definitely a sign of shame. In Paul's day and age and place in the world and culture, a woman who had had her head shaved would be someone who had committed a sin like adultery. And, so, her head would be shaved and then she would, kind of, walk around with that shame. But it would grow back and she would be restored, which is not unlike what happened in David's time. Remember, when David sent some emissaries to another country and they dishonored them by shaving their beards? And, so, David to go to Jericho and let it all grow back and then come back to Jerusalem. So, in that culture the beard was sort of the sign of masculinity and cultural standing and even religious devotion. For that to get shaved off would be quite a dishonor. Or it could be a sign of a vow. Many people would shave their head as they took a vow to God and let it grow back. Or Sampson could never cut his hair. And, so, as we move forward we begin to get a clue that Paul is talking about authority when he is talking about head even though he's talking about covering a physical head. So, he's kind of talking about an order of things as he unpacks this. A man, in fact, should not cover his head because he is God's image and glory but woman is man's glory for man did not come from woman but woman came from man and man was not created for woman but woman for man. This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head. And, so, well, allot of people would say this is kind of demeaning, maybe, to a female then? While others would say no, this is actually kind of affirming and elevating because man is God's image and glory but woman is what gives man glory and God glory. And, so, a woman being created for man by God simply revealed man's inadequacy without her. But anyway, Paul is saying, it's a symbol of authority. This is why a woman should cover her head. But then he says something cryptic – ‘because of the Angels’. This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. So, what is that about? And those interpretations are all over the map because it's even cryptic in the original language. And there are esoteric interpretations as well as practical. So, like, on the esoteric side of things, I've seen interpretations that this is referring to the sons of God and the daughters of Eve in the Old Testament and that a woman's uncovered head is so intoxicating that even spiritual beings are seduced. And that this whole thing was about protection and protecting the beauty of femininity. Other interpretations of these angels will come from places like the book of Revelation, where there is an angel for a church and this angel would report back to God the goings on. Others would say that Angels means messengers and this is a messenger. So, it could be people visiting from other churches and Paul wanted uniformity in certain traditions. But then Paul turns the conversation again. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man and man is not independent of woman for just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God. So, on the one hand, part of this, people have seen this very patriarchal and then he says that and it's not. And in other letters, he says, in the Lord that there is no male or female, like we’re all the same. But then we get to the end of what Paul is saying in this passage. Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it's a disgrace to him but if a woman has long hair it’s her glory for her hair is given to her as a covering. But if any anyone wants to argue about this, we don't have any other customs in the church. So, what Paul is saying here is, it’s kind of obvious, which is clearly referencing his time and place, because now all of those things are quite as obvious in this time and place. Women cover their heads or they don't. Men have long hair or they don't. I had long hair for a lot of my life and I might still if it were falling out but it never felt like it was dishonoring…it was just never a dishonor or honor thing. That’s not the culture I grew up in. So, you can see why I can come before you as a brother and just say I'm not sure, because linguistic scholars or theological scholars or cultural scholars have all wrestled with this and have come to different conclusions. And as hard as I am after God in my life, as deeply as I am aiming my heart toward knowing God, the further that I go, the more I realize that I have barely begun to scratch the surface. And the Bible continues to show me that I don't know all I think I know. And that posture has actually opened me wide, to simply sit with the fact that I don't know all that I think that I know. And there will always be more and it's going to take billions of years in eternity, with God, in collaboration and in love with God to know what I want to know. And I think, even then, there’ll be more.

So, I bring this up today not to be disconcerting in any way. Although I don't mind being disruptive. But this passage does give us an opportunity to come face-to-face with our dogmas and the ways in which we think everything, every problem, has to have a logical answer when life rarely works like that. When we’re able to hold in our hands the mystery and acknowledge that we don't know all that we think that we do, we are no longer relying on our own strength. And if there's one thing the metanarrative of the Bible teaches us is that we are hopelessly powerless without God. But another thing that is undeniable in the scriptures is that God is passionately desiring to be involved in our lives. Those things are fundamental and foundational and it becomes more important to say, I don't know the answer but I do know God. And it is within that tension that we grow and ironically that is woven into the fabric of the culture in which the Bible, from which, the Bible came. Israel means one who wrestles with God. And, so, from that tradition is a different way of absorbing the Scriptures. It's less about what you're going to figure out and create a dogma around and more about what is happening to you, what you are wrestling with. And we've seen that so many times already this year in the Bible, where it becomes this mirror into our souls and begins to speak about things much deeper inside of us. It becomes less about reading words on a page and realizing those words are reading our mail. They are reading us. A mirror has been put up in front of us and we have to look squarely into our own hearts and it unlocks places in us that that we didn't know. And allot of times, if I'm wrestling through or trying to understand something, I'll go to Jesus first, I'll go to the Gospels. But even Jesus practiced this. There’s this beautiful story, where a scholar, someone who had been trained came to Jesus and asked him about the great commandments in relation to eternal life. And Jesus says, you're an expert, how do you read it? Which is so fascinating t me. We talk about it in the book, Sneezing Jesus. Because I think it's so compelling that God would invite a man to talk about how he has wrestled with and understands the scriptures. That’s remarkably fascinating to me. And even Paul, in this passage, says, judge for yourselves, wrestle with this yourselves. At the end of the day, and Paul says this, at the end of the day this is just what we do. This is the custom. We don't have any other custom. So, when I read a passage like the one we read today, I have to say, there is an understanding or was an understanding in the Corinthian culture that didn't need to be explained that everyone knew. And we've lost that. And here’s kind of how that works. If I were to say to any of you, hey, you going to watch the game on Sunday? I don't have to explain what I'm talking about. We know, generally speaking. Like, if you're if you're a sports fan and you, like, watch sports all year round. I could say, you going to watch the game on Saturday, you going to watch the game on Sunday or whatever. Depending on what season it is, you know exactly what game and what sport we’re likely talking about depending on where we are. If I'm in Tennessee I might be watching a specific game that is a professional team of our city. And for you it might be different in a different city but we kind of know what we’re talking about. But if we try to ask this question a couple hundred years ago, it would mean something completely different if we understood it at all. And if we take Paul's writings in their totality, we know his heart. We know that all he wanted was for people to know Jesus and to grow strong in their faith. We know that he went through allot for that cause. We know that he was an outsider and cast away from his own people in his own culture who wanted to do away with him because of it. We know that this guy gave his life for the cause of Christ. And when he wrote this letter to the Corinthians, he wasn’t trying to put people in any kind of bondage. He had given his life to set people free from bondage. I don't know why covering our heads or uncovering our heads was so important at that particular time but I do know that those traditions follow through. Why does a woman walk down the aisle with the veil and her head covered to give herself to her husband before God and to enter into a covenant with God and her husband? I’ve been to lots of weddings. I've performed lots of weddings. I have yet to find a bride that isn’t thrilled with the tradition. That she gets to walk down the aisle and she's covered and her heads covered and she looks like a radiant daughter of God. And I have seen that image level the husband to be. I have watched husbands lift the veil in tears. And, so, our traditions, when they mean something, they mean something true. So, whatever was going on here is for good.

Prayer:

Father, we thank You for Your word and its ability to bring us to the end of ourselves and to bring us into Your presence because we know You are good and kind and merciful and loyal been beyond what we know how to articulate. And You love us and we love You back. And we sit with mystery knowing that it unfolds day by day by day by day and will continue to do this forever. And in Your kindness we get to live inside that adventure. So, come, Holy Spirit, implant the words in our lives and may it yield good fruit for your kingdom. We ask in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Announcements:

dailyaudiobible.com is the website. It’s home base. It’s where you find out what's going on around here.

I have mentioned that we have Sneezing Jesus available in the Daily Audio Bible shop now and we’ve brought back the 10 pack with all of the associated goodies that went with that. You can get that straight from the Daily Audio Bible now. We even have cases for those of you who are giving them way as gifts to everyone you know or giving it to visitors for your church or for your group or for whatever. It's all there in the Daily Audio Bible shop. There’s even a category for it. So, be sure to check that out.

If you want to partner with the Daily Audio Bible, you can do that at dailyaudiobible.com. If the community here is a life-giving one for you and for your journey. Thank you for your partnership in helping to keep it happening. Everything we've done since the beginning of this we’ve done together. So, thank you. There's a link on the homepage of dailyaudiobible.com. If using the app, you can press the more button in the lower right-hand corner, or if you prefer the mailing address is PO Box 1996 Spring Hill TN 37174.

And of course, as always, if you have a prayer request or comment 877-942-4253 is the number to dial.

And that's it for today. I'm Brian I love you and I'll be waiting for you here tomorrow.

Community Prayers and Praise Reports:

Good morning from the UK, Nottingham. It’s August the 14th. Hello and blessings from the UK. I want to pray for us all. Lord, I thank You for community. I thank you that you brought us together under Your name, the name above all names, Jesus. And I bless each and every one of us that we can really find our purpose and goal in life and serve you with all our heart and mind. Even in our wondering, we’ll just gravitate back to You today. In Jesus’ name. Bless this community, I pray. Community, I’d like for you to pray for a lady in my life, that has come into my life…for friends really…in needing on our journey of faith to discovering Jesus. Her names Patsy or Samantha. She's had a difficult time in relationships with her health. But the Lord has drawn her to my church. And she keeps wanting to come on Sundays and she's very, very interested and loves children, particularly, my daughter. I’m a divorced dad and see my daughter weekends. And…you know…the Lords will be done. I’ve been divorced for nearly three years now, separated for eight. And…you know…I trust the Lord, that he has the right partner for me but who knows with this lady…dear friend. Pray for her that she’ll find…her eyes will be open to faith and discover more of Him and who He is and that distractions will disappear and the enemy will keep his hands off her by sending wrong people towards her. And I pray that she’ll have wisdom in all that she does. Thank you. family. God bless. Bye-bye.

My name is Rachel. I’m phoning from Scotland. I’ve just listened to the Daily Audio Bible podcast for the day the 14th of August and I wanted to pray for Mary C. from Georgia. And I wondered if she hears this if Mary, if you will contact me? My email is jemassage01@gmail.com. Father God, we pray for Your servant Mary. You know that she banged her head Father, and You know that she’s been suffering ever since. And her and her mother are going to be moving shortly and you know she’s not going to be able to go to school and we just pray that You will touch her today Lord, that You will heal her. That You will restore her to full health. Lord, we ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen. God bless everybody. Take care. Jesus loves you. Bye.

Good morning. I’m a new listener. I love this app. I love what you’re doing. A friend of mind gave me your information and I started listening just a few days ago. God bless you for being there. I do have a prayer request. Number one is my son, Brice, who is Spirit filled, lost his job a couple months ago and he only has enough money for another month. He is Christian and Spirit filled but he’s getting very anxious and nervous. And my daughter in law is having a very hard time. Her name is Kelly. Brice and Kelly. I know God has a job for him and I know He has a job that when He opens the doors that no man can close. I just ask for your prayers for them, for their peace and that they would go in the right direction, the place that God wants them and that they would draw closer to God and they both need to know the Father’s love. And in this I’m praying and I want you to agree with me, that they know the Father’s love and that they have a testimony of what God did and what He’s doing and what He’s already done. And I thank you for praying. I also developed a rash on my abdomen and I don’t know what it is but I just want prayer for complete healing. And, again, God bless you for being there and I intend to keep listening daily. Thank you. In Jesus’ name…

Good morning DAB family. Deborah, Providence RI. Brain and family and all the other’s thanks for all that you do. I listened to the podcast on the 14th of August and this is for Valeri whose father is in hospice and mother who recently passed. Valeri, my prayers are with you honey. I pray and agree with you for your prayer for your dad’s peaceful and happy transition. I know it’s tough but just hold on knowing that they are both going to be in a better place. I pray peace in your heart. Also, for the young lady, the 16-year-old that got hurt and is asking for prayers for her healing, her home, a better home when they move, and for her sisters return to Christ. I stand in full agreement with You. God Bless Byron. Thank you for the story about the track with your son. Very uplifting. Tony, Blind Tony, I just pray for your healing brother and glorify God for you for the gift that you share with us regularly. I know there are calls about you not calling yourself Blind Tony. I tend to agree buddy. Honey, you are who you are, free of healing. I pray you’ll continue to hold onto your healing. It will come. No matter what you call yourself. You’re a child of God and you will be healed. In Jesus’ name. Thank you everyone. God bless. Bye.

[battleforgodstruth]

The Priority of Family Worship - Pastor Patrick Hines Sermon (Deuteronomy 6:1-9 NKJV)

▶️Dear Brethren, I am now on X. If you are as well, please consider following me there: https://twitter.com/RichMoo50267219 1 “Now this [is] the commandment, [and these are] the statutes and judgments which the LORD your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe [them] in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2 “that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes…

[musicgoon]

Recommended Reading

Providing A Freshly Curated, Weekly Link List on Christianity & Culture.

Find my weekly recommended reading with the RR tag. Dedicated link posts with personal commentary can be found through the link tag. Real-time news and article sharing happens on Twitter and my Facebook page.

I love seeing new things on the Internet and reading and your comments, so please keep in touch. And to get all of my articles, exclusive insight, and more from my many projects, subscribe to my newsletter.

On Fridays, I contribute a curated link column specifically for SOLA Network readers. I hope to highlight articles related to Asian American issues and blog posts written by Asian American authors. You can read my tenth roundup from last Friday.

I will not be including any most links to Avengers: Endgame for two reasons. First, there are so many links that I think it deserves a separate post, which you will find on the site soon. Second, I have not yet seen the movie! But we do plan to see it soon. Here are the links!

Christianity

Worship God at All Times. If Necessary, Use Music.

Would You Trade Eternal Life For A Ferrari? The False Gospel of Prosperity Theology

The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement

18 Paintings Christians Should See

4 False Accusations against Reformed Theology

His Mercy Is More — Some Lyrics Last A Lifetime

Your Emotions Aren’t the Most (or Least) Important Thing About You

How Do You Know If You Should Adopt?

Porn is Not Ultimately About Sex

They Sang a New Song: Charles Spurgeon’s Reflections on the Heavenly Hymn in Revelation 5

What Makes a Sermon Difficult To Listen To

Podcast: Womanhood and the Bible (Abigail Dodds)

10 Things You Should Know about Spiritual Adoption

The Bottomless Search for Approval

Instagram, Twitter, and the Longing for Approval

Knowing God Makes All the Difference

4 Popular Lies About Singleness

Though once thought to be a god, the emperor of ‘secular’ Japan is still considered a priest of Shinto. How secular can a society really be when worship is involved?

Hillsong Pastor Brian Houston criticizes rugby star Israel Folau for judgmentalism: Why the bad news of sin and hell is necessary in the good news of the gospel

Love Not Sleep

Start Asking God for More: Four Reasons We Pray Less

6 Keys to a Rewarding Digital Detox

Look to Faithful Believers, But Fix Your Eyes on Jesus

Episode 85: On What Can Miserable Christians Sing (with Carl Trueman and Matt Merker)

How the statement from the parents of the synagogue shooting suspect reveals the danger of curiosity in the information age

10 Things You Should Know about the Danger of Media

Teaching Children to Pray

Building a Joyful Spirit

Train Harder than Athletes

Should Christians Just Admit That The Bible 'Got It Wrong' And Move On?

Who’s to Blame When the Shooter Is One of Our Own?

Avengers: Endgame and the Redemption Saga of Tony Stark

Jeff Dodge on Theological Training and Intellectualism

Theology for the Teen Years

The Doctor May Ask You: Making Urgent Medical Decisions for Loved Ones

How Should Writers and Editors Work Together?

Design Matters

Culture

What Creative Type Are You?

How Amazon Created Prime

The Beginning of Recorded Sound

She’s Asian and female. But she’s not me.

How Chinese American Women Changed U.S. Labor History

Meet Marvel's Secret Weapon: 'Avengers: Endgame' Executive Producer Trinh Tran

Ming-Na Wen, Nancy Kwan Talk Hollywood's New "Awareness" on Diversity: "It's Opening Up"

Buried in a hoodie, indie upstart Brie Larson offers a guitar cover of Ariana Grande

Epcot’s Play Pavilion Will Include A New ‘Zootopia’ Attraction and More

Netflix Drops ‘The Wandering Earth’ On Its Service With Zero Fanfare

Listen: Full ‘Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge’ Theme Song Composed By John Williams

Instagram has a counterfeit fashion problem

Cinema is dead. Long live content.

Mina Kimes on the Korean American Experience and the NFL

She was the “queen of the mommy bloggers.” Then her life fell apart.

VIDEO INTERVIEW: NYC’s New Sesame Street with Cookie Monster

Taylor Swift and Brendon Urie Perform at Billboard Music Awards

What Netflix's New High-Quality Audio Means for You

Tommy Lee Jones remains committed to his calling as the world's best Japanese coffee salesman

Exclusive: Quentin Tarantino Tells Us How and Why He Created ‘The Hateful Eight’ Miniseries for Netflix

New Disney’s Hollywood Studios Theme Park Logo Incorporates Characters From ‘Star Wars,’ Pixar and More

Disney’s Hollywood Studios Turns 30 – and Few Major Theme Parks Have Undergone So Many Massive Changes

Typography 2020

Here Are The Winners Of The NPR Student Podcast Challenge

Who are the Most Influential AAPIs of 2019?

Getting in Character: Kore Asian Media Rebrands to Chronicle and Celebrate Diverse Asian Americans in Entertainment

Eating at The Kid’s Table

Millennials Tried to Kill the American Mall, But Gen Z Might Save It

Get Some Rupees Together For This Limited Edition Zelda Concert Soundtrack Deal

Looking For The Next Indie Musician To Be Obsessed With? Get To Know Sasami Ashworth

What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men?

On the Internet, You Can Run But You Can’t Hide

When Did Pop Culture Become Homework?

The Instagram Aesthetic Is Over

The golden age of YouTube is over

[bldgrelationshipwgod]

The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit | John MacArthur

The following sermon transcript does not match the video version of the sermon—it matches only the audio version. Here's a brief explanation why.

John MacArthur routinely preaches a sermon more than once on the same date, during different worship services at Grace Community Church. Normally, for a given sermon title, our website features the audio and video that were recorded during the same worship service. Very occasionally, though, we will post the audio from one service and the video from another. Such was the case for the sermon titled "Losing Your Life to Save it," the transcript of which follows below. The transcript is of the audio version.

Well, now that I don’t have to preach on anything but what I want to preach on, since I finished the New Testament, I find myself all over the place, trying to decide what to preach on in sequence.  It’s a new kind of experience for me and I’m working on some kind of sequence that makes sense over the future.  But I am sort of at the liberty point of my life where whatever is on my heart is where I can go, and this is a wonderful opportunity for me.  And there is a subject that has concerned me for a long time, and I have wanted to address this subject, but it hasn’t been a part of the preaching through the gospels in the way that it can be now and that is the subject of the Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit.

After all the emphasis of so many years, 25 years of preaching through the four gospels, and much emphasis, of course, on the person of Christ, as it should be, much emphasis on the character of God and the nature of God as manifest in Christ and is seen elsewhere in Scripture, it is time now to give honor to the third member of the Trinity; namely, the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is the most forgotten, the most misrepresented, the most dishonored, the most grieved, the most abused, and I might even say the most blasphemed of the members of the Trinity.  That’s a sad thing.

When our Lord cleansed the temple in John 2, He said that He was, in a sense, fulfilling the attitude of David from Psalm 69:  “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up, the reproaches that fall on you are fallen on Me.”  And what our Lord was saying was, “When God is dishonored, I feel the pain.”  “You have taken My Father’s house, which is to be a house of prayer, and turned it into a den of robbers.  You’ve corrupted My Father’s house.  You’ve blasphemed My Father’s name.  You’ve dishonored My Father.”  And I can say that I have long felt that same thing with regard to the Holy Spirit.  Yes, I grieve when God is dishonored.  It is a constant grief to me.  I grieve when Christ is dishonored.

But in this contemporary sort of Christian evangelical church world, people are a little less reluctant to bring dishonor on the name of God and the name of Christ, but they think they have a free run at dishonoring and abusing the Holy Spirit, apparently, because so much of that goes on.  I’m not here to defend the Holy Spirit; He can defend Himself.  But I am here to say that reproaches that are falling on His holy name are falling on me as well, and mostly this comes in the professing church from Pentecostals and Charismatics who feel they have free license to abuse the Holy Spirit and even blaspheme His holy name – and they do it constantly.

How do they do it?  By attributing to the Holy Spirit words that He didn’t say, deeds that He didn’t do, and experiences that He didn’t produce, attributing to the Holy Spirit that which is not the work of the Holy Spirit.  Endless human experiences, emotional experiences, bizarre experiences, and demonic experiences are said to come from the Holy Spirit.  Visions, revelations, voices from heaven, messages from the Spirit through transcendental means, dreams, speaking in tongues, prophecies, out-of-body experiences, trip to heaven, anointings, miracles – all false, all lies, all deceptions – attributed falsely to the Holy Spirit.

You know enough to know that God does not want to be worshiped in illegitimate ways.  God wants to be worshiped for who He is, for what He has done in the way He has declared.  It is open season on abusing the Holy Spirit, outrageous dishonor of the Holy Spirit, claiming He is saying things and doing things and generating things that have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit at all.  It is a reckless kind of movement.  It is a shameful and dangerous sin to heap such abuse on the Holy Spirit.  In fact, the idea of bringing dishonor on the Holy Spirit ought to make any thinking person tremble.  People seem less interested, I think, in claiming that God is doing certain things or saying certain things or that Christ is doing things or saying certain things than they are at saying the Holy Spirit did this, the Holy Spirit said this, the Holy Spirit is producing and generating this, that there just seems to be no restraint on the things that are blamed on the Holy Spirit.

A way to perceive this would be to see it as a contrast to what we see in Matthew chapter 12, for example.  The leaders of Israel committed the unpardonable sin, and what was that unpardonable sin?  It was attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit.  Remember that?  It was attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 12:31-32.  What’s going on today is the opposite.  Attributing to the Holy Spirit the work of Satan.  That’s what’s going on.  Attributing to the Holy Spirit the work of Satan.  Satan is alive and at work in deception, false miracles, bad theology, lying visions, lying dreams, lying revelations, deceptive teachers who are in it for the money and power and influence.  Satan is alive and well, and the work of Satan is being attributed to the Holy Spirit.  That is a serious blasphemy, just as attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit is a serious blasphemy.

I couldn’t even begin to give you all the illustrations.  You have enough of them in your own mind.  You can turn on your television and see any litany of them that you would choose.  And in order to give credibility to all these things, all these lies, they attach them to the Holy Spirit as if it’s a freebie, as if there’s no price to pay for that kind of blasphemy.

The latest wave of this – I’ll just give you one illustration.  The latest wave of this that is gaining traction and has entered into sort of national news is a new form of Charismania, bringing reproach on the Holy Spirit called the New Apostolic Reformation, NAR, the New Apostolic Reformation.  It is not new, it is not apostolic, and it is not a reformation, by the way.  It is like Grape Nuts – it’s not grapes and it’s not nuts.  It’s like Christian Science – it’s not Christian and it’s not scientific.  Well, the New Apostolic Reformation isn’t new, it isn’t apostolic, and it isn’t a reformation.  But it is a rapidly expanding movement being generated by some of the same old troubling false teachers and false leaders that have been around in Charismania for decades, always dishonoring the Holy Spirit, always dishonoring the Scripture, always claiming miracle signs, wonders, visions, dreams.  Peter Wagner, the Kansas City “Prophets,” Mike Bickle, Cindy Jacobs, Lou Engle, and on and on and on it goes.

In fact, this is exploding so fast that they have a 50-state network that are now involved in this.  This is a new kind of Charismania, it’s sort of on steroids.  One writer said it’s Charismania with shots of adrenalin.  And here’s what their basic claim is:  that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them that in the year 2001, we entered into the second apostolic age – in the year 2001 we entered into the second apostolic age.  What does that mean?  It means that the long-lost offices of New Testament prophet and New Testament apostle have been restored, the Holy Spirit has given the power of prophecy and the power and authority of an apostle to certain people in this generation of the church since 2001.  It seems very odd to me that the Holy Spirit would give that to people whose theology is unbiblical and totally aberrant.  I’m pretty sure the Holy Spirit wouldn’t authenticate false teachers, so we know it’s not the Holy Spirit, but that’s what they claim.  But the Holy Spirit gets blamed for everything; this is just the newest one.

For example, they have authority equal to the apostles, they have the same power the apostles had through the Holy Spirit to do miracles and to exercise that power, and they’ve had it since 2001.  Some of them fall into the prophet category, some of them fall into the apostle category.  They speak what the Holy Spirit reveals to them with the same authority the apostles have.  This authority and this power has been demonstrated in the world because one of the apostles stopped mad cow disease in Germany – so he claims.  The movement is marked by super-excess ecstatic, bizarre behavior.  Emotionalism ran amok, all kinds of crazy revelations, behaviors.  Peter Wagner is the father of this, as he has been involved in all kinds of other aberrations through the years, including starting the Church Growth Movement, which gave life to the Pragmatism movement, which, as we know, is so ubiquitous.  Their influence has been growing and recently jumped into the political realm, and I’ll tell you how.

There was a couple of weeks ago, a few weeks ago now, a prayer breakfast in the city of Houston that you may have read about.  It was an event sponsored by the New Apostolic Reformation and their leaders and the guests, and the main speaker there was Rick Perry, who is a candidate for the Republican Party for President.  At this event, sponsored by the New Apostolic Reformation, two pastors were leading in this event.  They are apostles.  They have been given apostleship by the Holy Spirit.  They called Rick Perry’s office, as governor of the state of Texas, and told him that the Lord had revealed to them through the Holy Spirit that Texas is the state that God has chosen to lead the United States into revival and godly government and Rick Perry is to play a key role.  And at that event, these two apostles of the New Apostolic Reformation Movement laid hands on Rick Perry and prayed over him.  They claim that God speaks directly to them specific instruction – specific instruction.  And if people fail to listen to this divine revelation that comes through them, there will be more earthquakes, more terrorist attacks, and worse economic conditions.

However, if we listen, good things will happen because they gave us an illustration of that because they were the ones who gave a little bit of rain to Texas after the draught.  I mean if you didn’t know better, you’d think somebody opened the back door of the nut house.  One of these apostles says the Democratic Party is controlled by Jezebel and three lesser demons.  They see demons in public places.  They engage in confrontation of these demons and they do it with elaborate rituals, branding irons, stakes, and plumb lines.  They’ve gone all over the state of Texas pounding stakes into the ground, branding certain things and claiming every county in Texas for God.  One of them says, and I quote, “We are called to world dominion.”  They have gone to every Masonic Lodge in Texas to cast out the demon Baal because the demon Baal controls Free M asonry.

They had a meeting in 2009 in Houston.  Under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, Jezebel was visible.  They saw Jezebel.  Actually, a woman named Alice Patterson, one of these apostles who has written a book called Bridging The Racial and Political Divide, which sounds like a political book, published in 2010, she said that she saw Jezebel, and Jezebel lifted up her skirt, and when Jezebel lifted up her skirt – this is a quote – “She exposed little Baal, Asherah, and a few other demons who were small, cowering, trembling little spirits only ankle high on Jezebel’s skinny legs,” end quote.  This is in a book called Bridging the Racial and Political Divide, and this is all attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit who is revealing all these things.

Now, you know where this all comes from.  This is again attributing to the Holy Spirit the work of Satan.  I don’t know what Rick Perry knows or doesn’t know about all of this.  You know, in a campaign year, you take prayers from anybody, especially if you’re not sure what this is all about.  But this is just one illustration of the aberrations that continue to be placed on the back of the Holy Spirit as if these are things that He is doing.  It is such a frightening, frightening form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  There are other forms of it, but that’s just the latest one that’s in the media.

I remember in the early years of ministry when I came out of seminary, for many years I traveled around when I graduated, even when I was in seminary.  Graduated from college and during my seminary years and for a number of years afterwards, I traveled around and I spoke to young people’s groups and college groups and all kinds of different groups and student ministries and ministries in churches, and inevitably, one of the themes that everybody wanted me to talk about was the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  It was constant.  I was constantly talking about the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  Everybody was asking about sanctification.  How do I get rid of sin in my life?  How do I progress spiritually?  How do I grow more to be like Jesus Christ?  How do I separate from the world?  How do I gain victory over temptation?  What is the path?  How can I manifest the fruit of the Spirit?  How can I walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh?  I mean they were – that’s just plain old New Testament sanctification, and young people were asking those questions.  It was constant.

I would be in conference after conference on campuses and in various places, talking to students, and inevitably the subject would be:  How can I be sanctified?  How can I become more like Christ?  How can I beat sin in my life?  How can I grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ?  What does it mean to be Spirit-filled?  What does it mean to be baptized by the Spirit?  Sealed by the Spirit?  Indwelt by the Spirit?  What is the role the Spirit plays in my life?

I’m not asked to do that anymore.  That doesn’t seem to ever be a topic of conversation.  That doesn’t seem to be a subject anybody cares about.  The Charismatic movement has stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf, and they’re dancing around the golden calf as if it were the Holy Spirit.  It is a false form of the Holy Spirit.  They’ve exploited the Holy Spirit and demanded to be able to do that in an uncriticized manner.  Nobody can say anything against them.  That’s divisive, unloving, cantankerous.  That’s why Benny Hinn said about me, “If I had my way, I’d take my Holy Ghost machine gun and blow his brains out.”  You’re not allowed to question anything they say about the Holy Spirit.  They have coopted the Holy Spirit and demanded to do that without being criticized, without being confronted, and they go on with their exploitation and so proved testimony concerning the Holy Spirit is pushed and repressed underground because it’s going to be divisive, they’re not going to like it, it’ll offend somebody.

So the Charismatic version of the Holy Spirit is that golden calf who is not God.  Not God, the Holy Spirit, but a false creation, an idol around which they dance in their dishonoring exercises.  And here we are in this, you know, interest in Reformed theology, in this kind of new evangelical wave that’s going, and there’s very little talk about the Holy Spirit, very little discussion about the Holy Spirit.  No strong doctrine of sanctification, no consuming desire for holiness, separation from the world.  In fact, it seems to me that much of this new evangelical movement looks more worldly all the time.  It seems to be indifferent to the work of the Holy Spirit.  You know, if you get the gospel right, you get a free pass on everything else.  Very little interest in talking about what is the baptism of the Spirit, what is the filling of the Spirit, the sealing of the Spirit?  What does it mean to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh?  What does biblical separation mean?  Personal holiness?  Sanctification?  There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in that.

Wherever the Holy Spirit is, there’s humility.  Wherever you see the exaltation of a man, that’s not the work of the Holy Spirit.  When you can look at a movement that claims to be evangelical, and you can see the exploitation, the exaltation of men, that is not the work of the Holy Spirit.  Where there is the work of the Holy Spirit, there’s the exaltation of Jesus Christ and everybody else fades.  Of all the ages in the history of the church, this is the one most capable of feeding pride.  Why?  Because there are so many ways to stick yourself in front of people’s faces across the planet.  This is an easy time for proud people to make the most of themselves.  There just doesn’t seem to be interest in the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

There is even a toleration of a view of the Holy Spirit that’s downright heretical and that is what I guess you could call modalism.  I know that’s a technical term but that’s simply to say that there’s only one God, He’s not three persons, He’s one God who appears in three modes, not at the same time but separately.  Sometimes He’s the Father, sometimes He’s the Son, sometimes He’s the Spirit, He’s never three in one.  That’s the view, for example, of T.D. Jakes.  Sabellianism, Modalism.  Doesn’t seem to bother lots of folks that he has a God who’s not the God of the Bible, that his view of the Holy Spirit is a heresy, his view of the Son and the Father equally heretical.  We have to get the Trinity right, and we have to give due worship to the Holy Spirit, equal to the Son, equal to the Father.

So these things have been on my mind and a lot of things in addition, but I think you get the picture.  And we haven’t really looked down hard at the ministry of the Holy Spirit to see what it is that we need to worship Him for and what we need to be focused on in terms of giving Him the praise and the honor that He is due.

The disinterest in the Holy Spirit is what gives rise to Pragmatism.  We have replaced supernaturalism, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, with Pragmatism.  We’ve committed the sin of the Galatians.  Galatians 3, Paul says, “Having begun in the Spirit, are you made perfect by the flesh?”  In other words, there’s no way to get saved except by the work of the Holy Spirit.  Now that you’re saved, are you now taken over with the flesh?  You’re going to accomplish everything through the flesh.  Pride has defeated humility, and that’s always an affront to the Holy Spirit.  Where are the meek and where are the humble and where are the lowly?  Where the Holy Spirit is, Christ will be exalted.  It will be Christ and it will be Christ and it will be Christ again who receives all the praise and all the honor and all the glory.  The Holy Spirit is grieved if Christ is not exalted.  His work is quenched when the flesh is elevated.

So we could have done this, perhaps, through the years and we have touched on, of course, all the New Testament teaches about the Holy Spirit.  Eventually we would have covered it all over the last 40 years or so.  But I want to take a look at the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the next few weeks.  I don’t know how long it’s going to take me.  I have no idea.  And that’s okay.  But we’re going to go to one chapter instead of running all over the place because I don’t want to lead you everywhere.  We’re going to look at Romans 8, so you can just kind of keep that in your mind.  If you turn there now, you’re going to be a little frustrated.  But go ahead – it’ll make you feel more comfortable to have your Bible open.  I’m not going to get there, but just have your Bible open, it’s good, it’s good.  And I’ll make a couple of references to Romans 8.  But that’s going to be our chapter.

And why don’t we look at it for just a second?  And let me just point out why I’m picking this chapter to learn about the Holy Spirit – pretty obvious.  Verse 2 talks about the Spirit, you see it there, Romans 8:2, referring to the Spirit.  And you come down, verse 4 refers to the Spirit.  Verse 5 refers to the Spirit.  Verse 6 refers to the Spirit.  Verse 9 refers to the Spirit.  Verse 11 refers to the Spirit.  Verse 13 – and so it goes.  Verse 14, verse 16 – this is the Spirit’s chapter, all the way down into verse 26, the Spirit helps our weakness, He’s mentioned again, interceding for us.  So the Holy Spirit is the main player in this 8th chapter of Romans, and so it gives us the opportunity to sort of build a sound theology of the ministry and the work of the Holy Spirit.  We could call this chapter “Life in the Spirit.”  Life in the Spirit.

We’re going to have a great time working through this chapter, as you will see.  But before we do that, I just want to kind of give you an overview.  Before we go down to the worm’s-eye view, give you kind of a bird’s-eye view.  The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, not an “it.”  The Holy Spirit is not an influence.  The Holy Spirit is not some kind of energy emanating from God.  The Holy Spirit is God, a member of the Trinity, a person completely the essence of God with an entity and a personality of His own.  Scripture is clear about this.  He is equal in nature and attributes – let me say that again – He’s equal in nature and attributes to the Father and the Son.  He is not diminished in any sense, is fully God in the same way the Father and the Son are.

He has personality.  Sometimes people refer to “it,” the Holy Spirit.  That is inaccurate.  He possesses intellect, emotion, and will.  And evidences of that in the Scriptures are ample everywhere in Scripture.  For instance, He knows the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians 2.  In other words, He’s plumbed the full depth of divine knowledge.  He has knowledge equal to that of the Father, equal to that of the Son.  That’s 1 Corinthians 2.  He loves the saints, and His love is equal to that love which is characteristic of Christ and God, Romans 5:5.  He makes choices, divine choices, sovereign choices.  First Corinthians 12:11, He decides what He will give to what believer with regard to spiritual capacities and spiritual gifts.  He speaks – He speaks.  He speaks the truth always.  He prays for us – Romans 8 – as we’ll find out in verse 26.  He teaches us all things.  He is the anointing that comes from God – John 14, 1 John 2 – so that we don’t need a human teacher because He teaches us everything.  John 16:13 says He guides us.  Here in Romans 8, it says He leads us, as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they’re the sons of God.

He commands.  His commands are given, for example, in Acts 16:6-7.  He fellowships with us.  Second Corinthians chapter 13 verse 14 talks about the fellowship of the Spirit.  Ephesians 4:30 says He can be grieved.  All these indicate He’s a person.  He can be grieved.  Acts 5:3, He can be lied to, as Ananias and Sapphira did, “Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit?”  He can be tested.  That’s the same passage.  “Why are you testing the Holy Spirit?”  He can be vexed, angered, you might say, according to Isaiah 63:10.  He can be resisted.  Acts 7:51, “Why do you resist the Holy Spirit?”  And in Mark 3 as in Matthew 12, He can be blasphemed.  First Thessalonians 5:19, He can be quenched; that is, His efforts thwarted, hindered.  All of these are evidences that this is a person, one who thinks and feels and acts and makes decisions in every capacity, as a person does.

There also is no doubt about His deity, that He is absolutely God.  And I’ll show you just one illustration of that, though there are many.  Turn for a minute to Acts chapter 5, and let’s go back to that fascinating account of Ananias and Sapphira who lied to the Holy Spirit saying, you know, that they gave everything they got from the sale of the property when the truth is they kept back some of the money for themselves.  So in chapter 5 verse 3, Peter confronts them on the Lord’s Day at the church.  “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?”  Now, just pick that right up there, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?”  Now go down to verse 4, end of the verse.  “You have not lied to men, but to God.”  God is the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is God.  There you have it, the deity of the Holy Spirit, absolutely, clearly indicated.

You have Trinitarian formulas in Matthew 28:19, “Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” all equal members of the Holy Trinity.  They cannot be separate members.  Modalism is a ridiculous idea, the idea that God is sometimes the Father and then He puts on His Son hat, and then He puts on His Holy Spirit hat.  How do you explain the baptism of Christ where Christ is being baptized, the Father is saying, “He’s My beloved Son,” and the Spirit’s descending like a dove?  A little problem for the Modalists there because all three show up at the same time.

He is God.  How do we know that?  He has attributes of God.  In Hebrews 9:14, it says He is the eternal Spirit – the eternal Spirit.  He is as eternal as God is because He is eternally God.  He is omniscient.  And again, that goes back to John 15-16, also John 14, He’s the source of all truth, He leads you into all truth, reveals all truth.  First Corinthians 2:  He knows the deep things of God that are known only to God and only to the Spirit of God.  So He is eternal, He is omniscient.  And He’s omnipotent – He is omnipotent.  How powerful is the Holy Spirit?  He’s equally powerful to God.  How do we know that?  He’s the creator of everything that exists.  That’s Genesis, right?  In the beginning, the creation was without form and it was void, it was tohu and bohu, it was emptiness and nothingness, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and creation began.

Even more astounding to see the power of His creation is in the first chapter of Luke and verse 35 when the Angel came to Mary and said, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you” – “the Holy Spirit will come upon you” – listen to this – “and with Him the power of the Most High.”  In other words, the power of the Most High God, El Elyon, the supreme sovereign God of the universe, the power of the supreme God resides fully in the Holy Spirit.  That’s the power of the Most High God dispensed through the Holy Spirit.  He created everything that is created in the same way that God created it and the Son created it.  Omnipotence, omnipresence.  Psalm 139 verse 7, “Where will I go from Your Spirit?”  Remember when the psalmist said that?  Where am I going to go from Your Spirit?  How can I find a place anywhere in the universe that’s away from Your Spirit?  There is no such place.  He is everywhere all the time.

In Romans 1:4, He’s called the Spirit of holiness.  God is holy, holy, holy.  Holy is the Father, holy is the Son, holy is the Spirit, that’s the trihagion of Isaiah 6.  He is the Spirit of holiness.  First Peter 4:14, He’s called the Spirit of glory.  He’s like the God of glory, like the glory of God shining gloriously in the face of Jesus Christ, He is the Spirit of glory.  Second Corinthians 3:6, He’s called the life-giving Spirit.  He’s the source of life.  These are all attributes that belong to God, and the Holy Spirit has them, and therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.  As God, He is to be worshiped as God, He is to be honored as God, He is to be revered as God, He is to be treated as God.  In the same way you would treat God the Father and God the Son, you would treat the Holy Spirit.  As I said, people seem to be a little more reluctant to blaspheme the Father and the Son.  They don’t seem to have any problem making a joke and a mockery out of the name of the Holy Spirit.

If you talk about the titles which the Holy Spirit bears, that kind of adds to your understanding a little bit.  Many times He is called God.  I just read you that in Acts chapter 5 verse 4.  Many times He is called Lord.  For example, in 2 Corinthians 3:18, one of my favorite verses – those of you who know me, know that – it says, “That as we gaze into the glory of the Lord, being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord the Spirit” – “the Lord the Spirit.”  The Spirit is the Lord.  He is called God and He is called Lord, titles of deity.

There are other titles that He bears.  He is called the Spirit of God, Genesis 1:2.  “The Spirit of God moves upon the waters,” Matthew 3:16.  He’s called the Spirit of the Lord in Luke 4.  He’s called His Spirit, that is, God’s Spirit, Numbers 11:29.  He’s called the Spirit of Yahweh in Judges 3:10.  He’s called the Spirit of the Lord God in Isaiah 61, the Spirit of your Father in Matthew 10:20, and the Spirit of the Living God in 2 Corinthians 3:3.  He is given all the titles that belong to deity.  That’s the point here.  He’s called the Spirit of Jesus in Acts 16:7; the Spirit of Christ right here in Romans 8 verse 9, and in Galatians 4:6, the Spirit of His Son.  Philippians 1:19, the Spirit of Jesus Christ.  This is clearly indication that He is fully God.

Now, the more I think about this and go over this as I was doing the last few days, the more my heart aches over the way that the Holy Spirit is being mistreated.  And again I say, look, I’m not here to defend the Holy Spirit, He can defend Himself.  But I am here to tell you that you do not want to be sucked up into this mockery of the blessed Holy Spirit.  You want to worship Him for who He is.

People sometimes say to me, “Can we pray to the Holy Spirit?”  Of course – of course, He’s God.  “Don’t we have to pray to the Father only?”  No, pray to the Father, pray to the Spirit, pray to the Son, pray to all three, pray to any two.  “Can we worship the Holy Spirit?”  Absolutely, fall down and worship the Holy Spirit, the same way you would Christ and the Father.  You wouldn’t say a word against the Father, you wouldn’t say a word against the Son, don’t say a word against the Holy Spirit.  Don’t attribute anything to God that isn’t true of Him, don’t attribute anything to Christ that isn’t true of Him, and don’t attribute anything to the Holy Spirit that isn’t true of Him.  Boy, if we just got rid of that, it would change the face of the church.

When you think about the works of the Holy Spirit, you have to start with creation.  And then in the Old Testament, you see Him convicting people.  Remember in Genesis 6, “My Spirit will not always strive with man”?  He’s striving to bring conviction in the same way that I read from John 16:8:  When the Spirit comes, He’ll convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment.

In the Old Testament you see Him indwelling certain people for certain service.  He regenerated people in the Old Testament because you couldn’t be regenerated unless it was a divine miracle, and He’s the Spirit that gives life, the life-giving Spirit.  He is that Spirit.  So in the Old Testament, He’s seen as the Creator, He’s seen as the regenerator of those who believe.  He is seen as the one who convicts men of sin.  He is seen as the one who enables men to serve.  Read Exodus 31, Judges 3, Judges 6, “And the Spirit of God comes to enable people to serve.”  That’s why David in his Psalm 51 about his sin said, “Take not Your Spirit from me.”  He wasn’t talking about the fact that all of a sudden the Holy Spirit who had regenerated him and empowering him for his spiritual life would be gone; he was speaking in the language of that special work of the Holy Spirit in which He came on people for certain ministry, enabling men to do certain things.

But the one thing that stands out in His ministry in the Old Testament, of course, from a New Testament perspective is that He’s the author of Scripture.  No scripture is the result of any private interpretation, Peter says, right?  Second Peter 1:21, no private interpretation but holy men of God were moved by the Spirit of God.  That’s how the Old Testament was written.  The Spirit of God is the author through human instrumentation.  That’s how the New Testament is written as well.  It’s God-breathed, the word breath is pneuma.  It’s God’s Spirit that writes holy Scripture.  And you can find places throughout the Scripture that speak about the Holy Spirit saying this and the Holy Spirit saying that.  He is the author of Scripture.  Scripture is God-breathed.  It is the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit.

One illustration, Acts 1:16, “The Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit foretold.”  Whenever the Scripture said something, it was the Holy Spirit saying it.  And by the way, we read in John 15-16 that the primary task of the Holy Spirit is to glorify Christ, right?  He’s the Spirit of truth but He points to Me, He glorifies Me, and when you read the Scripture, that’s what all Scripture does.  Even the Old Testament.  That’s why Luke 24 is so important, beginning at Moses, the prophets, and all the holy writings, He spoke to them of the things concerning Himself written in the Old Testament.  All through the Old Testament, as well as the New, the Holy Spirit, who is the author, is pointing to Christ – Christ, Christ.  So wherever you see a work that is really the ministry of the Holy Spirit, you will see men humbled and Christ exalted – men humbled and Christ exalted.

And then in the life of Christ, you see the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  He’s there giving Him life.  He’s there at His baptism, the Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon Him.  He’s there to launch His ministry.  The Holy Spirit comes upon Him and He launches His public ministry at the age of 30.  The Holy Spirit is there in His temptation.  You remember that the Holy Spirit led Him into the wilderness and through that temptation and out the other side.  He is the anointing in Acts 10:38.  They were preaching about Him and they said He was anointed with the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit came upon Him.  That’s why He said, “If you deny the works that I do as being of God, you blaspheme the Holy Spirit because it’s the Holy Spirit working through Me.”

Do you know, actually, that was the Holy Spirit teaching through Christ?  That’s how much of a self-emptying there was.  He yielded up even His teaching to that which the Spirit did through Him.  John 3:34, “He whom the Father has sent speaks the words of God for He gives the Spirit without measure.”  He speaks the words of God because He has the Spirit working through Him.  The miracles Christ did and the message that He preached was the ministry of the Spirit through Him.  He was in perfect agreement with it but it was the message from the Father through the Spirit.  It was the Spirit that was the power behind His miracles; that’s why it was a blasphemous thing to say they were from Satan.

Do you know that even His death, even the death of Jesus Christ that we talk about so often, was a work of the Holy Spirit?  I don’t know if you ever thought about that but you will now.  Hebrews 9 verse 14:  “How much more will the blood of Christ” – listen to this – “the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God?”  Every miracle He did was through the power of the Spirit.  And even His death was through the power of the Spirit.  His birth was through the power of the Spirit.  His life was through the power of the Spirit.  His miracles were through the power of the Spirit.  His teaching was through the power of the Spirit.  And His death was through the power of the Holy Spirit.  And what about His resurrection?  You’re in Romans 8 still?  Look at verse 11:  “The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead.”

When you start to get your arms around the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it’s so incredible, staggering, far-reaching, and we haven’t even gotten to the part about us.  So let’s get to that.  What does He do in the world?  What does the Holy Spirit do in the world?  Well, He convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment.  Genesis 6:3:  “He strives with sinners,” so He’s the convicting power.  According to 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, He calls sinners – that’s an effectual call – He actually calls them.  Furthermore, He regenerates – John 3 – “You must be born of the Spirit.”  So in the world He convicts, He calls, He gives regenerating life and also witnesses to the truth of Christ, Acts chapter 5 verses 30-32.  So it is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that comes to the sinner, convicts the sinner, calls the sinner when the sinner understands the glories of Christ and then He regenerates the sinner.

Now, what does He do in the believer?  Glorifies Christ, exalts Christ through the Word, but beyond that, He indwells the believer.  Verse 9 of Romans 8:  “The Spirit of God dwells in you.”  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, “You’re the temple of the Holy Spirit.”  He indwells us.  Now we’re getting personal here.  Ephesians 5:18 says, “Be being kept filled with the Spirit.”  He fills us, which is a power statement, like the wind filling the sails and moving the ship.  That’s that analogy.  He seals us, He secures us, Ephesians 1 says, for eternity.  He imparts fruit to us, the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control.  Gives us love, Romans 5:5.

He gives us gifts of the Spirit—Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12.  Several gifts divided equally among His people.  He teaches us.  He leads us into all truth, guides us into the understanding of Scripture, anointing that we have from God, so that we know all things.  Romans 8:26, He prays for us.  Galatians 5:17, He makes war against our flesh and against sin on our behalf.  John 14:16, “He comforts us.”  Romans 8:14, I mentioned it earlier, “He leads and guides us.”  Galatians 3, He sanctifies us.  Acts 1:8, He empowers us for witness and evangelism.  All these things, the Holy Spirit does.

We need to understand all these marvelous, rich things.  There was a time when this was a very important part of Christian ministry, Christian thinking.  Try to write a book on the definitive ministry of the Holy Spirit today and find a place for it in a Christian bookstore.  Might be a losing proposition if you really took on all the error that was there.  I don’t expect, except among us and whoever we can influence, to stem the tide of this terrible abuse of the Holy Spirit, but I think we as a church and we as believers need to give honor to the Holy Spirit in the way that He is worthy to be honored and to replace this frivolous, superficial, abusive approach and more than that, to get Him out of the shadows so that He’s not the forgotten member of the Trinity who never receives the worship that He is due.

The whole matter of you living your Christian life is a work of the Holy Spirit.  All the ministry of spiritual gifts, everything I do – everything I do, everything you do, everything anybody does in the kingdom in the body of Christ that has any effect or any impact or any purpose or any goal or any success is the work of the Holy Spirit.  How can we ignore that and replace that with such crazy things that dishonor Him?  Well, that’ll get us to Romans 8, and next week we’ll go back to that chapter.

Our Father, we thank You for the time this morning to worship You.  It’s been so refreshing.  Thank You for this blessed church, these precious people, love for You and Your Word.

Thank You, O Holy Spirit, for just this incomprehensible work that You’ve done, not just in creation but in regeneration.  You gave us life.  You gave us salvation, forgiveness, and You empowered us, now You sanctify us and You’ll bring us to glory.  We’ll be glorified by Your power.  We’ll be changed by Your power.  We’ll be fit for heaven by Your power.  In the meantime, You’re there producing fruit and energizing our gifts and empowering our witness and fighting against our flesh and praying for us and making everything work together for good, securing us and sealing us to the day of redemption.

We love You, we honor You, we worship You, we exalt You.  And we are deeply grieved, as You must be, at the way You are misrepresented.  Help us, Lord, to be all that we should be as we worship You, our Trinitarian God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  May we worship You in truth as You truly are and with all our might, both in praise itself and in obedience.  What can we say, O Holy Spirit, for all that You’ve done for us and You are doing even as we speak and will do until we see Jesus face-to-face and by Your power are made perfect into His image?

We give You our worship today and we ask that You would be honored, not only in our lives and in our midst but in Your church, the church which You regenerated, to which You have given life, the church through which You work, the church in which You can do exceeding, abundantly above all we ask or think according to the power that works in us, even that power that raised Jesus from the dead, even the power of You, O blessed Holy Spirit.  Show Your power in Your church and be honored and glorified, we pray.  Amen.

[christianworldf]

New Post has been published on Christian Worldview Institute

New Post has been published on https://christianworldviewinstitute.com/bible-prophecies/end-time-events/book-of-daniel/law-and-grace-charles-spurgeon-audio-sermons/

Law and Grace - Charles Spurgeon Audio Sermons

Law and Grace – Charles Spurgeon Audio Sermons

Romans 5:20 New King James Version (NKJV) 20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more

▶️SUBSCRIBE: https://www.youtube.com/user/stack45ny ▶️After subscribing, click on NOTIFICATION BELL to be notified of new uploads. ▶️SUPPORT CHANNEL: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=RB72ANM8DJL2S&lc=US&item_name=stack45ny&currency_code=USD&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG%2egif%3aNonHosted

▶️Follow me on no-censorship GAB: https://gab.ai/RichNY ▶️Follow me on https://www.minds.com/RichNY ▶️Battle for God and His Truth: http://battleforgodstruth.tumblr.com/ ▶️My WordPress blog: https://sermonsandsongsdotorg.com/

Charles Spurgeon Sermon playlist: Charles Spurgeon Sermon playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCDB844A9113F938C

Charles Haddon (C.H.) Spurgeon (June 19, 1834 January 31, 1892) was a British Reformed Baptist preacher who remains highly influential among Christians of different denominations, among whom he is still known as the “Prince of Preachers.” In his lifetime, Spurgeon preached to around 10,000,000 people, often up to 10 times a week at different places. His sermons have been translated into many languages. Spurgeon was the pastor of the New Park Street Chapel in London for 38 years. In 1857, he started a charity organization called Spurgeon’s which now works globally. He also founded Spurgeon’s College, which was named after him after his death.

Spurgeon was a prolific author of many types of works including sermons, an autobiography, a commentary, books on prayer, a devotional, a magazine, and more. Many sermons were transcribed as he spoke and were translated into many languages during his lifetime. Arguably, no other author, Christian or otherwise, has more material in print than C. H. Spurgeon.

-~-~~-~~~-~~-~- Please watch: “A Call to Separation – A. W. Pink Christian Audio Books / Don’t be Unequally Yoked / Be Ye Separate”

-~-~~-~~~-~~-~- source

[johnchiarello]

Sunday sermon

Sunday sermon  1-27-19

Matthew 9:17 [Full Chapter]

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

 Sunday sermon- [Video made 1-20-19]

https://youtu.be/7Y6fOuId3zQ

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos/10205255604547866/

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMikYc30VvFVnVlHnn

 ON VIDEO

.Diversity in gifts

.How the interaction with my homeless friends confirmed the readings for that same night

.We are God’s crown and Jewel- how?

.What about the New Name God gives us?

.The number 3 [how it fit]

.Why is John’s Gospel the only one that tells of the miracle of Water into Wine? [I give a few reasons on the video]

.Church history- Gnostics- Docetists

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Docetism

.What does the ‘Best for last’ mean in the context of the miracle in John 2?

.Augustine- Manichaeism -

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Manichean+heresy

.How do we give God glory and strength?

.Value the storehouse God has given you [Remember the 10 virgins?]

Isaiah 8:18

Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 [New Teaching below]

Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/  

Cloud links- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Youtube Playlist- https://ccoutreach87.com/youtube-playlist/

[Links to all my sites at the bottom of this post]

NOTE- Every so often some of my sites think I am Spam- or a Bot- I am not. My name is John Chiarello and I post original content [all videos and text are by me]. I do share my past posts from my other sites- but it is not spam- Thank you- John.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.Isaiah 62:3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. [All verses below in the VERSES section]

 NEW [Other videos below]

This Sunday I did make a new teaching video- and this post is ‘new’- I guess the theme would be diversity [And the glory of God]-

And how it was confirmed by some of the interactions I had with my friends.

I explained on the video how this fit with the readings/verses for this week.

The main theme for the readings- was the glory of God- and how God’s people share in this glory.

Yes- I taught this before- and the 2 verses I shared from John’s gospel pretty much summed it up.

But that was the main theme that tied the readings together- and that's what I try and teach when you see me teach from the actual Catholic Mass readings on most Sundays.

I simply felt it would be helpful- over time- to teach not only from the bible chapters - or books you see me write studies on-

But also from the Sunday readings.

Though many Protestants- or non denominational churches also have their own sermons on Sunday-

Which is fine-

I simply felt I could do the most good- by teaching from the verses that most Christians/Catholics would be reading on any given Sunday.

And the way the Catholic church does have the same bible readings- world wide- on every Sunday- then yes-

It might benefit all Christians more- if I cover those verses.

Ok- I hope that explained some why you see me focus on the Mass readings for most Sunday sermons.

I did add my past teachings below on the key chapters-

And if I make a video later today [Sunday-1-27-2019] I will try and post it to facebook and YouTube.

During the week I have been testing new video sites- sharing from the ‘diversity’ of different platforms-

And the quality of the videos might not be as good on some sites as others.

To be honest- I don’t care as much about the actual video quality [some sites have lines in my videos]- as long as you can hear the audio- that's the main point.

I do want the quality there on the scenic videos- either by the water- or when you see my New York City videos-

But the main reason I post the videos is for people to kind of follow along and actually learn the bible.

As simple as that sounds- that's really what all these posts are about-

As well as seeing my friends who I have known and been with for many years.

I realize a lot of people see ‘homeless’ people- and many Christians never really get to know them-

So this too is a benefit in my mind.

Ok- that's it for now- hopefully you will hear from me later today-

John

 OTHER VIDEOS [These are the videos I upload nightly to my various sites- PAST POSTS below]

MLK in his own words https://youtu.be/ATPSht6318o

Samuel 20  https://youtu.be/a94K43DPJw4

7-8-18 Sunday sermon  https://dai.ly/x70c7i1

Christ church  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhB6ouDEfynx23GoY

King David  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uhswzEZPefc0H4jQwq-3_NgzFFTdC19m/view?usp=sharing

The paintings of the atheist  https://www.bitchute.com/video/t2WopPsjuKxn/

1-25-19 Update- stalker vehicle on video  https://youtu.be/NcfHpyAK_EQ

Part 2  https://youtu.be/utgy2BSqNpg

11-12-17 Sunday sermon  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhB1o6_Yw8DBRVEW-

Prayer  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KhIcAzh2PRIiwwHAG1LTahZp1qZ6GzUE/view?usp=sharing

Galatians 2  https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZgycw7ZlfPW6Y5R4YjFpwdFIxgFsuYKTFK7

Teaching in NYC  https://ln.sync.com/dl/9201c1ab0/e4t4mzxn-37as8yfa-sc2dty67-mwva4xv8

This is the day  https://youtu.be/KRNu_7Q4dEo

Jonah- rev.- Samuel  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBzlJVde1SLezHIt

7-15-18 Sunday sermon  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bxWAefUKkz5Z1-1gWzRiaYLiIb9yUBRn/view?usp=sharing

Mark 14  https://flic.kr/p/QCCYet

Friends  https://dai.ly/x70vru9

Friends  https://youtu.be/DH_cWsFN02Y

Kings 17  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMdDGvaPNxP9Hgz3E

Fb random  https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos/10205097588277558/

2nd coming- rapture  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Klg4Fb2Hzb2I8CO9LLlN_at-rss_GRXb/view?usp=sharing

Plymouth Rock  https://www.bitchute.com/video/pXzw2U8mVmiT/

Revelation 11  https://youtu.be/mXaBqHOO81Q

Samuel 25  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBlAVgO1uXLksA5_

The ring  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PxEiFSzQgdIY1dkH48UBwiVQYg1PJ7S6/view?usp=sharing

Candle stick  https://dai.ly/x6c3sz0

Hackensack  https://ln.sync.com/dl/e3b1e15b0/c7hxptkv-bihzx45f-m2n8evsr-jm9jdsvb

1st Peter  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBcxu_UPVdtb-F9d

Me n Pops sing  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iKW3ixyXt_t2BWeBr4wiozpDURa--TJz/view?usp=sharing

Friends - Real time teaching  https://youtu.be/FcRoveDV2Qw

Uncle Tom https://youtu.be/BLHp3DAOb5g

Apologetics- prophets  https://dai.ly/x6cbdav

10-8-17 Sunday sermon  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBa3n8oVSUJeaz9t

Revelation- new name https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o4jteNd7jq5Cqy5YrnryekDzNppUReH1/view?usp=sharing

Guitar Jason  https://dai.ly/x707ofi

Galatians 1  https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ5EDw7ZhY4Vq5EIptSCTQ3KkR8DikYzzG7k

1-19-19  news update  https://youtu.be/Ze6hCYqi5tE

Corpus Christi- teaching with friends  https://youtu.be/ypqc51gfXro

Samuel 21  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBSvLIKXP2GKSeMS

9-9-18 Sunday sermon  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoMG8IR3p1NeYC2c_QoTUdNhJrGFMxxX/view?usp=sharing

Ephesians 6  https://www.dropbox.com/s/xecoai78k9ljdbx/2-15-18%20Ephesians%206.mp4?dl=0

 Kerygma- Friends  https://mega.nz/#!XLw0XKZJ!PwAf5iCm41NQ4z3FuLHhllfKyJTUBK9hqpvd1HdkAag

 Friends and teaching  https://youtu.be/NICjeyd2rx4

Teaching- Crow- homeless friends  https://youtu.be/0tgDvnYBDGs

Acts 1  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBOtNdn3F2PIcSVU

9-2-18  Sunday sermon  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DsP04qa-f35cFRDwscFf1YxEvIzroUoI/view?usp=sharing

 2-24-17 St. Patrick’s- NYC  https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmTepABsy98NeoQcmbHtdUwTk2iVZJ987KCgY7SN1udyyH&channel=160276

Kings 17  https://www.bitchute.com/video/bk4Oc9bHXq1l/

 Take- eat- this is my Body  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhBJgH7idcLKZSrX9

Don’t drink it hot!  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sU3sWCdWzWppxdmmN975uzJON6GiO2wz/view?usp=sharing

5-27-18  Sunday sermon  https://flic.kr/p/28AnuNg

 Abortion- slavery n Jesus  https://dai.ly/x70qyqi

 Mark 6  https://ccoutreach87.com/2019/01/24/mark-6-2/

   PAST POSTS [These are links and parts of my past teachings that relate in some way to today’s post- Verses below]

https://ccoutreach87.com/hebrews-links-updated-10-2018/

https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

https://ccoutreach87.com/overview-of-philosophy/

)1ST CORINTHIANS 12:1-6 ‘There are different gifts, ministries and out workings of the Spirit’ [my paraphrase]. In this section we see an idea that I feel gets lost in the current paradigm of ‘doing church’. When Paul addresses a church [community of believers] he is speaking to all the believers in the city. When we think ‘church’ we assume it means ‘church’ as ‘going to the church [building] on Sunday’. Therefore we tend to read these types of verses as ‘there are different gifts and functions in ‘the church’- the Sunday school teacher, nursery worker, door greeter’ well you get it. The better reading would be ‘there are various expressions and ways the Spirit works and administers thru/in the community’. For instance, those who labor in ‘Para-church’ ministries are often considered noble, but not ‘a church’. But according to this passage, they would be just as much ‘church’, a legitimate part of the local body, as the home meeting [of course we know in Paul’s day there were no church buildings]. So the broader view of church as community would see these verses saying ‘where you live there are a variety of gifted ones whom the Spirit of God lives and operates thru. These saints all express the community of the Spirit in various ways. All these expressions are just as legitimate as the other, it is one Spirit manifesting himself in diverse ways for the overall benefit of all the believers in your city’. When we label what the Spirit is doing thru other ‘administrations’ as ‘Para-church’ we violate this passage of scripture. When we limit the various expressions and gifts to ‘the Sunday church meeting’ we actually are violating the intent of these verses. In your city you have doctors, lawyers, and all types of trades. While it is fine for them to operate out of a building and to keep regular business hours. Yet you wouldn’t describe them as separate, individual little ‘cities’ who all operate out of your town. You would see all of them as various gifted people who ‘operate out of your city’. So this is the broader view of what I think Paul is saying. Now he will also give directions on how these various gifts work in the meeting, this of course is part of it. But we need to see the broader view of what the Spirit is saying. Jesus expected his disciples to go out into the highways and hedges and ‘compel them to come in’ [not into the church building for heavens sake! But into the Kingdom] Paul taught that the Spirit accomplishes this in many different ways thru ‘the church’ [people of God].

 (985)1ST CORINTHIANS 12:7 ‘But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to EVERY MAN to profit EVERY BODY’. I want to share a criticism that sometimes gets made against me. I know ‘the critics’ mean well, and are actually sincere men. It’s just they have been ‘shaped’ by the present system of ‘church’. The criticism goes like this ‘sure John has an effective teaching ministry [blog/radio] but if you need someone to come pray for you, lets see if he will come’. The idea is that the true legitimate ‘elders’ are those you can ‘call for’. James says ‘if any one is sick among you, let him call for the elders of ‘the church’. They see ‘the church’ as the actual 501c3, building, Sunday meeting [storehouse] type thing – they are simply seeing thru their ‘lens’. What James is simply saying is ‘if someone is sick in your community/local body of believers, call for the elders [more spiritually mature ones] and let them pray for you and anoint you with oil’. Now, I have personally spent many thousands [yes thousands!] of actual man hours on the streets helping people. I have helped and given to some of the local homeless population who attend some of these ‘churches’, out of my own pocket. Yet these same homeless brothers are encouraged to give ten percent of their money to ‘their church’. What am I saying here? I know the men who level this type of accusation are often intimidated by peer pressure and stuff. But the verse above says ‘the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every believer to profit every one around them’. The biblical view of ‘church’ would simply require all believers to ‘administer the gift’ in a way that would profit all those around them. There is no need to make these types of distinctions between ‘the elders of our church’ or ‘the spiritual leaders in our region’. They mean the same thing. So see your gift as a freely received charism that should be used unselfishly for the benefit of others. Also some Pastors do seem to come around to ‘my view’ after many years of hearing us. They might then try and do some city wide ministry, open to all the body. Then if the results are not good, they can become discouraged also. Understand, many of these men took many years before they could really see what we were saying, don’t expect a majority of local believers to see things that took you years to see! The paradigms don’t come down that easily.

 (986)CORINTHIANS 12: 8-10 this section deals with the various gifts of the Spirit. The list is not exhaustive, Paul speaks in Romans and Ephesians about other ones as well. Instead of diving into a definition for each gift, lets look a little at the various ‘modes’ and characteristics of the Spirit of God. In revelation we have a scripture that many seem to stumble over, it says ‘the 7 spirits of God that are before his throne’. Some associate Isaiah 11 with this. In Isaiah 11 you can find 6 distinct characteristics of the Spirit of God, some see 7. Or you could say ‘God has 7 actual Spirits’. Does God have 7 spirits? Or 25 or 10,000? God is the creator of all spirits. He is the Father of lights! In revelation you have Jesus holding the ‘7 stars’ in his hand, which are said to be angels. Then you have the ‘7 angels of the 7 churches’. I showed you before why these angels are not ‘Pastors’ they are angels! [You can find the post somewhere under END TIMES STUFF]. Revelation has 7 seals, bowls, candlesticks. The book is a prophetic book that has angels revealing and operating and functioning. The 7 spirits before God’s throne are probably the 7 angels spoken about in the book. Hebrews says the angels are ‘ministering spirits’. Well let’s get off the rabbit trail. In Isaiah 61 we have the famous verses that Jesus read and applied to himself in the New Testament [Luke 4]. Jesus opens the scroll and reads about the Spirit of God upon him, the eyes of everyone in that place were fixated on him. Notice how both in Isaiah 11 and 61, one of the main purposes of the anointing was to administer justice to the poor and oppressed. Much of Evangelicalism has opted out of this responsibility. There was an overreaction to the social gospel of the late 19th, early 20th century. The social gospel had a tendency to overemphasize good deeds, without focusing on conversion. But the Fundamentalist movement of the 20th century neglected the social justice aspect of the kingdom, thank God for the Catholics who picked up the torch. The point today is the purpose of the gifts, which we will get into tomorrow, is not simply for self glory and edification. Or should I say the purpose of the anointing. Jesus made it very clear that his mission involved justice for the poor and oppressed, he did not limit his ministry to ‘the church’.

 (991)1ST CORINTHIANS 12: 8-11 Instead of giving you my definition for each one of the gifts of the Spirit, let me just give you a sense of where I’m coming from. Over the years I have learned the normal Pentecostal understanding of these gifts. I also have learned the ‘anti-Pentecostal’ view. I take a little from each camp. The strong Pentecostal view usually sees all the gifts as ‘supernatural’ I do too! But to them this means the gifts of Wisdom and Knowledge can’t be ‘regular wisdom or knowledge’. Okay, so what are they? Some teach that the ‘word of wisdom’ is simply a prophetic word about future stuff. The ‘word of knowledge’ is simply prophetic insight into ‘past stuff’. To be honest I have no idea how people come up with stuff like this [well, actually I do have an idea]. I see Paul as operating in a strong gift of knowledge, though Paul was trained and had a good education, the Spirit took all of his ‘head knowledge’ and quickened it. I see James as having a strong gift of wisdom, his epistle is the only New Testament work considered to be part of the corpus of wisdom literature. Of course the gifts of healing[s] and prophecy are supernatural, but wisdom and knowledge can be ‘supernatural’ without having to fall into some prophetic type category. If it’s wisdom and knowledge from God, then it is supernatural! I have known Pastors who had the gift of wisdom, sometimes they would come to the same conclusions as me, but they took a different route to get there! They might not have ‘seen’ all the knowledge portions of scripture that I saw, but the wisdom they operated in caused them to arrive at the same place. Some teach that after the Spirit fell on the church at Pentecost [Acts 2] that you no loner had miracles, dreams and visions or angelic visitations. Why is this wrong? The book that records more miracles and angels and visions than any other book [except for the gospels] is the book of Acts. In essence, one of the major New Testament books on these manifestations shows them to be a result of the Spirits outpouring! The point being these things didn’t end after Pentecost. I realize both camps [Pentecostal- non Pentecostal] have had their wars over this stuff. I find that both sides can be just as legalistic and judgmental in their views. I think one of the major ‘signs’ of being ‘Spirit filled’ is a life based on free grace. When people grasp the gospel and are filled with the Spirit, they should be free from living their lives out of a state of condemnation and guilt. Many ‘Spirit filled’ churches operate in the gifts [their view of them] but are just as legalistic as the non Pentecostals. To me this is not what it means to be ‘Spirit filled’. Overall we should be open to the working of the Spirit in supernatural ways. We should avoid making this the goal or identity of our Christian walk, but we should not reject or despise prophetic/supernatural things. They are available and necessary at times for completion of the mission.

 (994)1ST CORINTHIANS 12: 12-26 Paul uses the analogy of a body to describe the church. Keep in mind that the ‘church’ in Paul’s writings mean ‘all Gods people in the region/city’. Not just the gathered assembly! It’s important to make this distinction because much of the talk on the restoration of the organic church versus the institutional church focuses too much on the way believers meet. Here Paul is saying ‘you are all individual distinct members in the local community, you express Christ in various ways, though you have unique gifts you also are part of one corporate expression of Christ in your city’. The distinct gifts function in your community, not just in the meeting! [Whether it be the Sunday building type thing or the living room!] Paul also tells them to be on the guard for the ‘one member dominating the group’ expression of church. If everyone is centered on one particular gift then the corporate expression of the Body of Christ is diminished. Or if everyone saw ‘full time ministry’ as being a modern Pastor then you would have too many sincere believers all seeking to serve God in a limited way ‘if all were an eye, ear, mouth [speaking gift]’ then where would the Body be? I find this chapter to be a key chapter in the current reformation of modern church practices. As Gods people strive for a more scriptural expression of ‘being the church’ we need to keep this chapter in mind. Now, a word for the strong organic church brothers. The fact that Paul encourages a corporate expression in the church does not mean the gatherings of Gods people must be leaderless. Paul includes the concept of Elders in his writings. To be sure these men were not to dominate the meetings, or be the weekly speaker on an ongoing basis. But some hold to a type of idea that the way the church is supposed to testify of the ‘headship of Christ’ is by demonstrating a human leaderless church. That is God ordained the local bodies of believers to have no functioning human leaders in order to show forth Christ’s headship. To be honest I don’t see this in scripture. I see leaders in plurality [never a one man show] and Paul was not afraid to tell Titus and Timothy to ‘ordain’ [recognize!] Elders in the church. But the overall instruction in this chapter is God wants all of his people to function on a regular basis in the Body of Christ. This of course includes the gatherings, but it is not limited to them. The primary way we ‘show’ the world the Lordship of Jesus is by the selfless love we have one for another. When we daily live charitable, sacrificial lives, this demonstrates the ‘headship of Jesus’ over the church. The way believers meet has some effect on this, but most of Jesus instructions to the disciples was on how they would go out into the world and bring the great message of the kingdom to society. The primary ‘battlefield’ of the church militant is the world, not the meeting place!

 (996)1ST CORINTHIANS 12:27-31 Lets talk about ‘the fivefold ministry’ [some say four]. In the 90’s there was a real interest in this subject. It comes from this portion of scripture [and Ephesians 4]. The basic teaching is/was that God was restoring all these ministries [Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers- some see this as one combined gift] and that this restoration was one of the final things to happen before Christ’s return. I read and bought lots of books on church planting and how Apostles are gifted to ‘plant churches’. This teaching really wasn’t a new thing. Back in the 1800’s you had Edward Irving head up an apostolic movement called ‘the apostolic catholic church’ [Irvingites]. You had interesting folk like John Alexander Dowie who would start a modern city of God called ‘Zion’ in Illinois. Brother Dowie saw himself as an apostle and felt the Lord led him to start an apostolic city. You can still visit the city today. It was also common for many ‘up and coming’ preachers to begin seeing themselves as ‘apostles/prophets’ and actually advertise their callings in this way. Well of course the old time brothers who reject the gifts all together, saw this as another sign of the end time apostasy. You also had a strange phenomenon take place. It was common for ‘apostolic/prophetic’ people to be taught ‘the missing ingredient is covering and authority’- the churches are weak because they are under pastoral authority, they don’t have apostles ‘covering them’ [ouch!]. So it was not uncommon to have respected men kind of stepping over the normal boundaries of relating to churches and to say things like ‘you need to do this’ ‘you over there, be quiet. I don’t give you permission to speak’ and stuff like this. These sincere men thought it their responsibility to act this way. They felt this was a part of the restoration of apostles. Now, do apostles exist today [and prophets]? To be honest with you, yes. If you read this section along with Ephesians chapter 4, it is next to impossible to teach that they passed away in the first century. These scriptures make it clear that after Jesus ascended he gave ‘some apostles, others prophets’ they are included in the list of evangelists, pastors and teachers. If you lose one gift, then you lose them all. Also the timing of their ministries is given ‘till we all come to the unity of the faith unto a perfect man’. These gifts are all given to build Gods people up until we come to fall maturity. We aint there yet! So it’s pretty obvious that these gifts exist. Those who believe they don’t exist usually refer to the fact that the apostles of the Lamb [a category unto itself] did pass away. They will show you the truth of these apostles having to have been witnesses of Jesus actual resurrection. But these are a different category of apostles. The ones in this chapter were not even ‘made’ until after Jesus ascended on high. The same for the prophets. So, what do these strange fellows do? In all the books and stuff I have read on these movements, I feel some have been too limited in their definitions. Some taught that they were primarily itinerant men [traveling church planters]. Of course Paul was the master at this. But you find James as a stable pillar of the church at Jerusalem. Peter did travel, but he was no Gentile church planter like Paul! And Timothy in the New Testament had an apostolic type gifting, yet he was a protégée under Paul. So for the most part apostles do carry a special ability to ground Gods people in truth. Those who are called to ‘plant churches’ need to be more in tune with the example of Paul. Many modern day ‘apostles’ see church planting as going to a region and organizing Christians to meet in certain ways. I have heard it said ‘I have planted an organic church’ ‘I have planted a home group’ or of course the standard ‘I have planted a building based church’. The main ‘church planting’ of Paul was bringing the gospel to UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS and evangelizing those groups. Now of course he did give instructions to them on ‘how to meet’ [like in this book we are reading!] But don’t confuse ‘church planting’ with organizing believers around a new way to meet. All in all God gave us these gifts to build each other up and bring us to maturity, a place where we are no longer dependent on these gifts to function. I feel one of the greatest dangers was the strong authoritarian mindset that some of the apostolic brothers had, they meant well, but they stepped over their boundaries at times.

 (998)CORINTHIANS ‘DO ALL SPEAK WITH TONGUES’? – Before we leave chapter 12, let me overview a little. Paul mentions ‘do all speak with tongues’ and the presumed answer is ‘no’. I love my Pentecostal brothers, but some have developed an interesting doctrine that says ‘God wants all to speak with tongues’ though here it is obvious that all don’t! I am familiar with the classic defense of this. It says that in the beginning of the chapter the gifts are individual gifts that all believers can have [true enough] but that later in the chapter the ‘tongues’ that all don’t operate in is speaking of some sort of ministry gift of tongues. That Paul is basically saying ‘you can all prophesy, speak with tongues, etc..’ but you are not all going to have public ‘ministry gifts’ in these things. Okay, I got it. What’s the problem with this defense? Simply that when your done making the case, the brothers usually wind up saying ‘therefore, we should all speak with tongues’! Any argument [case] made from scripture, needs to use the plain language/thought flow to interpret that which is not plain. I believe all the gifts are for today [though I would disagree on certain Pentecostal definitions of them] but I also believe we violate the New Testament when we teach that certain gifts are supposed to operate in every person. Sure, you can find tongues and other gifts as signs in the book of Acts that believers were filled with the Spirit. But this doesn’t mean that those who don’t speak in tongues are not filled with the Spirit. Paul’s teaching here is that we are all baptized into Christ by the Spirit and we are all ‘drinking in the one Spirit’ but yet he empathically says ‘you all will not have the same gifts operating’. I think it is a violation of scripture to develop a doctrine that says ‘unless you function in a certain gift, you are not Spirit filled’. I do not see the classic Pentecostal division between ‘public tongues’ [that everyone doesn’t do] and ‘private tongues’ that you must have in order to have proof of being baptized in the Spirit. I do see the division to a degree, but I feel the Pentecostal brothers are being legalistic when they make this case.

 (999)1ST CORINTHIANS 13:1 ‘THOUGH I SPEAK WITH THE TONGUES OF MEN AND OF ANGELS, AND HAVE NOT LOVE, I AM BECOME AS SOUNDING BRASS OR A TINKLING SYMBOL’ Over the years I have seen how the church can ‘have a voice-make noise’ without actually effecting change. Last night I watched some Martin Luther King stuff. Without ‘sucking up for political purposes’ I must admit that Martin is at the top of my list of personal heroes. Martin spoke with a revolutionary purpose in mind, he was not ‘delivering sermons’. One time I spoke at a friends church, I only spoke for around 15 minutes [much like my radio show] and the pastor said ‘no wonder John doesn’t have a church/ preach regularly, you have to at least speak for 45 minutes’ [something like that]. Though after the message I had good comments from the people, the sincere pastor felt like we didn’t ‘put the time in’ in order to fulfill the Sunday morning practice of ‘church’. Were did we get our modern sermon from? [The actual format]. If you go to Bible College you can take a course called ‘homiletics’ this course will teach you the structure of speaking and putting a message together. If you study Greek rhetoric you will find that this science existed in the Greek intellectual world before Christians embraced it [the actual format and structure taught in homiletics comes right out of the Greek system of rhetoric, to the tee!]. I find it funny how many modern pastors seem to measure a persons degree of ‘being scriptural’ by this measuring rod. ‘Well brother, didn’t they preach in scripture’ you bet they did. We see Jesus reading from the scroll in the synagogue. Paul and Peter were master ‘preachers’ if you will [though Paul himself was no ‘golden tongue’] basically the biblical concept of preaching/teaching was more of a spontaneous thing. It’s certainly not wrong to borrow the sermon from the Greeks [which we did do] but we don’t want to fall into some mindset that sees modern ministry [pastoral] as being a professional speaker. Here Paul says there is a danger of believers becoming like ‘sounding brass and tinkling symbols’ we can lose the reality of simple communication. We also can lose the prophetic edge of speaking into society over issues of justice. If we become too mundane and ‘professional’ then the world simply views us as another program to simply pass over when clicking the remote. Both Martin Luther King and Charles Finney were known for their social activism. One of the charges [actually true] made against them was that they held to liberal theological positions. Finney was effected by the higher criticism of his day [the trend in the universities to deny the supernatural elements of scripture] he embraced certain doctrines that could be viewed as heretical [things on the atonement and mans sinful nature]. King’s critics make note of the fact that he also accepted certain types of bible interpretation that viewed some of the miraculous stories as ‘myth’ [not fake, but simple allegorical stories that were not literal but simply meant to convey a spiritual theme]. Things like Jonah and the whale, or Ballams talking donkey [or the talking snake in the garden!] Some intellectual brothers view these stories this way. Is there any validity to these views? Actually yes. I personally hold the ‘literal’ view with stuff like this, but ‘literal’ does not mean the bible does not contain different styles of writing. You do have poetry, allegory, symbol and other types or forms of grammar in scripture. Even the strong literal brothers will contradict themselves when they fully accept the ‘Lamb on the throne’ as not being a literal Lamb! [or when they interpret the scorpion like demons in Revelation as Black Hawk helicopters] So scripture does use allegory and symbol. But why did Luther and Finney associate with the more liberal trends in theology? I feel it was because of the strong anti social gospel that the fundamentalists embraced. The more conservative thinkers who rejected the liberal trends in teaching, would also reject social activism. Luther and Finney simply gravitated towards those who were like minded in their concern to speak into society. Basically they didn’t just want to be theologically correct [though they might have been in some of there views] but they wanted to be able to effect change in society. They wanted to be more than just a tinkling symbol that could tickle your ears.

 (1002)1ST CORINTHIANS 13: 2-3 ‘and though I have the gift of prophecy [Pentecostal, prophetic expressions] and understand all mysteries and all knowledge [Orthodox, Reformed, intellectual creedal churches] and though I have all faith that I could remove mountains [the Faith camp] and have not charity [Agape- love] I am nothing’. Whew! Thank God us mission/outreach type guys are not in there. ‘And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor [ouch] and have not love it profits nothing’. I love the various expressions of the church, I feed from the Reformed brothers teaching, Love reading and studying Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I of course favor the outreach/hands on type ministries, but according to this text we can have all these things and still be missing the mark. Our intellectual type brothers are engaging the culture and defending the faith, but without love we don’t even put a dent in the culture. The apologists are great at refuting the new atheists, to be honest about it the Christian intellectuals are head and shoulders above the atheists [Craig Lane and men like him] but I have noticed that we don’t really change that many minds even when all the proof is on our side. And I cant tell you how many well meaning missions and soup kitchens I have been too, but often times there is a disconnect between the people being served and the ‘servers’. You get the feeling sometimes that the well meaning helpers are simply punching a time card. We all need to reevaluate our motives. People can tell when we are in ‘ministry’ for the love of the business. Or for the self glory and adulation that comes with our service. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they truly were in it for the recognition of men. They wanted others to see that they were ‘successful in the ministry’ so they could receive recognition in public. Paul tells the Romans ‘he that shows mercy, let him do it with love [cheerfully]’. It’s easy to fall into a rut and simply be functioning out of a sense of duty. Now duty can be a good thing, there are times where we just need people to report for duty! [The harvest is plenteous, but the workers are few] but we need to examine ourselves and make sure we are functioning out of the Love of God. Often times the various ministries and expressions of the church are simply God ordained ‘places’ where we can connect with people. As we interact with the lost world, lets do our best to win the arguments, give proof for the legitimacy of Christianity. Combat false ideas and mindsets that are imbedded in our culture, but lets leave room for the other side to get in with us. Understand that they have a ‘missing piece’ [Augustine’s hole in the heart] and we are the only ones that can show them how to fill it.

 (1003)CORINTHIANS 13:4-10 Okay, what exactly is this love that we need? Paul has told us that all religious activity apart from it is vain. Paul here simply gives us a picture of the way it acts. You can read this section and substitute your name for the word love ‘love puts up with stuff and is kind’ ‘John puts up with stuff and is kind’ [ouch] ‘It does not boast or show off’. ‘It does not seek its own benefit’ a ‘what’s in it for me’ type mentality. Love is being just like Jesus. James tells us ‘if you fulfill the royal law of scripture, you do well’. The law is to love thy neighbor as yourself. Paul also shows us why love outshines the other gifts of tongues and prophesy and knowledge. He says ‘we know in part, prophesy in part. But when we are made perfect and mature at the appearing of Christ the partial gifts will no longer be distinguishable. Only love will rule’ [my paraphrase] I find it interesting that Paul says knowledge itself will cease. Will actual knowledge cease? What exactly is ‘knowledge’? When we use this term in society what we usually mean is the degree of ones learning/education compared to someone else. If you have a masters and I have a high school diploma, we see a difference. We measure knowledge by the amount we have as compared to others. Now, at Christ’s appearing when we all ‘shall know, even as we are known’ this fine distinction will ‘pass away’. We still will have knowledge, but as a tool that we use to measure one another, it will cease. It wont make a difference how much of the ‘knowledge pie’ [know in part] you possess, at that time everyone one will have ‘all pie’. Knowledge is a funny thing, our understanding of it has developed thru the centuries. During the enlightenment era the concept of ‘what does it even mean to know’ was tackled. One of the famous sayings was ‘I know/think, therefore I am’ [Descartes? Hey, I forget sometimes] the study of ‘how we learn/know things’ is called epistemology. The enlightenment produced a way to approach knowledge that can be called ‘modernism’ mans modern way of knowing stuff. In essence, there exists real truth that a person can know and learn. There is/was a challenge to this mode of thought. Many in the Emergent church movement would grasp on to another theory of ‘knowing’ loosely defined as being in the category of ‘post modernism’. Some challenged the actual ability to know a thing. The emphasis is on who is actually viewing/learning the thing. The terms ‘metta- narrative’ are sometimes used to describe this dynamic. There is some truth to the fact that our context, who we are and where we are coming from, can shape the actual stuff learned. But the question is ‘does our perspective actually change the thing, make it real or not’. Some in the field of Cosmology have grasped on to this post modern theory and have surmised that the very act of human beings studying and examining a thing can in and of itself cause the thing ‘to be’. You can see how this theory would be helpful to the atheist. ‘Where did every thing come from?’ ‘it is a result of human kind’s thoughts and inquiry’ [Ouch]. This sounds a lot like the metaphysical cults that espouse that reality is a product of what you think, confess. That man has the power to create reality simply by the act of studying a thing. Well this is of course a challenge to the truth of God. Jesus and the Cross aren’t ‘real’ because men ‘put their mind to them’. They are real whether or not man ever thought about them. ‘Let God be true, but every man a liar’ Romans. Paul tells us that all these varying degrees of knowledge will some day ‘pass away’. We will all stand before a self existent God and give an account of our lives. This day is coming whether you ‘think about it or not’.

 (1004)CORINTHIANS 13:11-13 WHEN I WAS A CHILD I UNDERSTOOD AND THOUGHT AND SPOKE LIKE A CHILD, BUT WHEN I GREW UP I PUT THOSE THINGS BEHIND ME-  Paul shows us that we presently see and understand things thru ‘a glass’. God gives us insight and glimpses into Divine truth, but we need mercy because we all have limited sight. Over the years I know I have ruffled some feathers. Whether it be our teaching on what the church is, tithing, end times stuff. How New Testament believers should view the nationalistic promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant. I have found that the problem usually isn’t solved by simply proving something from scripture. For instance someone might become convinced by an ‘avalanche’ of information, they might actually see what I am saying. They can even articulate it to a degree [sometimes better than me!] but at the end of the day the answer to the problem is we all need to ‘grow up’. We need an overall change in the way we view things thru a legalistic lens. For instance, the tithe issue. Over the years I have taught the concept that believers are not under this law. Those of you who have read this site for any length of time know this. But I have also taught that it is fine to put 10% of your money into the offering on Sunday. It’s okay to support those who ‘labor among us’. But there are also many examples in the New Testament warning Gods leaders to not be in it for the money. Now, if we took seriously the mandate in Malachi to tithe. If we want to actually bind the believer’s conscience in this way ‘how are you robbing God? By not bringing in the tithes!’ Then we need to also look at the context. Israel as a nation was mandated to ‘tithe’ of their goods [not money] in three ways. They gave to support the Levites, also for the poor, and then they gave a tithe for religious feasts. In essence this ‘tithe’ was a total of around 30 % of their annual income, not 10%! [This by the way is right around what I spend on a monthly basis for the ministry stuff I do]. So, if we were telling people ‘you are going to be cursed if you don’t pay 10%’ we are actually misreading this verse. Also, how many believers think they are going to be cursed if they don’t ‘tithe to the poor’? Most modern preaching on the tithe simply puts it in the category of the Sunday offering. Most of this type of giving goes to support salaries, building upkeep, light bills, insurance for staff. I could go on and on. A very minute portion of this money [in general] goes to the poor. Certainly not a third! Also the portion that went to the Levites could not be used to purchase anything that would be owned by the Levite. They were forbidden to own any type of personal inheritance as Levitical priests. How often does the modern concept of tithing include this? The whole point is if we are going to bind peoples consciences in this way [which we shouldn’t] then we need to make sure we are at least teaching it right! Why bring this up? This is simply a good example of what Paul is saying. ‘When I understood in a limited way, I spoke and acted in a limited way’. The answer to the problem is simply ‘becoming mature in our thinking and speaking’. Recently I read an article from a U.S. congressman, he was speaking about the situation between Israel and Palestine. He sided with a military interpretation of the Old Testament promise to Abraham to ‘posses the land’ and used that to influence his political activism for war. How ‘mature’ is this type of thinking? Did any of the JEWISH apostles do this? No. So instead of trying to ‘crisis manage’ every single doctrinal problem, we really need to mature on an overall basis and view these doctrines thru the paradigm of Jesus and his life and work. Are we imitating his ethos when we do these things? Was this the primary message and life of Jesus when he walked the earth? How did he respond to Roman oppression and unjust govt.? Did he advocate military action in defense of the promises of God made to the nation of Israel? If we as the 21st century church do not ‘rightly divide’ these things, then we are of all men ‘most miserable’ [1st Corinthians 15].

    John:1[radio # 584] Jesus is called the Word of God, he comes into the earth as the incarnation, the ‘fleshed out’ fulfillment of Gods Word. John the Baptist is asked who he is. The Jewish leaders ask ‘are you that prophet?’ he says ‘no’. What prophet? The one Moses said would come ‘the Lord God will raise up a prophet unto you, like me. Whoever doesn’t listen to him will be destroyed’. We covered this in Deuteronomy. They ask him ‘are you Elijah’ he says ‘no’. John was the fulfillment of the Malachi prophecy that said before the Lord comes he will send Elijah the prophet. Jesus says this about John. Why did John deny it? I am not sure,  but it might be because he really didn’t know. Sort of like the thorn in Paul’s side, God allowed things to happen to Paul so he would not get puffed up in pride and side track his mission. Maybe the Lord never let John see how truly effective he was. John does say ‘I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness’ John does see himself thru the prophet Isaiah. I like this. I have personally had many words from Isaiah that I felt the Lord had given me, John saw himself in this book too. John was ‘the voice’ just like Jesus is ‘the Word’  John is ‘the voice’. John was a voice before he was a man. God had predestined John to carry a message before he was born. He had this word in his DNA at birth. His body was simply a carrier, an ‘incarnation’ of the voice that he was to have. God has predestined all of us with a purpose before we were born. Our appearing on the planet is for the sole purpose of carrying out this destiny. You are not here to be happy, have a nice income, go to a nice church. You are here to fulfill Gods will, you can have the other things or not, that is irrelevant. You must first fulfill the mission! John testifies of Christ by the Spirit descending on Jesus. John says ‘I knew him not, but by the Spirit’ John knew Jesus, he was his cousin! But John was only going to recognize the gifts and callings on people. He would follow Paul’s admonition ‘know no man after the flesh’. It is incumbent upon us to recognize the gifts in others and to operate accordingly. Don’t make alliances and pacts with people based on friendship and personal affiliations. It’s good to have friends and all, but the Kingdom is built upon recognizing and receiving those who have come with a mandate from God. John saw Jesus in this light. Scripture says ‘the world was made by him, he was in the world, yet they knew him not’ Jesus was creating a divine atmosphere of grace for people to access. They didn’t even know or recognize him, yet this didn’t side track him from his purpose. Understand that God has placed you in a geographical location with a pre planned destiny in mind. God has chosen you to be where you are and for this season. You will fulfill your calling whether people ‘know’ you or not. God requires us to see the gifts in each other, but many will not appreciate what you are doing, do it any way, you have come with a destiny to fulfill, so fulfill it!

 (563)       John 2[radio # 585]- Jesus does his first miracle, changes water into wine. They say ‘most people put the good wine out first, but you have saved the best for last’. This is a type of the new covenant of his blood [wine], Jesus will introduce a better covenant thru his blood. Many will not accept this new way because they have been ‘drinking’ old wine for so long, they are not willing to change. We often see this in Christian circles, people who have functioned in a limited way for years, God might bring to them new ways of seeing things, they will often reject the new wine on the basis of being comfortable with the old way, we don’t want to shake the apple cart. God wants us to shake it! Jesus finds the money changers in the temple and drives them out with a whip, turns the tables over and gets mad. He didn’t take the ecumenical approach! There are times for radical transition, I feel we are at that place now as the people of God. The gospel is not about us increasing our portfolio, it’s about laying our goals down for the kingdom. These money changers lost their influence in the ‘temple’ after Jesus got thru with them, I think it was prophetic. Jesus says ‘destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up’ those hearing this mistake his Body [temple] with the building [temple in Jerusalem]. Evangelicals [some of them] make the same mistake today. They are looking to the natural events in natural Jerusalem, they should be looking at the real temple! [Both Jesus and the Body of Christ]. Jesus goes to the Passover, the people hail him and Jesus says he will not commit himself to them, because he knew what was in man. What was in man? These same people will be asking for his death not long from now. Jesus did not seek commitment from men, contrary to the way we see ministry today. Modern ministry seeks to increase man’s commitment to them ‘pledge so much money, join this or that’ Jesus knew he had a destiny, he would fulfill it without the help of man!

The only biblical ‘test’ that is where you have a clear cut statement on ‘if you believe this your okay- if you believe this you’re not’- the statement comes from the epistle’s [letters] of the Apostle John [New Testament].

 In 1st John and 2nd John he talks about those who believe that Jesus is the Christ- they are ‘from God’ ‘Born of God’ and those who say that ‘Jesus has not come in the flesh’ these are not ‘of God’ these are ‘the anti christ’.

 It’s interesting to note- that in the entire bible- the few times the actual word ‘anti christ’ is used are in these passages.

 So the test- if you want to look at it this way- is a Christological test- do you believe Jesus is the Christ [Messiah]. And ‘do you believe he has come in the flesh’ [what we call the Incarnation].

 That’s the test- you do not have a ‘Trinitarian’ test so to speak- though the doctrine itself is found in the bible.

 Why would the apostle John give these 2 criteria as ‘the test’? Because for the 1st century Jewish believer- Jesus did indeed come as the promised Messiah- and the question is indeed ‘do you believe he is the promised one- or not’.

 The other ‘test’ is a little more tricky- but in the 1st century you began having a challenge to the main belief of Christians- it came from the Gnostic ‘cults’. These were the quasi ‘Christian’ groups that mixed in Greek concepts of matter with Christian belief.

 The last few weeks we discussed their ideas a little- and one of the ideas that Plato taught was that matter itself was evil.

 This is not the Christian view- the Christian view is that matter [creation] is from God- it is good- not inherently evil.

 Okay- so you had a division of the Gnostics [which their name meant Knowledge- they believed they had secret knowledge about these things that the average Christian did not have] called Docetists.

 These guys taught that Jesus was not Really a human being- who came ‘in the flesh’. Why did they teach this? Because they also taught that matter/flesh was evil- and Jesus could not have really been ‘in the flesh’.

 This doctrine violates the very clear N.T. teaching that Jesus was indeed born of the Virgin- and was fully God and fully man- thus the apostle John was targeting them when he said ‘if anyone does not believe that Jesus has come in THE FLESH he is not from God’.

ACTS 1- Luke, the writer of this book, feels the need to document the ongoing work of Jesus and his revolution. He already wrote a gospel and believes this to be the beginning of the story. In essence, the reality of Jesus and his resurrection are just the start, we have much more to do and become on this journey. Most writers jump to chapter 2. We have churches and music groups called ‘Acts chapter 2’. Why does Luke seem to wait till chapter 2 before getting to ‘the good stuff’? Chapter one records the 40 days of Jesus showing himself alive after his death. Luke feels this singular truth to be important enough to simply stand alone [I do realize the early letters did not have chapter and verse divisions like today]. The real physical fact of Jesus bodily resurrection is without a doubt the foundational truth of the gospel. The outpouring of the Spirit and the whole future of the church depends on the reality of the resurrected Christ. Paul will write the Corinthians and tell them if the resurrection were not true then they are the most miserable of all people. Luke tells us Jesus gave instructions for the Apostles to wait at Jerusalem for the Spirit. Thy will be witnesses of him to all the surrounding nations after the Spirit empowers them. We also see Peter emerge as the key spokesman for the group. He quotes freely from the Psalms and reads their own history into the book. He sees the prophetic verse from David on ‘let another take his office’ as referring to Judas betrayal and death. They cast lots and choose Matthias as the one to replace Judas. Peter shows the importance of Judas replacement to come from one that was with them thru out the earthly time of Jesus. Someone who saw and witnessed Jesus after the resurrection. Scholars have confused this with the ‘ascension gift Apostles’. Some scholars have taken the truth of the early Apostles having the criteria of being actual witnesses of Jesus, and have said ‘therefore, you have no Apostles today’. Paul will teach in Ephesians that after Jesus ascension on high he gave gifts unto men ‘some Apostles, others Prophets, etc.’ The New Testament clearly speaks of Apostles as an ongoing gift in the church. Barnabas will later be called an Apostles [Acts 14:14] as well as many other references in the original Greek using the same Greek word for Apostle. But here we find Peter seeing the need to replace Judas. Other scholars think Peter might have jumped the gun. They see Paul’s apostleship as the possible person the Lord picked out as the replacement. You do find Paul referring time and again to his Apostolic authority as one ‘born out of due time’ who saw Jesus on the Damascus road. If Paul was simply an ascension gift Apostle, why would he refer time and again to his authority based on being a witness who also saw Jesus? It’s possible that Paul was in this group of ‘Apostles of the Lamb’ who had extra authority based upon their testimony of being eyewitnesses. So in chapter one we see that Jesus appeared for 40 days giving instructions to the early leadership and told them to wait at Jerusalem for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We see the incarnational purpose of God, Jesus was and continues to be the express image of God to man. He was not some ‘phantom’ like the Docetists will claim, but a very real physical resurrected Lord. Luke begins the early history of the church with this reality being important enough to stand on its own.

[parts]

Almost finished with Noll’s book [scandal of the evangelical mind] and thought it time to comment. The book was published in 1994 and I realize a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. Noll brings out great points; he shows a fundamental weakness in American evangelicalism because of the way the movement shaped a sort of anit intellectual way/thought pattern of viewing the world and society. He really takes the dispensational wing of the church to task, frankly, I was surprised how willingly he dismantled many of their belief systems. I agree with him on this issue, but was surprised that a very popular book would go this far [and still be nominated book of the year by Christianity today- back in 1994!]. I think an area of weakness in the book is Noll’s ‘over association’ of young earth creationism with the Seventh Day Adventist church, and his repeating of the charge that creationists [and fundamentalists in general] are practicing a form of ‘modern Manichaeism’. He basically links an ‘anti material spirit’ that was seen in the early Christian heretics [Gnosticism, Docetism and Manichaeism] and applies this to the views of creationists and their so called unwillingness to allow the facts from nature speak for themselves. I wrote the note ‘way too much’ a few times when reading the book. I think he’s basically mistaken on this, many early Christian thinkers did hold to a young earth view, and they were the same thinkers who rebuked these cults who rejected the natural world as evil. Overall the book is a worthwhile read, it exposes the weakness of the fundamental/evangelical movement to ‘think Christianly’ about the world and society around them. Too often believers think ‘thinking Christianly’ means introducing bible verses into the conversation, this is not what Noll is speaking about. He shows the fundamental error that arose during the modernist/fundamentalist debates of the 19th/20th centuries, and how this caused the church to accept modes of thinking and learning that were disconnected from the fathers of these movements. For instance, Jonathan Edwards, who is considered to be the greatest homegrown thinker of the American experience, he embraced an acceptance of the natural sciences as a way to learn more about the ways of God. True studies of the earth and universe and things in the world were accepted as a means of God communicating truth to his people thru the ‘book of nature’. Noll shows how the fundamentalist movement came to reject this willingness to look at the natural world and learn from it. Thus his overstated charge of Manichaeism, a group that saw the natural world as evil. A blind spot of Noll is his seeming belief that the majority of all Christians/scientists accepted as fact the old earth views of the Geologic table and the other sciences that arose at the time [like evolutionary theory]. He paints a picture that says ‘see, most believers were open to learning from science back then, but the fundamentalist movement and the rise of creationism side tracked the church’. This is simply not true. Many scientists and Christians did not accept the science of an old earth and the interpretation of the geologic table. Many fathers of the church accepted a young earth view [Noll's creationism] since the beginning of church history. Though Noll quotes saint Augustine in his defense of thinking critically, yet Augustine himself believed in a young earth. He actually believed God made everything in an instant and the 6 days of Genesis 1 were symbolic, that God used the ‘6 day framework’ to show us his creative acts. The point being, Augustine’s spiritualizing of the days of creation did not make him an old earth believer! So there were a few things like this that I take issue with, overall I think every evangelical/protestant believer would benefit from reading the book. Noll’s challenge to the evangelical church to ‘think Christianly in all areas of life’ is a needed rebuke to many in the church. Noll is correct in showing the weakness of the American protestant church and her basic disdain of intellectual learning, thinking that higher learning in and of itself is a bad thing. This has fostered a community of believers that has cut itself off from the basic institutions that effect society as a whole [the research universities being one example]. If Christians shy away from the natural sciences and the reality that even unbelievers have at times revealed to us true things thru these studies, then we are going down a road that will eventually cut our influence off from the broader society at large.

  POSTED BY CCOUTREACH87 ⋅ SEPTEMBER 24, 2016 ⋅ LEAVE A COMMENT

JOHN 17 John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. https://youtu.be/nbUgpSNo7nE John 17 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/9-15-16john-17.zip ON VIDEO- .Hooch grows .Stop draining the lake .Lord’s prayer .Deity of Christ .You see me- you see the Father .Trinity is not Tritheism .Oikos .Pastors .Unity is vital

NEW- Jesus prays for his core community ‘that they would be one’- then- he prays for those who will later believe thru ‘their word’. John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

The church is a light in the world- just like Jesus. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Matt 5:14 Paul calls us the ‘Body of Christ’. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1st Cor. 12:27 We often think that when the church is powerful- she will reach the world. If we have the gifts functioning – that will do it. Or how about when ‘we all become rich and grasp the prosperity promises’. Surely that will get the work done. But Jesus says when we are one- unified- then the world will know he has sent us. John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I apply [on video] some practical application to the verse I posted at the top- ‘Glorify me with the glory we had- before the world was’. Now- to God be the glory- forever. Yet we share in the glory of Christ. John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I like the way John’s gospel says Jesus ‘knew he came from God- all things were given to him from God- and he was going back to God’. The apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians that we too ‘came from God’ he planned us before he made the world- yes- the bible teaches that. Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: So- before any of us were involved in the things we are doing- Pastors- your church Preachers- you’re calling Whatever ‘world’ God has allowed you to play a part in- your sphere of influence. Before ‘that world’ ever existed- you had this this aloneness with God. Where he revealed his purpose for your life- and you took hold of it- despite what others said. You prevailed by faith to see this ‘world’ come to pass. Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. You learned that ‘all things were given to you by God’. Now- after these things are built- after you saw God use you to build the church- or ministry. Then there comes a time where you say ‘Father- let me not forget the way all this started- it was just me and you- and let me now return to the ‘glory’ that we had- before these things were’. All of us need to know what it’s like to simply walk with God. These last few years I learned to spend whole days- just with God. No ministry- no outreach- no human contact for that day. And it was not easy to learn this. But at the start of the Christian walk- there was indeed this sense that it was just me and him. Then we get involved in all types of kingdom things- good things- ‘world’ things. And we have to come back to the start again- we have to pray ‘Father- let me experience once again- that one on one relationship that we had at the beginning- before all these things were’. And trust that the word that you have deposited in the people you have had influence with- that it will continue- even after you are gone. When you learn to be alone with God again- you will realize you are not alone- but the Father is with you in a very real way- Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. Jn. 16:32 See?

PAST POSTS [verses below] JOHNS GOSPEL LINKS- https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/amos-5/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/jesus-christ/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/father-abraham/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/the-flood/ John 3 https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/the-well-john-4/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/john-5/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/john-6/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/john-7/ https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/8-10-15-john-14.zip https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/john-8/ https://youtu.be/f8VpxlYM_kU John 8- ‘who the Son sets free’ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/john-9/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/john-10/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/john-11-the-8th-sign/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/i-found-a-verse/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/john-12/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/08/19/samuel-john-hebrews-review/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/john-13/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/john-14/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/john-15/ https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/john-16/

. [1486] ARIUS- a priest from Egypt who would challenge the deity of Jesus in the 4th century. Arius taught that Jesus was the Son of God, but not eternally the Son. He said Jesus was a created being whom the father ‘bestowed’ son ship upon. He taught that Jesus was ‘like God’ but not God. The emperor Constantine would call the famous council of Nicaea in 325 a.d. and the council would agree with Athanasius and say that the Son and the Father were of ‘the same substance’ [homoousios] and Arius’s belief would be rejected. The debate would still rage on thru out the century as Constantine would die and the new emperor from the east would hold to ‘Arian’ views. Eventually Orthodoxy would win out and Arianism would be rejected by the majority of believers. I should note that many of the oriental churches would go the way of Arianism till this day; some of these churches are not like the modern cults that we would automatically reject, but they do hold to beliefs that Orthodox Christianity has rejected. As I have written about before, it’s easy to see how various believers have struggled with these issues over the years, some of the ways people express things can be deemed heresy a little too quickly in my view. There are believers who express the deity of Jesus in ways that some Arians express it, and they are not full Arians! The point being, yes- Arian went too far in his belief that Jesus was a created being, Johns gospel refutes this belief strongly [as well as many other portions of scripture] but too say that Jesus was/is the full expression of the father, because he ‘came out from God’ is also in keeping with scripture. Today we should be familiar with the issues and also use much grace when labeling different groups of believers; and we should strive for a unity in the Spirit as much as possible. As believers we accept the full deity of Christ, one who is of the ‘same substance’ of the father- true God from true God. He who has seen the Son has seen the father- Jesus said to Phillip ‘I have been with you a long time, if you see and know me, you have seen and known my father’ Jesus is God come down in the flesh to dwell among men, the true Immanuel, God with us.

[1484] ‘This is why I Paul am in jail for Christ, having taken up the cause of you outsiders, so called. I take it that you are familiar with the part I was given in God’s plan for including everybody… none of our ancestors understood this, only in our time has it been made clear thru God’s Spirit… this is my life work, helping people understand and respond to God’s message. It came as a sheer gift to me, a real surprise, God handling all the details’ Ephesians 3, message bible. As I said earlier in this study, the ‘mystery’ that God revealed to Paul was the reality that thru Christ all ethnic groups would be on the same footing with God. This specifically related to the religious belief of the day that the ethnic nation of Israel were the only ones with special access to God. For Paul to have been preaching this message in his day would be like us teaching that God’s plan for all people today- Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, etc., it would be like saying Gods purpose for our day is to accept all of these ethnic groups as one group thru Christ. To be frank about it, I believe many evangelicals today are not fully seeing the reality of the Cross when they exalt the natural heritage of Israel as Gods special people. Though I realize many of these teachings mean well [end time scenarios and stuff] yet in practice they deny the equal footing that all people have in Christ. Paul was preaching the great news that your ethnic/cultural background no longer made any difference- thru Christ we are all Gods special people. This does not mean that we are all accepted whether or not we believe in Christ, a sort of religious syncretism, but it does mean that the offer of Jesus is available to all. [parts] (1226) 2ND CORINTHIANS 4- In chapter 3 Paul said we are beholding/seeing God in an open way as compared to the old covenant. In this chapter he shows us how we ‘see God’. We see him in his Son. God has chosen to reveal himself to us thru his Son. One of the first Christian councils [after the one at Jerusalem in Acts 15!] was held in the 4th century under the Roman emperor Constantine. The reason was to bring unity to the church on the issue of Christ’s divinity. These councils played political roles as well as theological. After Constantine became emperor he established the great city in the eastern empire called Constantinople. This city [named after him] became both the theological and political seat in the eastern half of the empire. So you had both a religious and political competition going on in the empire. Rome, situated in the west, was feeling like she would lose her position if the eastern half started gaining too much influence. So you had differing reasons for these councils. But you also had sincere men who held to various beliefs at the time. The bishop Arius came to teach that Jesus was the Son of God, but not God himself. This created a stir in the empire and Constantine called a council to settle the question. The debates went forth, both views were discussed and classic Orthodoxy came down on the side of Jesus being God. Now, there would be more councils dealing with Gods nature and Christ’s role, but this was a defining moment in Christian history. The church [and the scriptures] teach that God became man [incarnation] and thru Jesus we ‘see God’. Paul also relates the many sufferings and trials he was going thru. He says he tastes death and bears in his body the death of Jesus. He simply does not give a picture of the Christian life that is common in today’s world. Many believers are taught that these types of difficulties and sufferings are a result of their lack of faith, or their inability to rightfully ‘access their covenant rights’. Paul refutes this doctrine strongly. Paul has already mentioned those who ‘peddle Gods word’ or who twist the scriptures for their own benefit. It always amazes me to see well meaning believers/teachers go thru the entire corpus of the New Testament and never see these things. It’s so easy for preachers/teachers to read the scriptures with blinders on. Here Paul taught that the many sufferings [both physical and spiritual] were an honorable thing, they were his way of sharing in the sufferings and death of Christ. They were ‘death in him, but life in you’ he saw his difficulties thru a redemptive lens. He says the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us. The first verse of this chapter says seeing we have received this great ministry, we don’t faint. I like Eugene Petersons Message version, he says ‘just because times get hard, we don’t throw up our hands and walk off the job’ I like that.

(1227) 2ND CORITNHIANS 5- Paul speaks of the Christian hope- resurrection! This chapter can be confusing if not taken in context. You could think that Paul is saying when we die we have a house/room in heaven ‘waiting for us’ and this seems true enough. But he is really saying something more along the lines of ‘in heaven [Gods realm] we have a promise of a new body. The Spirit in us is the down payment, but full redemption will be complete when we are raised from the dead’ the hope is a new body, not our souls living some type of disembodied existence in a heavenly [parts] JAMES 1 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/5-28-15-james-intro-chapter-1.zip Try and watch this video- I cover lots of stuff that place this letter in context for this study. [ Read acts 10,11,15, Galatians 1-2] Intro- This letter was written by James- the brother of Jesus. He was one of the main church leaders at the church in Jerusalem- we read about him in Acts chapter 15. This [Acts 15] was the first church council in the history of Christianity. I already taught the book of Romans written by the apostle Paul. And as we read the New Testament in context- we can see the reason why James penned this letter- and addressed it to Jewish believers. Paul was the most influential missionary in the early church- he established most of the gentile churches we read about in the bible [Rome being the exception]. He also wrote most of the letters that make up our New Testament. His main teaching was Justification by faith. There was a division we read about in the bible- between some of the Jewish believers at Jerusalem- and the churches Paul was planting [the church council mentioned above- was convened over this issue]. This division was based on the teaching of Paul- and some Jewish believers in Jerusalem accused Paul of rejecting the Mosaic Law. Paul defended himself in the letters of the New Testament [Romans/Galatians] and even talks about his visits to the leaders at the church in Jerusalem. Now- in this context- it seems fitting for James- the main church leader of the Jewish brothers- to ‘set the record straight’. And to write his own letter- showing the importance of GOOD WORKS- and even saying ‘see how a man is justified/saved by works- and not by faith alone’. The higher critics of Christianity [who you have heard me talk about in recent videos] will teach that James and Paul ‘taught different theologies’. I do not agree with them. But- our bibles are an early collection of the Real Time things that were taking place in the early church. At the time these men were writing these letters- they were not writing them as a complete canon [book] – but were writing them as you or I would write a letter to another person. In the wisdom of God- I think it is possible for these men to have seen different aspects of the manifold wisdom of God- and maybe they were not fully seeing the other writer’s point of view. To me- this would not be a criticism of the canon of scripture- but it would show us that God used these men- thru their experiences- and yes- even disagreements- to write the letters that make up our bibles- And in time- they would indeed become the official teaching of the church- Embracing a broad range of Divine Revelation- that in the end- does NOT CONTRADICT itself- but instead makes a complete work- which we call the bible. This letter is short- and packed with short verses of great wisdom. It is the only New Testament letter that falls into the category of Wisdom Literature- Meaning a particular genre’ of writing- like Proverbs in the Old Testament. Because of this- I am going to post each chapter of the letter during this teaching- for those of you who have never read the bible all the way thru- I want to challenge you to read these short chapters over the next few weeks. I will comment and add historical stuff in this teaching- like I did in the other recent studies. But most of all- read each chapter for yourself- ask God to give you wisdom- and apply the instruction of this letter to your life. It is a very practical- straight forward teaching that comes to us from the brother of Jesus himself. As I have been commenting on the other writings that did not make it into our bibles- like the Gnostic gospels- One of the reasons these extra biblical writings have so much appeal- Is because they claim to have other teachings- from/about Jesus- that are not in the bible. For those of us who reject these other writings- as canon- The letter of James kind of fills the void of ‘we want to know more about what Jesus taught’. This would be the letter to read- because James grew up with Jesus- in the same home. He was the oldest sibling of the Holy Family- And he was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection of Christ. He was one of the witnesses Jesus appeared to after his resurrection [Paul told us this in Corinthians]. So- if anyone has any ‘secret insight’ into the other stuff Jesus taught- it would be James. James 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: James 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass [parts] END NOTES OF POST- WHAT ARE THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS? OCTAVIAN- A GOD? CICERO- MARK ANTONY [or Anthony if you like]. WHO WERE THE ESSENES? DID THE CHURCH ENGAGE IN A GRAND CONSPIRACY?

END NOTES [I posted the video for this portion a few days ago- it goes along with Hebrews 7-9 video/post] The past few weeks I had a few friends ask me about the Dead Sea Scrolls- and a few other questions about the ‘lost books of the bible’ and some other common- and mistaken ideas [like the original sin being Eve had sex with the serpent]. So- I figured I would cover a little Jewish history- which would help in this study of Hebrews- And also hit on a few of these subjects. As we read Hebrews- it helps to also understand some of the history that we don’t have in our bibles [though the Catholic bibles do have some of it in the Apocrypha]. Ok- the ruling empire at the time of Christ was Rome- just prior to the appearance of Jesus- the Roman Emperor- Caesar Augustus- consolidated the Roman Empire under his rule- Rome was ruled by a senate- some famous names from history were in it- Cicero being one. Caesar Augustus was the nephew of Julius Caesar- his real name was Octavian [Octavius]. After the death of Julius Caesar- there were some power struggles that took place- between some other famous people. Marc Antony being one of them [Cleopatra too- he was in love with the girl for sure]. Now- we read about Augustus in the New Testament- and we read in the book of Revelation about the Mark of the Beast- and that those who don’t worship- give homage to the Beast- they will be killed. So- Many Christians would be killed because they would refuse to give homage to Caesar Augustus [meaning son of the Divine]. ‘Wow- how did he get a name like that’ [there was more than one Caesar by the way- as well as more than one Herod- who did play a part in these power struggles- it can get confusing- even to me]. When Octavian defeated Marc Antony at Actium [32 BC]. Herod [The Great] had a problem- he had previously sided with Antony and found himself on the losing side. Yet he was smart- did some ‘brown nosing’ as we say-and patched things up. Herod had 3 sons- who would eventually take positions of authority in the Roman government at the time of Christ. Herod Antipas was over the region that we read about in the New Testament where Jesus did most of his ministry- Galilee. Ok- Octavian claimed deity because of a heavenly sign associated with his rise to power- and this is how he became called ‘Caesar Augustus’. He sort of saw himself as a ‘re-incarnate’- of his great uncle Julius Caesar. ‘John- what in the heck does this have to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Ok- good question. The Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various times. Alexander the Great instituted Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered. They could keep their religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule. Some Jewish people rejected any compromise- we call them the Essenes- they moved out of town- so to speak, and lived in what we refer to as the Qumran community. This was a few centuries before the time of Christ- and this was where the Dead Seas Scrolls were found in the 20th century. A Bedouin boy was looking for his goats- threw a rock in a cave right off the Dead Sea- and that’s how we found the scrolls. The scrolls might have been hidden there by the Essenes- Now- when my friends asked me about them- I told them that it’s been a while since I read up on any of this- but to the best of my memory the thing that made them significant was the fact that they were very old manuscripts- from the bible- and they backed up what we had had all along. I did read up this week- and basically had it right. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament we had previously dated back to around 900- 1000 A.D. These manuscripts went back about 1000 years earlier- and they contained portions from almost every book of the Old testament- and some complete books. The only book missing was Esther. So- this was indeed a very significant find for scholars. But the Scrolls also contain some of the writings from the Essenes themselves- things we never had before- so this too was significant. There were Jews at the time of the first century who tried to ‘get along’ with Rome- and with the person in charge of their region [one of the sons of Herod the Great at the time of Christ]. These are referred to as Herodian’s in the bible. Some wanted a revolution to rid Rome from Jerusalem- these were the Zealots [one of Jesus disciples was in this group]. Some thought if they returned to a legalistic obeisance of the law- that this would bring in a deliverer- like the stories we read about in the Old testament- these were the Pharisees. And some took more of a political compromise- these were the Sadducees. Eventually a war with Rome would be fought [By the way- Josephus- the famous 1st century historian- fought on the side of the Jews in the war- and after Jerusalem was sacked in A.D. 70- he went to Rome and wrote his great works- thinking he would make a case for the Jewish people with the Romans. This is why we have his works today- which are very valuable to scholars]. NOTE- In time I’ll try and cover how we ‘got our bibles’ [called the Canon- meaning Rule/ Measurement]. Frankly- there is a lot of confusion in the general public about conspiracies [like the Catholic Church had some type of plot to keep certain books out]. Or stories about how the Church taught Mary Magdalene was a prostitute so they could discredit her. Actually- we read in the gospels that Jesus cast out ‘spirits’ from a woman who was probably living this type of life- And Jesus had a ministry to the down and out- it is indeed possible that Mary was one of these women- And if true- it would not demean her in any way- That’s how this tradition more than likely developed- But- we don’t know for sure. So a few years back the Church officially said ‘we don’t know’. Ok- Plot? No- just being careful. So there are other misguided beliefs like this- that sincere people have- and over time I hope to get to them. I’ll do one more in keeping with this post. I mentioned above that Caesar Augustus did indeed take the title of ‘son of God’. And some critics of the Church say ‘see- there were all types of religions that had Sons of God’. I watched one show a few years back- and it stated that these religions had ’12 disciples- a leader named Lord and Savior- and he healed and claimed to be God’s Son- and rose from the dead’. Ok- that show was ‘fibbing’ to put it lightly- they went too far [historically speaking] in trying to diminish the Christians claim of Christ by doing this. Now- is there some truth to this at all? Yes- like I just mentioned above- Octavian did indeed claim deity- a ‘son of god’. So- how do we explain this? In the book of Galatians the bible says ‘in the FULLNESS of times God sent forth his Son’. Jesus came at a set time in history- in fulfilment of the Jewish Prophets- to be who he was- and to do what he did. Now- this is not special pleading here- but I find it a masterpiece that God’s Son came at a time when the Roman Empire had one sitting on the throne- who too claimed deity. Yet Jesus was in a region of the lower class- his men were not highly educated- and his followers were people under oppression. Augustus lived in the wealthy and influential capital of ‘the world’- he had all you could ever ask for- he was worshiped as a god. Yet in 3 short centuries- one of the heirs of the empire- Constantine- would have an experience – not with a former Caesar- but with a vison of a Cross- He would convert to Christianity- and declare Christianity to be the religion of the realm. He would then ‘convert’ the pagan temples- into churches for these followers of Christ. So I don’t see the fact that Augustus claimed to be a son of god right before Christ- as some type of discredit to the claims of Christ. No- I see it as God’s way of pulling the rug out from the oppressor- see? [Oh- by the way- only one of them rose from the dead- can you guess?]

[parts] [1740] THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING- PLATO.

I caught a show the other night on Link TV. It was a spin off from this famous Platonic quote- it was called ‘The examined life’.

They interviewed some of the most prominent philosophers of our day. Cornell West, Peter Singer- a few others [I think the name is Singer?] I found it interesting that Singer- who specializes in Ethics- tried to make the case that you really don’t need religion/God in order to do ethics- all you need is to work from the basic principle that says ‘try to treat others like you too want to be treated- and then you will have a foundation for morals’.

Now- I caught the contradiction right away- do you see it? Who is he quoting? This is the great moral principle- given to us by Jesus himself- called the Golden Rule.

This actual principle- in Theology [the study of God] we call Natural/Moral law. The Argument is based on the reality that all people [not animals- Singer- get to it in a moment] have within them this moral compass [Romans 1] and that this in itself is proof that there must be a higher moral being- a transcendent being- who has put it in man.

I just found it funny that Singer- who is supposed to be a prominent atheist/agnostic thinker- would fall flat on his face like this.

Singer advocates for legal Rights for animals- and has also argued that viability of the new born baby should determine its personhood- he says that we should be able to abort babies up until around the age of 1- because they can’t really survive on their own until that age.

Sad.

Okay- why do Philosophy- or Physics- or any other of a number of schools of thought? Because too often Christians abandon these fields- and then when someone from that field says ‘this is why we don’t need God’ we usually have no answer.

When we think about philosophy- most of us think about the 3 great big shots- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. While it is true that these guys were the major guys at right around the 5th century B.C.- yet we actually date the beginning point to the early 6TH Century B.C. to a man by the name of Thales.

Thales accurately predicted a solar eclipse in the year 585 B.C. and he gained notoriety because of this. Thales was the first Greek thinker to grapple with the idea that there must be one reality that makes up all things.

He would argue that Water was this element- that contained being and Motion and life. Many of these pre Socratic thinkers were obsessed with the idea of motion- where did it come from?

Thales observed that streams and rivers- and all types of water sources flow- so to him this was a logical source of motion.

This idea- that only one element makes up all reality- is called Monism. Monism is not be confused with Monotheism- the belief in one God- Monism actually leads to another religious view- called Pantheism- the belief that God is everything- and everything is God.

This is not the historic Christian view.

Now- the pre Socratic guys- Parmenides, Zeno, Heraclitus- these guys would challenge Thales view that water was the main thing.

Some said ‘maybe it’s Air’ another said ‘Earth’ and some Fire. These 4 elements [Earth, Air [wind] Fire and Water- are the 4 basic elements of the early Greek philosophers.

We see these things in the naming of musical groups [Earth Wind and Fire] as well as the themes in movies [fantastic 4- based on 4 basic elements- powers].

Now- one of the thinkers said ‘wait- maybe the reality behind all things is not any one of these elements- maybe there is a 5th dimension [another musical name- and also the famous Bruce Willis flick- called the 5th Element] a Boundless being- outside of time and matter- maybe this 5ht element is the foundation for all things.

Of course this view would lead to the more developed view of God that Socrates and his followers would embrace- an early view of God- much like the later Christian view [absent the Trinity].

By the way- the view that 2 or more elements make up all reality is called Pluralism- not to be confused with religious Pluralism [that all religions lead to the same God]. The most common form of Pluralism is Dualism [2 realities equally true] but all non Monists who embrace more than one reality are Pluralists.

Okay- maybe a bit much with the 10 dollar words- but it might spark the interest of some.

The church has debated for centuries on whether or not Philosophy should be taught to Christians. One of the early church fathers- Tertullian- said no- his famous quote is ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’.

Meaning what does Philosophy have in common with Christianity [Athens- Greece was the seat of philosophy in Jesus’ day].

For the most part- the early church fathers would embrace the study of philosophy- and try to make arguments for the Christian faith by presenting Christianity as ‘thee’ philosophy that best answers the questions of man.

These early Christian thinkers are called Apologists- men like Justin Martyr are in this class.

Apologist is a word we use to describe those who defend the faith- it comes from the Apostle Peter’s letter in the N.T. where Peter says ‘give an answer to those who ask you about the faith’. In the Greek language- the original language the N.T. was written in- this phrase is talking about a defense- an ‘apology’ in the sense of ‘making the case’ not in the common sense of apologizing.

In the book of Acts- chapter 17- we read the famous sermon of the apostle Paul- given at Mars Hill. He was in Athens at the time- and he was debating with all the philosophers of the day. He tells them ‘as I was looking around town- I saw that one of your altars is addressed to The Unknown God’.

He would go on and declare unto them that this Jesus is the true God- the one raised from the dead.

Paul also said ‘in Him we live and MOVE and have our being’. Kind of a popular verse quoted by preacher’s today- but we often overlook the significance of the MOVE part.

I mean- why say we MOVE in him too? Paul was a smart guy- he knew these children of Socrates questioned where motion came from [Remember Thales?] So he was basically saying ‘I am declaring to you the one true reality- the true 5th Element- the missing God particle from your system’ and he went on and preached Christ- being raised from the dead.

Paul knew that you can’t really do true philosophy- to grapple with the questions of life and being and ‘motion’ without realizing that God is indeed the ultimate answer to all things.

Even Peter Singer- who claimed that you don’t need God or religion in order to do Ethics- even he unknowingly quoted Jesus in attempting to give a basis for his Philosophy- yes- he quoted a God- one unknown to him- just like the altar at Athens- but a God never the less.

An inescapable 5th element- the missing part to the whole puzzle.

VERSES- John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. John 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. John 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. John 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. 14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Tim. 3:16 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com facebook.com/john.chiarello.5 https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts https://vimeo.com/user37400385 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. I deal with issues at times that it would be beneficial for some of you to download and save the file from the Word Press link. This creates a permanent record. The on-line videos are only good if sites are not hacked- which has happened in the past. Thanks- John.#

Advertisements

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,  as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page. You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.

UPGRADE NOW DISMISS MESSAGE

Share this:

· Press This

· Twitter

· LinkedIn

· Pinterest

· Tumblr

· Print

· Facebook

· Google

· Reddit

· 

Related

Sunday sermon [R] 1-20-19

Mark 1

Sunday sermon 12-2-18

[parts]

If you remember we stopped at the 4th-5th century B.C. and we left off with Aristotle. Now- Aristotle [and Plato and Socrates] ruled the day for hundreds of years- most Western thinkers were shaped by their ideas.

 So for that reason- lets skip about 800 years forward- to the time of Saint Augustine. Augustine lived in the 4th/5th century [A.D.]. When studying Philosophy you will study this man. But you run into him in the fields of Theology and church history as well- he’s considered by many to be the ‘best’ theologian of the 1st thousand years of Christianity- and to some- the best ever.

 I have covered Augustine before- so let’s go light right now and hit a few high points.

 Augustine had early  influences that led him to the philosophy of ‘Neo Platonism’ [an offshoot of Plato’s thought] and he dabbled [well more than dabbled] in a sort of early metaphysical cult called Manichaeism [like a 3rd century type of Christian Science- the movement in our day].

 As Augustine carried out his traveling teaching ministry [he was a teacher who was skilled in Rhetoric- and these traveling teachers would charge for their services] he eventually converted to Christianity [the Catholic Bishop Ambrose played a major role in Augustine’s conversion] and became the Bishop of Hippo- North Africa.

 Augustine came to defend the Christian world view against his former belief in Neo Platonism. Platonism taught a Pantheistic view of God and creation. This view teaches that God and creation are one in the same. Many eastern religions still hold to this view in our day.

 Augustine argued that God was the creator of all things- but that he himself was not created- or a part of the created world.

 He developed a very sound theology on creation- which most Christian traditions hold to this very day.

 He had a few theological battles in his day. With Pelagianism and Donatism- these were early Christian movements that broke away from the standard teaching of the church- they derive their names form the Bishops/priests who espoused these ideas.

 Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin- and he taught that men were indeed capable of obeying Gods law- out of their own moral integrity- and thus ‘save themselves’. Augustine rejected this view and taught that men were saved only by the grace of God- that men were indeed sinful and corrupt- and if left to their own designs would end up in hell.

 There were various adherents to Pelagius’ view- and his ideas have carried down thru the centuries to varying degrees- sometimes you will hear [read] the term ‘Semi- Pelagian’ this refers to those who have various ideas about man’s ability to save himself through good works.

 Some in the Reformed church [the original Protestant belief system that came out from the 16th century Reformation] accuse the Catholic Church of this very thing- yet the Catholic Church has made it clear that they do reject Pelagianism- and they agree with Augustine on the matter.

 The Donatists taught that the Sacraments were dependent upon the ‘holiness’ of the Priest who ministers them. That if you were in a Parish where the priests were bad- lived in sin- rejected a holy life- then if you were Baptized by these men- that the Baptism didn’t ‘stick’.

 The Donatists formed there own break away church in the 3rd century- and a few very influential men would join the group. A well respected early church father- Tertullian- eventually joined their ranks.

 Augustine argued against the Donatists teaching- and taught that Gods grace- and the grace given to believers thru the sacraments were not derived from the holiness of any priest or preacher- but if a believer in good conscience received the sacraments- that that’s what really counted.

 Saint Augustine is one of the titans of church history- he is loved by Protestants and Catholics alike. He is famous for his belief in the doctrine of Predestination [that those who are saved were chosen by God before they were born] and for this reason he is loved by the original protestant theologians [Luther, Calvin, etc.]

 He also taught a very ‘Catholic’ form of Ecclesiology [church govt.] and is well loved by many Catholics as well.

 The Catholic Church refers to him  as the Doctor of Grace- later on in the 13th century we will meet Saint Thomas Aquinas- who the church refers to as the Angelic Doctor.

 Both of these men played a major role in the development of western thought and Augustine made an effort to distinguish true Christian thought from the philosophy of Neo Platonism which was very strong in his day.

 When reading Augustine [he wrote a lot] you need to be careful to distinguish some of his earlier writings from his later ones.

 Early on you still see forms of Platonic thought in Augustine- but as the years rolled by his thinking progressed more and more towards historic Christian  thought.

 For those of you who are interested- the Confessions of Saint Augustine is considered one the classics of Christianity- you can pick up a short version at most good bookstores- it’s well worth the time to read.

[parts]

)1st CORINTHIANS INTRODUCTION- Out of all of Paul’s letters, this one is ‘the most verified’ as being his. Of course we know this because Paul says so in the letter! But for all those intellectual higher critics, this helps. Corinth was a city of great influence and trade, many land and sea routes converged at Corinth and her port. The city was also known for her philosophers and ‘preachers of wisdom’ [Rhetoric]. They actually had a custom at Corinth in which you could ‘hire’ your own ‘preacher of wisdom’. These were the traveling teachers who made a living at speaking. This also might be why Paul specifically said ‘when I was with you I did not take money from you’. The custom of the traveling preachers was you could pay a one time honorarium for a single speech, or you could actually hire a regular speaker and have him ‘on salary’. Paul did not want the Corinthians to think that he was their hired preacher! How much influence this type of trade would have on the later development of the ‘hired clergy’ is unknown, but the similarities are striking. The famous 5th century bishop of Hippo, North Africa, Saint Augustine, made his living as one of these traveling teachers of philosophy before becoming a Christian. It’s believed that Paul wrote a 3rd letter to the church at Corinth, so what we know as 1st, 2nd Corinthians might actually be letters 2 and 3. I personally think Corinthians holds special value for the church today. The 21st century believer is being challenged on her Ecclesiology, the whole idea of what the church is. In Corinthians we see a specific picture of what the church is and on how she should meet. Paul will not address ‘the Pastor’ [there was none in the modern sense of the office] but he will speak directly to the brothers at Corinth and give them some heavy responsibilities to carry out [like committing a brother to satan for the destruction of his flesh! Ouch]. Paul went to Corinth on his 2nd missionary journey and spent 18 months with them [Acts 18] one of the longest stays at any church. Because of the pagan background of the city Paul will address specific issues related to believers and certain practices of idol worship. Eating meat offered to idols and stuff like that. Corinth also practiced a form of idolatry that included prostitution, so he will deal severely with the loose sexual morals of the people at Corinth. Well we have a lot to cover in the next few weeks, try and read Corinthians on your own as we plunge into this study, it will help a lot.

[parts]

)1ST CORINTHIANS 10: 5 ‘But with many of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness’. As I just sat down and was debating on how much to cover, I felt the Lord wanted me to stop with this one verse. Let’s review a little. Does this experience of being ‘scattered in the wilderness’ define past experiences for you? [Or present!] Historically the church has always had to deal with wilderness times. St. John of the Cross called this ‘the dark night of the soul’. After Mother Theresa’s death we found out that she struggled with doubt many times thru out her life. The historic church has been ‘scattered in the wilderness’ over truly insignificant stuff. I find it ridiculous that one of the main reasons the western [Catholic] and eastern [Orthodox] churches split in 1054 a.d. was over the silly distinction of whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father [the historic creed] or the ‘father and the Son’. This is considered the official cause of the split, though there were many other factors as well. In a day or so we will cover a verse that says ‘God is the head of Christ’. I had a friend that used to point out the fact that many Baptists would refer to ‘God and Jesus and the Spirit’ he would think this was in error because they would leave out ‘the Father’. To be honest he was consistent with Trinitarian thinking [I am one by the way!] If the ‘sole’ definition of God in the New testament were ‘3 separate persons who equally posses the Divine attributes’. Then the phrase ‘God is the head of Jesus’ would not make sense. It would be like saying ‘God [Father, Jesus and Holy spirit] are all the head of Jesus’. What am I saying here? Basically the historic church came to certain ways of framing the argument that were limited in their application. Does the New testament teach the Trinity? Yes. Does the word ‘God’ primarily refer to ‘the father’ in its language? To be honest, it does. Though the reality of the Trinity is there, yet the normative language of ‘God’ is referring to ‘the Father’. So my Baptist buddy was right in seeing a contradiction when Baptists said ‘God, Jesus and the Spirit’. If they were true to all the historic language, then they should have said ‘the father’ not ‘God’. Because ‘God’ would be the all encompassing language of ‘3 distinct persons who all posses the divine attributes’. But in fact, my friend was wrong. Why? Because the language of scripture mostly means ‘God the Father’ when simply saying ‘God’. Now why go into all this? Because the historic church has been divided over the language used. Arian, the Catholic Bishop/Priest, said that Jesus is ‘not God’. That ‘God the Father is God’. He was rightfully condemned, and the Trinitarian language would prevail. The problem is some of the language of the creeds and councils that would follow were not totally accurate. Some of the Creeds would say ‘Jesus was eternally begotten [always begotten]’ this statement was for the purpose of refuting those who said ‘Jesus had a beginning’ [Arianism]. Now, did Jesus ‘have a beginning’? John’s gospel says Jesus was with the father from the beginning, and that ‘the Word was with God, and was God’. Jesus had no beginning! But, does this mean he was ‘eternally begotten’? No. He was begotten by Mary 2 thousand years ago. Begotten refers to the incarnation, not the preexisting Son who was with the father from all eternity. So the well intended phrase ‘eternally begotten’ was wrong. Why even discuss this? Because most of Christian Orthodoxy would still condemn certain aspects of the Syrian and Ethiopian churches over this. We at times are ‘scattered in the wilderness’ and our ‘bodies’ [denominations, divisions in Christendom] are a sad representation to the world. [NOTE- I want to restate what I have said in the past. I believe in the Trinity. But I also want you to see how other Christian perspectives have viewed these things in the past. There are large groups of ‘historic churches’ [not Gnostics and stuff like that, the so called ‘lost Christianities’] who lean towards Arianism. Most of the invading barbarians who sacked the Western Roman empire were converted to this ‘brand’ of Christianity. So while I hold to the historic orthodox view, I wanted you to see that we too have been inconsistent at times].

[parts]

2ND CORINTHIANS 4- In chapter 3 Paul said we are beholding/seeing God in an open way as compared to the old covenant. In this chapter he shows us how we ‘see God’. We see him in his Son. God has chosen to reveal himself to us thru his Son. One of the first Christian councils [after the one at Jerusalem in Acts 15!] was held in the 4th century under the Roman emperor Constantine. The reason was to bring unity to the church on the issue of Christ’s divinity. These councils played political roles as well as theological. After Constantine became emperor he established the great city in the eastern empire called Constantinople. This city [named after him] became both the theological and political seat in the eastern half of the empire. So you had both a religious and political competition going on in the empire. Rome, situated in the west, was feeling like she would lose her position if the eastern half started gaining too much influence. So you had differing reasons for these councils. But you also had sincere men who held to various beliefs at the time. The bishop Arius came to teach that Jesus was the Son of God, but not God himself. This created a stir in the empire and Constantine called a council to settle the question. The debates went forth, both views were discussed and classic Orthodoxy came down on the side of Jesus being God. Now, there would be more councils dealing with Gods nature and Christ’s role, but this was a defining moment in Christian history. The church [and the scriptures] teach that God became man [incarnation] and thru Jesus we ‘see God’. Paul also relates the many sufferings and trials he was going thru. He says he tastes death and bears in his body the death of Jesus. He simply does not give a picture of the Christian life that is common in today’s world. Many believers are taught that these types of difficulties and sufferings are a result of their lack of faith, or their inability to rightfully ‘access their covenant rights’. Paul refutes this doctrine strongly. Paul has already mentioned those who ‘peddle Gods word’ or who twist the scriptures for their own benefit. It always amazes me to see well meaning believers/teachers go thru the entire corpus of the New Testament and never see these things. It’s so easy for preachers/teachers to read the scriptures with blinders on. Here Paul taught that the many sufferings [both physical and spiritual] were an honorable thing, they were his way of sharing in the sufferings and death of Christ. They were ‘death in him, but life in you’ he saw his difficulties thru a redemptive lens. He says the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us. The first verse of this chapter says seeing we have received this great ministry, we don’t faint. I like Eugene Petersons Message version, he says ‘just because times get hard, we don’t throw up our hands and walk off the job’ I like that.

[parts]

   VERSES [These are the verses I either quoted or taught from on today’s post]

Hebrews 1:1

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Revelation 3:12

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Revelation 21:2

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 2:11

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 3 Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established:

4 And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

Prvb. 24

 2 Corinthians 4:4

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 Hebrews 8:6

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 2 Peter 1:4

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 John 14:12 [Full Chapter]

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 Colossians 2:5

For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 January 20 2019

 « January 19  |  January 21 »

Second Sunday in Ordinary Time

Lectionary: 66

Reading 1

IS 62:1-5

For Zion's sake I will not be silent, for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet, until her vindication shines forth like the dawn and her victory like a burning torch. Nations shall behold your vindication, and all the kings your glory; you shall be called by a new name pronounced by the mouth of the LORD. You shall be a glorious crown in the hand of the LORD, a royal diadem held by your God. No more shall people call you "Forsaken, " or your land "Desolate, " but you shall be called "My Delight, " and your land "Espoused." For the LORD delights in you and makes your land his spouse. As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; and as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

Responsorial Psalm

PS 96:1-2, 2-3, 7-8, 9-10

 R. (3) Proclaim his marvelous deeds to all the nations. Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all you lands. Sing to the LORD; bless his name. R. Proclaim his marvelous deeds to all the nations. Announce his salvation, day after day. Tell his glory among the nations;  among all peoples, his wondrous deeds. R. Proclaim his marvelous deeds to all the nations. Give to the LORD, you families of nations, give to the LORD glory and praise;  give to the LORD the glory due his name!  R. Proclaim his marvelous deeds to all the nations. Worship the LORD in holy attire. Tremble before him, all the earth; Say among the nations: The LORD is king. He governs the peoples with equity. R. Proclaim his marvelous deeds to all the nations.

Reading 2

1 COR 12:4-11

Brothers and sisters: There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;  there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another, the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another, mighty deeds; to another, prophecy; to another, discernment of spirits; to another, varieties of tongues; to another, interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.

Alleluia 

CF. 2 THES 2:14

R. Alleluia, alleluia. God has called us through the Gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. R. Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel

JN 2:1-11

There was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus told the them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it.  And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from — although the servers who had drawn the water knew —, the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now." Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs at Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

 MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks  

https://www.facebook.com/ccoutreach1/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel&eid=ARCo7sBBI_1fHMUwrHJbFUGf73C6FmpZxtgTcWET2gVwpdHCKmXSGxs6wyeA-qGCnbsr2ILaXqpd4ACt  [my page]

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

 Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

 http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

 Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

 Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber classic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

https://d.tube/c/ccoutreach  

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A  

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui  [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos?lst=1779330793%3A1779330793%3A1546906912  [My Facebook videos]

 I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on-  Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

 Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is ccoutreach87@gmail.com - contact me first- thank you- John

[battleforgodstruth]

The Biblical Gospel of Grace - Pastor Patrick Hines Sermon (Psalm 61:1-2)

▶️Dear Brethren, I am now on X. If you are as well, please consider following me there: https://twitter.com/RichMoo50267219 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV)1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I…