Warning: mysql_get_server_info() [function.mysql-get-server-info]: Access denied for user 'apache'@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /home/httpd/vhosts/jackhammr.org/httpdocs/bbpress/bb-includes/db-mysqli.php on line 80

Warning: mysql_get_server_info() [function.mysql-get-server-info]: A link to the server could not be established in /home/httpd/vhosts/jackhammr.org/httpdocs/bbpress/bb-includes/db-mysqli.php on line 80

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/httpd/vhosts/jackhammr.org/httpdocs/bbpress/bb-includes/db-mysqli.php:80) in /home/httpd/vhosts/jackhammr.org/httpdocs/bbpress/bb-templates/kakumei/rss2.php on line 1
http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ JackHammer Forums: Last 35 Posts en Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:30:11 +0000 http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=91#post-277 Wed, 07 May 2008 03:03:44 +0000 KentBrand 277@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Hi.  My name is Kent. <br /> <br /> I want to tell you the true story of me and television.  The names will not be changed to protect the innocent.  I'm not innocent.  Is anyone?  We could add a chapter to James and say that he is a perfect man who can control the television.  A television can no man tame.  But I digress.<br /> <br /> Before I really get into this story, I want to give you a few preliminaries.  First, for the last 20 out of 21 years, which is my married life, we have owned a television, but had no antennae or cable hook-up, which in California means that we don't receive any actual television to view.  We do own a combination DVD/CD player and a VCR.  Second, I think television can be as dangerous as anything to us.   But so can guns.<br /> <br /> <strong>The Early Shows</strong><br /> <br /> OK, I grew up watching television.  I watched Armstrong make his one giant leap for mankind on our black and white tube television, peering through the porch window where my brother and I slept on a very warm July late evening before my dad left for graveyard shift at the factory.  Did you notice that I remembered all that and television was a positive part of it?  Yes.  Gilligan's Island, Hogan's Heroes, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, The Andy Griffith Show, Get Smart, Gomer Pyle, Petticoat Junction, Leave It to Beaver, and The Waltons strand my cultural fiber.  I remember the talking heads of the Watergate hearing.  I first witnessed the amazing growth of homosexual political power in San Francisco on a news program on the same black and white.  I'd never go to San Francisco after witnessing that.  Ooops.  Many days<!--more--> of my childhood I spent google-eyed in front of Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Green Jeans.  I still can't look at a shoe box without thinking of Mr. Kangaroo's, filled with his paste and scissors and other implements.  After school I often rushed home for Popeye and Janey and during the summers it was Cowboy Bob and Chuckwagon Theater.  I drank Chocola because of him and I'll never forget what he said at the end of every program:  "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all."  Some of you might wish I had listened more closely to that one.<br /> <br /> I loved cartoons.  I said "loved."  I'm not proud of it, but it's true.  I still love spinach because of Popeye.  Not directly any more, but because I ate it faithfully and enthusiastically as a child because of the obvious consequences anyone could see if they watched the man.  And then it was bugs bunny, the roadrunner, and the rest of the Looney Tunes cast.  And then there were John Wayne, the three stooges, Abbot and Costello, Batman ("pow!" "bam!" "smack!"), the Lone Ranger (yes, Keemo-sa-bee), and you're a strange one, Mr. Grinch.<br /> <br /> I don't think any of it was the best for me, but I still smile when remembering.  I don't endorse it.  I'm still planning on studying out the uniform opposition of Christians to dramatic arts in church history.  I don't believe we should ignore historic doctrine, especially unanimous, so we should find out why they were against the medium itself, let alone the content expressed.  To do so, I've started reading Nietzche's <em>The Birth of Tragedy</em>, which compares Dionysian versus Apollonarian art.  Dramatic art didn't originate in Scripture, you know.  The Greeks came up with it.  They knew what they were doing when they invented it, and since Scripture is sufficient and yet silent about it, we should wonder why.  I'm going to do my best to find out and then I'll probably let you know my findings.  And then I think of <em>The Incredible Hulk</em>, the Bill Bixby version, "You won't like me when I'm angry."  Bill Bixby, ah yes, <em>The Courtship of Eddie's Father</em> and <em>The Magician</em>.  Yes, I liked TV.  I still do.<br /> <br /> I liked TV so much that my kids haven't grown up on it.  We got rid of the television at least three times in my childhood history.  When I was 12 we moved from Covington, IN to Watertown, WI.  The TV didn't come with us.  We didn't buy one.  A few years later, however, one of the grandfathers bought us one.  Not us.  One of the grandfathers.  After a few years and a few hot messages, we got rid of that one.  We had gaps of television-less years that are holes in my trivial knowledge.  I saw just a few episodes of Happy Days and zero of Cosby.  The first Happy Days episode, which will explain why I saw just a few, was centered on Fonzi showing the rest of the "boys" how to remove a girl's bra strap.  That was the main plot.  We didn't pray before we sat and watched.<br /> <br /> <strong>Movies</strong><br /> <br /> Movies were preached against.  Sometime way back preachers started preaching against movies.  It was a sin to go to the theater.  Before that, it was a sin to go the playhouse.  That was in Spurgeon's day.  He was death on that kind of entertainment.  I never went to the theater.  The last time was five years old at a birthday party when <em>The Jungle Book</em> first came from Disney.  My great grandmother took the tickets at the theater in Clinton, Iowa.  We went a few times when we visited before I was five.  We didn't go to movies, but we all kind of wondered why movies were so bad, but it was OK to watch the same thing when it came out on television.  Television got worse too.  The regular programming regularly attacked Scriptural values and behavior, making the alternative seem more normal and desensitizing the viewer often to the lifestyles observed.<br /> <br /> I remember seeing a few episodes of Charlie's Angels.  That wasn't approved fare, but it did slip through a few times.  Then I would see that Farrah Fawcett poster up at stores for purchase.  As little as I saw, I know that wasn't the best thing for a teenage boy to have seen.  It was very difficult to block out that image of Farrah and then the accompanying lust.  Those are powerful tools of the world, the flesh, and the devil, those images.  <em>Amusing Ourselves To Death</em> has been mentioned, but one part of that book that I remember is Postman's description of images as idols in the mind.  Imaginations are the idols in the mind that we must pull down, even to get saved.  We can't see Farrah on the poster and stay pure in heart.  The pure in heart shall see God.  It is a choice---God or Farrah.   We know the right choice, but the the images create thorny ground that opposes genuine conversion.  More images, less opportunity to be saved.<br /> <br /> When teenagers fell away, I think television was a major if not the major cause.  How?  Movies are preached against from the pulpit.  The Christian family watches something much worse at home.  Hypocrisy might be the worst enemy of Godly teenagers.  They need a consistent message and real Christianity.  What's the solution?  We have to be honest about what we believe.  We can't come out against bad movies if we are going to sit and watch it.  You be a fake about your entertainment, and that might be how you lose your kids.<br /> <br /> <strong>Videos and Cable</strong><br /> <br /> I didn't see television much in my high school years, none in my college and grad school years.  That didn't hurt me at all.  I saw an occasional game at someone's house.  But I do know that when I was in college, something big took place that changed the landscape of entertainment forever.  It also impacted standards and preaching.  What was it?  The invention and then marketing of the VCR.  Now you could go to a store and rent movies, and watch them in your own home.<br /> <br /> So movie theaters wrong.  No brainer.  Television OK.  Video stores?  When in Christian college, you got expelled for theater attendance.  What about video store visit?  Nothing.  A guy I was in school with worked at a video store.  We just weren't scripted for the video store.  And before we could get anything written up, a lot of the leaders were taking advantage of the loophole.  The video store guy said that administration came in to rent stuff that was just in theaters.  But kids were still getting shipped for theater attendance.<br /> <br /> Personally, I wasn't bent out of shape about the faculty renting videos.  I didn't want to go myself to the stores, but I already knew there was heaping portions of hypocrisy to pass around.  I was living my own Christian life with my own beliefs and I wasn't depending on their example.  However, some were.  For some, that kind of activity is a stumbling block.  I also knew that we needed some video store talk or preaching.  Not much of that ever occurred that I remember.  It really was ambiguous to people what was the right thing to do.  I still think it is for many.<br /> <br /> When I was in college, I was a counselor at a Christian camp.  I gave out a survey to the jr. and sr. high kids with various questions.  I asked what was their favorite movie.  One kid wrote, "Raiders of the Lost Ark."  I thought it was a documentary on the search for Noah's Ark.  I thought he must be a fine Christian kid who didn't know about movies.  At that time, he had to have seen it at the theater, which is, of course, wrong.  You only get to see it when it comes out on video.  Then it's right.  You know that, right?  Theater wrong.  Video store right.<br /> <br /> We didn't have a television for the first several years of marriage.  We didn't have furniture either, but I digress.  When we did buy one about five years in, we decided on cable TV.  We tried that for a year and we really started enjoying certain shows.  Some were over the line, so we didn't watch, but some we thought we could watch with a clean conscience.  Sometimes we saw things we shouldn't and as the leader of the family, I would confess it as sin.  Sometimes when I was preaching, it crossed my mind that viewing a certain show might not match up with some of the sermon content.  We stopped the cable subscription after a year.<br /> <br /> Cable offered so many things to watch that I started thinking about what was going to be on.  We started thinking about our schedule as it related to certain television shows.  This was new to me, this thing of controlling a TV, deciding what to watch.  I found that you could easily rationalize something you perhaps shouldn't have seen.  You didn't like it and you told yourself so.  You could watch sports, educational, or only the "good" shows.  Sports had the commercials, the cheerleaders, and the music.  There was a lot of sports, enough to keep someone from being close to God.  I couldn't explain how that it was worth it to pay so much if we weren't going to watch.  The amount that you needed to watch to justify a cable bill was too much to be a good Christian.<br /> <br /> As children came along, television was another temptation for them.  It would need to be monitored and there was already plenty to monitor---practice time, homework, devotional life, church ministry, and general behavior.  There was the threat of it looking so important to us that it would be a bad testimony to them, causing them to stumble.   We decided we wouldn't have cable, but what about videos?  This was before DVDs came along.<br /> <br /> We wouldn't rent things at the video store.  We would get films at the library and sometimes at the grocery store.  Nobody made me stay out of video stores.  When I walked into one, I wanted to walk right out.  I was uncomfortable being in.  That wasn't because I heard video store sermons.  When I walked in, it looked like the wrong place for a man of God to be.  But how much different was it to pick up something at the library?  And when I got one at the grocery store, I dreaded that space of time, because it didn't feel good when I did.  One time while at our pharmacy, which had a rental aisle, I was standing there when a church member walked by and said, "Hello."  My heart pounded up into my throat, my face turned red.  The church member didn't say anything or act like there was any problem at all.  I hadn't preached a standard.  It was my standard.<br /> <br /> Well, you might feel sorry for me.  I shouldn't feel so guilty.  I shouldn't let it bother me so much.  I need more grace, more liberty, that God doesn't want me feeling this way.  I'm fine with my reaction.  I believe it was two things:  my own conscience and the counsel of the Holy Spirit and I better listen.   Was I feeling guilty because of getting caught looking at videos or was it because of the videos themselves?  I don't feel guilty watching a movie.  I do feel guilty showing public support of the movie industry.  I think it hurts people.  It won't help our church members if their pastor is a big movie guy.  I don't think movie watching adds much to their lives.  I know that I wasted so much time and the entertainment can produce a deadness toward the things of God, even if it's wholesome.  It gives something that the Word of God must compete with our lives.  I'd rather have the serious reaction.<br /> <br /> <strong>My Position</strong><br /> <br /> My position on movies, the theater, television, and DVDs is essentially that, first, Scripture is technically silent about them.  What is a theater, but a big building with a lot of seats, a screen, and a projector.  What's wrong with that?  Nothing in and of itself.  The reasons I was given as a kid were good reasons not to go.  They didn't tell me that it was a sin to go.  I preach against going to a theater, but not because it is a sin to watch movies.  I think it can be a sin and it can be wrong.  I don't go to the theater myself.  I don't encourage it.  We'll talk about it.<br /> <br /> But what about IMAX?  I'm smiling.  Christians can go to IMAX, especially if it is at a museum or science hall, some educational center.  But if it is disconnected from those places, standing alone.  Whoooaa!  Is it a theater then?  Well, it depends, you know.  If you are watching a documentary, it's an educational thingy and if you're watching Poseidon Adventure, it is a theater.  This is why we need to be up front and honest about this.  And what about Barnes and Noble?  Don't they have bad books and magazines in there?  This is why this thing has to be a matter of discernment.<br /> <br /> Kids are a lot more savvy than many give them credit.  They start figuring out that our principles work places where we don't apply them.  They start asking questions and that's where certain rigid standards stop working and we find we'd have done better targeting heart change and giving them discernment to make good decisions about any area in this fast-changing world.  We need to keep them away from things, but it's even better if they witness firsthand our love for God.  We don't have much time for these forms of entertainment because they interfere with what's really important to us, our service of God.<br /> <br /> <em>Next time, I'll go further with my story and I'll tell you some more about what I think God's will for us is.</em> http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-276 Sat, 03 May 2008 21:46:15 +0000 DaveM 276@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ At the founding of our nation, if someone had told America's forefathers that in the future, a significant part of an American's day would be spent staring at a box in the living room, I feel fairly certain that he would have been dismissed out of hand.  Somehow, it is hard to imagine that men like Franklin, Madison, Adams, or Washington would have the ability to fathom such a cultural phenomenon.  Let alone imagine the possibility of it.<br /> <br /> And no, I am not simply referring to the invention of miniature projectors of animated images.  Certainly, there are many inventions of the modern era (e.g., automobiles, telephones, i-pods, and tennis shoes) that would have baffled them.  I am referring, not to the invention, but to the <em>activity</em> of television viewing.  Considering the amount of time spent on this activity, we would have had one confounded Founding Father. <br /> <br /> Yet here we are, right smack-dab at the start of the Twenty-first century, where Television has replaced baseball as America's favorite pastime.  To borrow a line from Neal Postman's delightful little book, we twenty-first century Americans are consumed with amusing ourselves to death. <br /> <br /> One might say that this new pastime of ours has had an impact on our culture.  That would be irrefutable.  And yet, one gets the vague feeling that such a statement somehow gets off the train a few stops short of reality.  Television has had more than a mere <em>impact</em> on culture.  Television has <em>become</em> our<!--more--> culture.  Other cultures were farming cultures, were reading cultures, were fighting cultures.  We are a television-watching culture.  They planted, they debated, they worked.  We watch television.  Television defines us.  It defines our culture.  It defines our nation.  To the rest of the world, America is the place where they make TV shows. <br /> <br /> At another time, we will discuss what television says about our culture.  For right now though, we want to make it a bit more personal.  After all, talking about <em>them</em> is easy.  We need to talk about <em>you</em> for right now.  What does your television say about you?<br /> <br /> No doubt some will immediately pop up with the old stand-by: we shouldn't have a television to begin with.  This pastor finds little to disagree with that approach to television.  Before my wife and I married, we decided that we would not own a television.  We had several reasons for this, but ultimately we felt that our children and our household would be better off without one.  However, in American culture, television is inescapable.  Not having a television says something about you... we'll get to that in a minute.  But we do not escape television by not having one.  Our family does not own a television, but my children have seen plenty of television.  Right now, we are enjoying the Utah/Houston playoff series.  Both my boys are becoming true-blue fans of the Utah Jazz, especially as they advance in the playoffs (we'll see how that goes).  Their father has followed the Washington Redskins since boyhood.  So, when we get the chance, we will take the time to watch the Redskins play (or not) on TV.  When we visit in other homes, or in the nursing home, or go to a store, we can't help but notice the televisions.  The fact is that whenever our children see a television, they are glued. <br /> <br /> I say all of that simply to point out that we cannot escape television by not having one.  In fact, if we don't have a television, we have an even greater task ahead of us in preparing our children to face a TV culture.  Ignoring television in no way prepares us to confront our culture, and I for one do not think that this is a viable option for the Christian home.<br /> <br /> So, what does your television say about you?  First, we should again note that having an empty spot where the television belongs still says something about you.  As one who in fact has this empty spot in the TV place, I (of course) want people to think that not having a television says that you are holy, that you care about the things of God, that you value other things (like reading, family time, etc.).  Of course, I want that to be the statement, because I want to be all of those things, and I want you to think all those things about me. <br /> <br /> But the truth is that the absence of a TV has no better chance of making you holy than the presence of a Bible does.  Shocking as it is, people can still sin while carrying a Bible.  And I have observed that people still sin even when they don't own a television.  My wife, of course, more so than myself.<br /> <br /> Not owning a television <em>can</em> mean that you have other goals for your family.  It <em>can</em> mean that you are exercising diligent stewardship and faithful headship in your home.  It can also mean that you are taking the easy way out, that you prefer to avoid any sort of faithful stewardship and diligent teaching in your home.  So, you take the easy way out --- say "it's bad," and go on.  This is not meant as a reflection on anyone who does not have a TV, or who says that we should not have a TV.  But the reader must answer the question honestly before the Lord.  "By not having a TV, am I trying to teach my children diligently, or am I trying to escape my parental responsibility?"  You see, the fact that you don't have a television certainly gives the <em>appearance</em> of godliness.  But this appearance can be even more dangerous to your family than the alternative. <br /> <br /> Of course, none of this should be viewed as an argument for changing your position.  To say, "I got rid of my TV for the wrong reason, so I am bringing TV back into my home" would be a bad idea.  Abdication is not corrected by more abdication.  A family that got rid of the television on a whim probably should not go get themselves a television on a whim.<br /> <br /> That being said, I have no doubt that a percentage of our "viewing audience" owns a television or three.  And, your television(s) say something about you.  I want to consider several areas where your television tells a story about life inside your home.  Consider first...<br /> <h3>The Place of Television in Your Home</h3><br /> I suppose that I could spend some time on "place" as "priority" here.  I'll reserve that for another discussion.  Right now, we should consider the literal meaning of "place."  As in, where do you put your television?  And yes, I'm talking location here.  Because the location of your television in your home makes a statement about your home.  In most homes, the television occupies the central focal point of the living room.  The couches, chairs, and TV trays are placed appropriately for television viewing.  And this makes a statement about you, and about your home.<br /> <br /> When the television occupies the center of the living room, God's people should be concerned.  Consider the location again, and the language used to describe it.  Your television occupies <em>the center of the living room.</em>  It is <em>the central focal point of the living room.</em>  What is the purpose of a <em>living</em> room?  What should be central to that "living?"  If your TV occupies the central focal point, has it not then become <em>central</em> in (if not to) the <em>life</em> of your home?  If you could make the case that it is, in fact, <em>not</em> central, you nevertheless make the <em>statement</em> that it is.  You placed it in the center.  You arranged the furniture around it.  Only you know what really happens in your living room.  True.  But regardless of that, I would argue that the location of the television sends a clear and vivid message about the priorities in your home. <br /> <br /> Consider next...<br /> <h3>The Volume of Television in Your Home</h3><br /> Certainly, we could have a discussion of the proper sound level for the Christian home.  We would probably get arguments about how loud it is, or should be.  My experience tells me that wives always think it too loud (unless they are interested), and husbands always think it too quiet (unless their wives are interested).  But I did not really want to center this part of the discussion on decibels.   By volume, I mean... volume.  The sheer amount of television viewing that takes place in your home.  We have all heard preachers make comparisons between the amount of Bible reading you do and the amount of TV watching you do.  I'm not sure that these are legitimate statistics.  I tend to eat often during the day, and I wouldn't want you to compare my time spent eating to my time spent reading. <br /> <br /> But there is a legitimate point to be made here, nonetheless.  Television exists for entertainment and amusement.  So, the amount of television watching that one does says something about him, and about his life.  Certainly, entertainment and amusement has its place, and has its place in the home.  But the inordinate amounts of entertainment and amusement that the average home and family indulges is a concern to us.  And the priority placed on it reveals a problem.<br /> <br /> When a Christian family, say yours for instance, spends a regular amount of time (even an hour a day) engaged in this kind of activity, it gives one pause to reflect on the priorities of that home.  We are commanded to redeem the time because the days are evil.  But television squanders  our time.  I have always been amazed at how quickly the time passes when I am engaged in TV watching.  It truly consumes the clock, possibly more than any other activity.  The amount of television consumed by the members of your household declares something about you and your home.<br /> <br /> Next, consider...<br /> <h3>The Content of Television in Your Home</h3><br /> If the location of your television says something about you (and I say it does), and if the volume of TV-watching says something about you, then certainly <em>what you watch </em>also says something about you.  There is a reason why most teaching/preaching on television focuses on the content of TV.  Now, I am not one of those who says that there is nothing to watch on TV anyway.  Give me a remote control, and I will prove you wrong.  I have always enjoyed the irony of those who will make sweeping statements like this, only to admit later on that they in fact own a television (which they watch occasionally).  If there really is nothing on there to watch, then why have one at all? <br /> <br /> But we should be ashamed for some of the things we allow into our homes via the television.  And even more so, we should be aware of the content that we are allowing into the home, and diligently teaching our children through it.  As a pastor, I am always concerned when someone tells me that they only allow <span style="text-decoration: underline;">              </span> show and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">              </span> show to be watched.  What concerns me is that these parents are saying that they only allow their children to watch the <em>safe</em> shows.  And that usually indicates that they allow their children to watch those shows <em>without any guidance.</em> <br /> <br /> No matter the show, there must always be guidance.  Laura Ingalls Wilder's <em>Little House on the Prairie </em>series is a truly wonderful set of books for children.  But I won't allow my children to watch the TV series by themselves.  The television series presents a worldview that is completely contrary to the Christian worldview.  And I would include in this (especially) the approach that is taken towards romance, towards sin, and towards the flesh.  But my main point in saying this is to say that we must never "turn the kids loose" on television.  It is a powerful shaper of minds and morals.<br /> <br /> Finally, consider...<br /> <h3>The "Television Technique" in Your Home</h3><br /> How you think about your television says a lot about you.  For many Christians today, the television is truly untouchable.  It is the American Idol.  We will allow the preaching to touch many areas of our lives, but nobody touches our TV.  This is wrong, it is rebellious, and it runs counter to a truly Christian worldview.  Christ is the Lord, and He is Lord of everything.  Including the television.<br /> <br /> But we must also consider how we watch TV.  How you watch television news, for instance, says something about you.  It says something about your prudence, your understanding, your discernment.  Do you watch the news like Mr. Gullible?  Do you believe what you hear on the news program?  Do you consider their work to be "serious" work?  Do you stop to consider the entertainment priority of network news? Do you take the time to consider the epistemology and ethic of TV news? <br /> <br /> How you watch television commercials says something about you as well.  Besides their entertainment value (which is a key component of every TV commercial), we must consider commercials as persuasive sales pitches.  We must consider the true nature of their appeals.  Television commercials are about the consumer, not about the product.  And they are written and designed to appeal to you in a worldly fashion.  They appeal universally to the lusts of the flesh and of the eyes, and to the pride of life.  The effect these commercials have on you says something about you.<br /> <br /> And how you watch television itself also says something about you.  One of the worst ideas for a fun "family night" is to watch a movie.  Don't get me wrong... I enjoy a good movie, and have done my best to thoroughly familiarize my kids with John Wayne.  But imagine a family who, on the night designated for "family interaction," chooses to sit still and silent, staring at the TV screen.  And that brings up one of my biggest pet peeves about TV-watchers in general.  When watching television, we <em>must not</em> be interrupted.  The message is very clear... TV-watching is too important for interruptions, or for kids.  We do, after all, take our televisions very seriously.<br /> <br /> I'm not persuaded that what your TV says about you is exactly subliminal or even hidden.  Especially within our homes, the television makes a bold statement, loud and clear.  Perhaps we should unstop our ears, shake ourselves, and come back to reality long enough to notice. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=89#post-275 Fri, 02 May 2008 16:01:59 +0000 Jack Hammer 275@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Television, Smell-a-vision, Aitch-e-double-hockey-stick-A-Vision. <br /> <br /> We can't live with it.  We can't live without it.  Some do, but most won't.  We need our nightly news-fix.  We love our commercials.  Quality time with the remote --- Priceless.  Channel surfing is the new sport.  It is our babysitter, our nightly pacifier, our family unifier.  Touch my couch, and you are welcome.  Touch my coffee table, and you are forgiven.  Touch my piano, and you are sophisticated.  Touch my television, and you are ignorant, presumptious, meddling. <br /> <br /> American culture is television.  We live it.  We imitate it.  It imitates us.  It pushes us.  We push it.  We follow it.  It follows us.  We teach with it.  It teaches us.  We need it.  It needs us.  It is us. <br /> <br /> Should we have a television?  Should we watch television?  Why should we watch television?  How should we watch television?  What does television say about us?  What does it teach us?  How does it affect us.<br /> <br /> May is televison month on JackHammer.  Hard to watch while your hammering, but it makes a nice sparky arch when it explodes.  Fireworks!  And we aren't even to July yet. <br /> <br /> Stay tuned! http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=88#post-274 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:45:20 +0000 KentBrand 274@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ I'm going to write a fourth one in this series and it will be posted here in the future, or over at my blog.  It is an important one, but I don't have time to write it while I'm at a conference. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-273 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:54:12 +0000 JeffV 273@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds. (Proverbs 27:23)</blockquote><br /> This proverb tells us how to take care of our money. Of course, paper money is not mentioned here, but the current trading commodities are.  In the Bible a man's wealth was often measured by the number of his flocks. Think of Job right here.  So, if we are going to obey this proverb, we will know the state of our money and we will watch where it goes.<br /> <br /> There is no better way to obey this Scripture than to use an old-fashioned paper envelope system.  I grew up watching my father move money around his envelopes and when I established my own home, I thought that I would not have to do that.  I had a mathematical mind and was technologically "savvy."<br /> <blockquote>I learned the HARD way -- my way.</blockquote><br /> <!--more-->Now, I have helped many people set up their own envelope system.  And I want to give a few pointers.  Already some of you are saying, "This is JackHammer, where's all the Scriptures?"  I reply that they're at the top of the post.  An obedient Christian will know where his money is, where it has gone, and where it is going to go.  He will control every dollar that he has been made the steward of.<br /> <ul><br /> <li>Determine your monthly income.  You get your bills monthly. (If you are paid weekly, multiply your weekly check by 52, then divide by twelve.)</li><br /> <li>Gather your monthly expenses. (house, car, utilities, insurance, etc.)</li><br /> <li>Determine your montly expenditures. (tithe, food, groceries, supplies, etc. - any consistent expenditure should be noted like haircuts and newspapers)</li><br /> <li>List your monthly bills.  Most people have these because they have not been using an envelope budget. (credit cards, consolidation loans, personal loans, etc.)</li><br /> <li>Designate how much of each check should go into each envelope.</li><br /> <li>Do not use cards (debit or credit) until you've learned the discipline of the envelopes (as short as 3-4 checks for some, as long as a year for others)</li><br /> </ul><br /> Buy an expanding envelope thingy from Wal-mart (or somewhere else) and label the several slots.  When you cash your check put the dollars in the proper places.  Only spend cash that is there.  If you must use more money than what's in a particular slot, you must note it and pay it back from the borrowing slot with the next paycheck. After just a few months of controlling your money, rather than having it control you, you will be amazed at the amount of money that will be collecting in the different envelopes.<br /> <br /> This is not a comprehensive presentation, but it should be enough to get you started.  If you've done this and you can testify to its usefulness, give me a comment.  If you have questions, ask in the comments area.  I look forward to helping more Christians obey the Scriptures. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=86#post-272 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:02:38 +0000 DaveM 272@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches.  Proverbs 11:16</blockquote><br /> In the realm of money, a key word is "stewardship."  Stewardship is inescapable.  Every person is a steward of his money.  He either stewards his money faithfully, or he stewards unfaithfully.  A man is either a good steward or a bad one.  Retaining riches requires good stewardship, and strength. <br /> <br /> The verse above describes two realms of stewardship - stewardship of reputation and stewardship of wealth.  And since the two are juxtaposed in the text, we see that there is on some level a connection being made between honor and riches.  Essentially, the Proverb teaches that our stewardship extends to every area of labor --- to property, to wealth, to spouse and children, to employment, to work ethic, to reputation, to spiritual life and service, even to relationships.  All of these areas can be considered wealth, and all can be considered "honor." <br /> <br /> A steward's work is to maintain these.  The steward functions first as a <em>servant</em>.  He serves his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ in this way.  He serves his family, his church, his employer, his country.  He serves by taking good care of all that he has been entrusted with.  This should be the character of every believer.<br /> <br /> But a steward is more than a mere servant.  The steward is the <em>chief</em> servant.  He is in charge of the servants.  Think of reputation as a servant.  Many have, to their own undoing, made reputation a master, but reputation in its rightful place is a servant.  And we are stewards of that servant.  According to the verse above, only a gracious woman has the power to <em>command</em> reputation and<!--more--> honor.  Other women are enslaved by it.  They are forced to keep up the facade in order to maintain the impression.  Money too is a servant.  Wealth is a servant.  Yet, so many are enslaved by it.  They live for it.  They must have it.  And whether they get it or fail at getting it, they are always disappointed.  Only a strong man can be <em>master</em> over money. <br /> <br /> A steward is a <em>caretaker</em>.  God entrusts us all with money, whether it be a little or a lot.  We must be caretakers of the money given.  God entrusts us with reputation as well.  We are caretakers of the reputation God has given.  Today's Proverb shows us one of the unique qualities of the people of God... they are good stewards. <br /> <br /> With that in mind, if we follow the natural division of the Proverb, we see gracious women who retain honor, and we see strong men who retain riches.  Gracious women and strong men characterize the household of faith, which means that the household of faith retains honor and riches.  What I would like to address in this post is the real meaning of the Proverb, its spiritual application, and then an important priority.<br /> <h2>Like Leaves on a Fall Day</h2><br /> The Proverb says that strong men retain riches.  This does not mean that strong men are rich.  In fact, the contrary is sometimes the case.  Some strong men are not rich, and some poor men are very strong.  For, while they might not have much, they take good care of what they have.  They are diligent to know the state of their flocks and herds, as the Bible commands (Proverbs 27:23-24).  Nor does the Proverb mean that rich men are strong.  The Kennedy family would be a case and point here.  Wealth is no sign of strength.  It may be a sign of ruthlessness, but not necessarily of strength. <br /> <br /> The Proverb does mean that strong men take good care of their money.  Good stewardship requires strength.  Wealth, as they say, is hard to get and even harder to keep.  Which Aristotle said is the reason why young people don't respect money.  They have not yet learned how difficult it can be to hold on to. <br /> <br /> It is a sign of weakness when a man cannot retain his wealth.  Spendthrifts, of course, think the opposite is true.  They flatter themselves that their free and easy ways with money are a sign of manliness.  I once took a group of teen agers to Washington, D.C.  On one of our tour days, we stood in line for over an hour to see Ford's Theatre.  At least half of that time was in the hot sun, on a day when temperatures reached up into the 90's.  Of course, the peddlers took full advantage of our misery.  One particular robust peddler pushed a cart full of iced down water bottles up and down the line, yelling, "Ice cold watah - $1.50 - all mah 'G's' and all mah 'homey's' - $1.50."  As we watched, a fourteenish boy, pants sagging, hair souped, the picture of coolness, dug the necessary coinage out of his oh-so-hip pants pocket to make his purchase, as the coolest-of-the-cool water peddlers continued his sing-song, "You a high-rolla... I'm gettin' you one off the bottom... you mah homey... put 'er there... lay me some skin." <br /> <br /> Predictably, there was very quickly a small crowd of Junior high boys, all dripping with kewlness no doubt, in line for the 'dolla-fitty watah'.  Including a couple of the kewler boys from my group.  The water, which no doubt tasted cooler because it came from such a cool place, was consumed before the sun ran out.  And when we got to the corner, I noticed that a little convenience store occupied the building.  I stuck my head in the door, and asked the proprietor if he had bottled water for sale... he did.  "How much?"  I asked.  "Seventy-five cents,"  he answered.  I looked back at my group - junior high boys dripping with sweat.  "Hey guys!"  I said, "he's got the same water inside --- for half the price you just paid!" <br /> <br /> Of course, not one to rub it in, for the rest of the day I repeated, "Ice cold watah - $1.50 - all mah 'G's' and all mah 'homey's' - $1.50."  I'm not sure what it is about spending money that makes us feel like big shots.  I do know that a fool and his money are easily parted.  Weak men fritter away their money like leaves blown away on a windy fall day.  It takes a very strong man to hold on to money.  That's why lottery winners rarely stay rich for long.  Most men are too weak to keep it.<br /> <br />   http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=85#post-271 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:49 +0000 KentBrand 271@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Not every tithing advocate does the best or even an adequate job in making a Scriptural case.  However, I cringe quite a bit at what is said against those who believe Scripture teaches tithing. What do you think of these?<br /> <ul><br /> <li>It is the “other side of the story” when 97% of the pulpits have pro-tithing sermons and discipline those who try to question them or ask for open discussions.</li><br /> <li>You are playing games with statistics. Preachers have been trying to push tithing onto their congregations. . . . When are you going to learn, stop it, and go back to preaching grace-giving. . . . You are teaching by your actions that Law out-gives Grace</li><br /> <li>Be sure and ignore my many pages of reasons to refute this argument. . . . Your principle allows YOU to be the judge of what applies and what does not. I contend that NOTHING in God’s Word about tithing from Abraham or Jacob is followed by your church or any other church today.</li><br /> <li>Why do you give this story? It has nothing to do with tithing. Do you want to kill everybody who disagrees with you?</li><br /> <li>Is that what you teach in your church? Do you teach your members to lay everything they own at your feet and then distribute them to every church member evenly so you can all live in a commune?</li><br /> <li>It would work well if we could get the government involved, to make sure everyone gave his/her due. I have been conversing with officials on this matter and they recognize the work I have put into this matter. They have appointed me as a receiver to collect from all the Christians in this area.</li><br /> </ul><br /> The tone you hear is quite common in the anti-tithe people.  Since I've been a pastor, I have found money and children to be the two most controversial<!--more--> subjects.  This one falls under money and you can hear the bitterness.  And their problem?  People are giving at least 10% toward the Lord's work. They'd like to stop it, you know, for the Lord.<br /> <br /> It amazes me how much men who claim such a NT emphasis like to enunciate the gritty details of tithing under Mosaic law, so that we'll conclude that all tithing is wrong.  I understand that the tithe in Israel was practiced differently than we do today.  That's why I don't want to talk about exactly how they practiced the tithe under the Mosaic system.  The principle, however, continues today.<br /> <br /> 1. The New Testament Does Not Do Away with Old Testament Standards<br /> 2. Jesus Taught Tithing<br /> 3. Jesus Taught Proportional Giving<br /> 4. Giving to the Church for Scriptural Purposes Continued<br /> <strong>5. Paul Teaches Physical Remuneration for Spiritual Benefit in Identical Fashion As It Was Done in the Old Testament</strong><br /> <br /> We spent the bulk of our time in pt. 2 thinking about 1 Corinthians 9:7-14.  Did you notice how that Paul used the Old Testament law to make his point there?  In 9:9 he quoted Deuteronomy 25:4.  That text is quoted only by Paul and only one other time---in 1 Timothy 5:17-18.  Paul writes:<br /> <blockquote><br /> <p align="left">Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.  For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer <em>is </em>worthy of his reward.</p><br /> </blockquote><br /> <p align="left">Connect the dots between 1 Corinthians 9:9-14 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18.  Paul uses Deuteronomy 25:4 in both of them.  Here Paul is talking about "elders," and in the context you can see that they aren't of the old men variety.  They are those in the office of the pastor, the <em>presbuteros</em>, the executive of the assembly.  They rule.  They labour in the word and doctrine.  It says they are deserving of double honour.  "Honour" does relate to money.  BDAG lexicon says first:</p><br /> <br /> <blockquote>1) a valuing by which the price is fixed 1a) of the price itself 1b) of the price paid or received for a person or thing bought or sold</blockquote><br /> And then the next verse we get Deuteronomy 25:4 again.  1 Corinthians had already been written when 1 Timothy came along.  1 Corinthians 9 establishes that the tithe ("even so"--in the same manner that the Levites were taken care of) was to take care of Christian labourers who had benefited you spiritually.  Paul wouldn't require it himself even though he said he had the right to.  However, in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, he consistently applies this principle, the spirit of this law, by saying that this was to be done with the office of the pastor.<br /> <br /> Russell Kelly, preeminent anti-tither, wrote:<br /> <blockquote>Do you give your whole tithe to Levites who are your ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, builders and politicians? . . . . Do you limit tithe recipients to one family or do you preach the “priesthood of all believers”?</blockquote><br /> And then he added:  "Like I said, you practice NONE of the OT tithe principles!"  I'm going to let you evaluate most of that quote on your own in light of what you've read.  One question though:  Is every believer in the office of the pastor?  But let's go a little further, because I believe that Galatians 6:6-10 relates here, which says:<br /> <blockquote>Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.  As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all <em>men</em>, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.</blockquote><br /> The idea of giving tangible remuneration to those who have benefited you spiritually is reinforced by this text.  The person taught is to share with the person teaching.  The law of sowing and reaping comes in (vv. 7-8).  What is the doing good in v. 10?  It is the one taught sharing his carnal things with the one who taught him spiritual things.  By doing so, he does not grow weary in well-doing and he does good to those especially of the household of faith.<br /> <br /> <strong>6.  There Was a Storehouse in the OT, the Temple Worship, and in the NT the church is the Temple and the Storehouse</strong><br /> <br /> Malachi 3:10 reads:<br /> <blockquote>Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.</blockquote><br /> God called for the tithes to be brought into the storehouse, which was the temple there in post-exilic Israel, to support and maintain the corporate worship of Israel.  The church (local only) is the temple of God in this dispensation.  1 Corinthians 3:16-17 states:<br /> <blockquote>Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and <em>that </em>the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which <em>temple </em>ye are.</blockquote><br /> He says "ye" (plural) are the temple of God.  The church is God's Temple.  Jesus promised His special presence for the assembly (Matthew 18:20; 28:20; Revelation 1:19-2:1).  The presence of God that inhabited the OT tabernacle and temple indwells the congregation of the Lord today.  Therefore, the church is God's storehouse in the age in which we live.  Paul communicates this in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2:<br /> <blockquote>Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.  Upon the first <em>day </em>of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as <em>God </em>hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.</blockquote><br /> The store was the congregation.  They laid up the collection proportionately by the saints on the Lord's Day.  A pattern for giving for the NT times is set here for us to follow.  We bring our tithes and offerings to the church, the storehouse in the age in which we live. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=84#post-270 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:16:55 +0000 DaveM 270@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <blockquote>The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty.         Proverbs 10:15</blockquote><br /> Money is important.  If you don't think so, try living without it.  Jesus Christ once met a very rich young man who, according to him, had kept the law perfectly from his youth.  Christ loved the young man, and challenged him to go sell whatever he had, give the money to the poor, take up his cross, and follow Christ.  Judging by the young man's response, it was easier to observe the entire law than to give up his wealth. <br /> <br /> God's Word has much to say about money, though not necessarily what we might think.  For example, 'conventional' wisdom says that God blesses the poor and condemns the rich.  Class warfare is one of Satan's favorite tricks.  The rich despise the poor, and the poor equally (if not greater) despise the rich.  Some rich men think that the poor deserve to be poor, in part because<!--more--> they have been careless with their money.  All things being equal, this is true <em>in some cases</em>.  But some are poor in the Providence of God. <br /> <br /> Meanwhile, and probably more often than the other, the poor man thinks that the rich are greedy, or worse yet, that they cheated to get their money.  And while this certainly <em>could</em> be the case, it is not normally the case.  Some men are just blessed that way.  While one man is blessed with poverty, another is blessed with wealth.  And who is to say which has the greater blessing?<br /> <br /> Are you rich?  Are you poor? <br /> <blockquote>The rich and poor meet together: <strong>the LORD is the maker of them all.</strong>  Proverbs 22:2</blockquote><br /> In reality, "rich" and "poor" are relative terms.  Contrary to what our government tells us, there is no standard, no arbitrary line, no dollar figure that divides between rich and poor.  If a man lives in a cardboard shanty, he is likely to think that every man in a house is rich.  If a man owns a multi-million dollar mansion, he may think that the guy in the quarter million dollar house is poor.  To take a new spin on an old proverb, one man's wealth is another man's pittance. <br /> <br /> A couple of years ago, I read the <em>Little House on the Prairie </em>series to my kids.  As we read <em>The Long Winter</em>, I explained to my family that the Ingalls family would have considered us to be fabulously wealthy.  Especially during that long winter, Laura's family lived on wheat bread and potatoes from December to February.  In February, the potatoes ran out.  Until May, when the winter ended, Laura's family ate nothing but wheat bread... no butter, no honey, nothing else.  And they didn't think they were poor.<br /> <br /> What is it to be rich?  What is to be poor?  If we have all we need, and to spare, are we not wealthy?  Wouldn't "poor" mean that we have no spare, that we almost don't have what we need to get by?  And who can say which is better?  The truth be told, your <em>attitude</em> towards the money you have is more important than the amount of money you have.  Money, contrary to popular opinion, is not the root of all evil.  The <em>love</em> of money is. <br /> <br /> In the Proverb quoted at the beginning of this post, we are given a very important understanding of money.  First, the Proverb says that the rich man's wealth is his strong city.  Then, the Proverb adds that the destruction of the poor is their poverty.  Whenever I read Proverbs, I find a wealth of practical wisdom and gospel preaching in them, and I hope in this post to give a little of each.  We will begin with a direct application of the meaning of this Proverb, will continue with the lesson in it, and will conclude by considering a spiritual application.<br /> <h2>An Observation and a Warning</h2><br /> All Scripture is given, we are told, by inspiration.  I never quite understand why believers will dismiss the Proverbs as if they are somehow of less authority than the rest of Scripture.  "Wisdom principles" is not a convenient way of dismissing.  So, we will start our "exposition" of the Proverb with a simple observation... this Proverb is true.  The rich man's wealth really is his strong city, and the destruction of the poor really is their poverty. <br /> <br /> There is much security in wealth (which explains why the words "security" and "securities" are used so frequently in the financial realm.  On the other hand, almost all of the poor man's troubles can be traced back to the fact that he is poor.  Poverty increases his worries.  He lacks the means to provide for his family and meet their needs the way he would like.  Dentists and optometrists are luxuries that he can hardly afford.  Because he cannot stay on top of things financially, he tends to fall behind.  Vehicles break down more often because he struggles to maintain them properly.  Clothing gets worn, teeth rot, medical checkups are set aside because he struggles to make ends meet.  On his part, good stewardship is of the "blood, sweat, and tears" variety. <br /> <br /> Because he has little money, if he splurges just a little, he pays dearly for it.  He feels that he has little to contribute to his church.  He may (though he shouldn't) feel embarrassed at family gatherings, as he scrapes together a little money, money that he really doesn't have, in order to give proper gifts.  Certainly some of these limitations are artificial, but they are limitations nonetheless. <br /> <br /> Poverty can cause a man trouble in another way, which is why the poor man is tempted to live beyond his means.  James reminds us that men really do despise the poor.  While this is not so pronounced in our day as it was in hers, Jane Austen gives some revealing pictures of this kind of wealth snobbery in her very Christian novels. <br /> <br /> And what of tragedy, trial, and affliction?  If the wealthy have a health crisis, they will spare no expense to find a cure.  But what of the poor man?  What if the poor man finds himself in need of an attorney?  What if he loses his job?  Anxiety and worry, if not given over to the Lord, will deteriorate his health, and eventually his wealth.  Do we not see then that the destruction of the poor is their poverty?<br /> <br /> On the other hand, we also know it to be true that the rich man's wealth is his strong city.  Money, though a bad master, is a good servant.  When you have much money and to spare, you have many "servants" to guard your security.  There is a natural security in having the means to provide and have to spare.  And while it is true that the rich may have worries, they don't have the poor man's worries.  Picture the wealthy man in his stone house, surrounded by a stone wall, guarded by the bars of a wrought iron gate, with a security code for entrance.  He is the picture of safety and security.<br /> <br /> There is, in all of this, a warning for both the rich and the poor.  The warning applies equally to each. <br /> <blockquote>Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.  Proverbs 23:4</blockquote><br /> Someone once compared income to a pair of shoes.  Poverty is like shoes that are too small.  They pinch and cramp your foot, and in general make it very difficult to walk with comfort.  But excessive wealth is like shoes that are too large.  They stumble and trip us.  Aristotle once said that the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous fool.  Henry Ward Beecher said, "some of God's noblest sons, I think, will be selected from those that know how to take wealth, with all its temptations, and maintain godliness therewith.  It is hard to be a saint standing in a golden niche." <br /> <br /> The Bible warns against the deceitfulness of riches, which enter in and choke out the word.  <em>If riches increase, set not your heart upon it.</em>  The rich are tempted to trust in their riches.  <em>Some trust in chariots, and some in horses...</em>  The rich are tempted to insolence and arrogance, as if they can have anything they want because they have money.  The rich are tempted to display, and to excess.  They are tempted to think that because they are rich, they should also be powerful.  More than a few rich men have destroyed a Bible-believing church by their efforts to buy influence.  Nor is this a new problem, for Paul had some particular warnings for the wealthy:<br /> <blockquote>Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;<br /> That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; <br /> Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.</blockquote><br /> Consider this quote about money...<br /> <blockquote>Money talks, we have been told since childhood. Listen to this dollar speak: “You hold me in your hand and call me yours. Yet may I not as well call you mine. See how easily I rule you? To gain me, you would all but die. I am invaluable as rain, essential as water. Without me, men and institutions would die. Yet I do not hold the power of life for them; I am futile without the stamp of your desire. I go nowhere unless you send me. I keep strange company. For me, men mock, love, and scorn character. Yet, I am appointed to the service of saints, to give education to the growing mind and food to the starving bodies of the poor. My power is terrific. Handle me carefully and wisely, lest you become my servant, rather than I yours.”(1)</blockquote><br /> If money is a danger to the rich, it is an even greater danger to the poor.  Wealth comes with many unique temptations, and yet I find that poverty causes more covetousness than wealth does.  Money causes the poor man to grow discontent.  He can very easily become greedy, and often tends to be more greedy than his wealthy counterpart.  Poor men often love money more than rich men do.  Poverty causes a smallness of spirit, a miserly meanness of spirit.  As we are fond of quoting, the poor man needs to be reminded that it is only money.<br /> <br /> Those who are poor in material things often attach too much weight to material prosperity.  They tend to think that they would be happy <em>if only...  </em>Poverty can make a man envious and bitter towards the rich, or (worse yet, I think) bring him to expect a handout.<br /> <h2>Blessing and Cursing</h2><br /> Wealth, and the lack thereof, brings with it both a blessing and a curse.  First, we have demonstrated already the blessing in wealth, and the curse in poverty.  Among the blessings of wealth are the ability to have to give to him that needeth (Ephesians 4:28), the ability to give abundantly to God through the tithe (I Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 9:7), the ability to pass on an inheritance to his children's children (Proverbs 13:22), and the ability to live comfortably.  But for the poor, besides being cramped and pinched by his purse, he faces many temptations unique to his financial status.  He is tempted to steal or defraud, to abuse the generosity of others, to lust, or to discontent.  Because of this, while Christians must not labor to be rich (Proverbs 23:4), they <em>must </em>exercise diligent stewardship over their money.<br /> <br /> Ironically, as wealth blesses and poverty curses, we find the opposite to also be true.  There is a blessing in poverty, and a cursing in wealth.  Abraham Lincoln once said, "The Lord must love the common people.  He has made so many of them."  Certainly, we find in Scripture a stated blessing on the poor (Luke 6:20).  The poor man can live simply, eat his bread in quietness, and trust God.  Godliness with contentment, as the Bible says, is great gain.  <em>Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife.</em><br /> <br /> The rich man, on the other hand, must be concerned over his money.  If he fears God, he must be concerned with the temptations that are natural to wealth.  The well-to-do often worry about their social standing and about their friends.  There is an old Latin proverb that says, <em>The prosperous man is never sure that he is loved for himself.</em><br /> <br /> The point here is that neither wealth nor poverty indicate the blessing of God, or the absence thereof.  Rather, we find that we can be blessed <em>in whatsoever state we are in.</em>  The poor man can be rich in the blessing of God, as can the wealthy man.  The <em>way</em> God blesses a man will vary.  Whichever way the blessing falls, if received with thanksgiving, it will make a man rich (Proverbs 10:22).<br /> <h2>Carnal and Spiritual</h2><br /> Riches affect us spiritually.  Depending on our attitude, our wealth (whether great or small) will have a spiritual impact.  Historians Will and Ariel Durant mocked that <em>as long as there is poverty there will be gods.</em>  We could point out that the converse is also true.  Material wealth often brings spiritual poverty.  For some, <em>as long as there is wealth, there will be no god.</em>  Consider that many of the children of the affluent, having been sheltered from any sort of struggle, having been provided with anything their heart desires, do not seek the Lord.  Thus, James' rebuke of the rich...<br /> <blockquote>Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.  Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.  Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.  Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.  Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.</blockquote><br /> The point of this article is not to condemn the rich, nor to say that you cannot be both godly and rich, but only to point out the unique temptations and pitfalls that accompany wealth.  Financial and social status really do impact us spiritually, and we really must be aware of the dangers.  I certainly hope that no reader of this post will think that I only see the problems with wealth.  To the contrary, poverty often brings <em>more</em> spiritual battles than wealth.  Nevertheless, we must give careful consideration to the temptations of wealth.<br /> <br /> When wealth draws a man's heart away from the Lord, and hinder his relationship to God, we can say, <em>Blessed be ye poor.</em>  For the poor can trust themselves to God alone.  How often does God use poverty to make us dependent on Himself.  The poor have food, they have raiment, they learn contentment.  Is there any greater blessing than that of resting on Christ alone?  Their means may be few, but their needs are fewer.  They enjoy life, they laugh, they cry, they live without shame.  What a blessing.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, there is a spiritual application to all of this.  The man who is spiritually rich finds that his wealth is his strong city.<br /> <blockquote>Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?</blockquote><br /> But if a man is spiritually poor, his destruction will be his poverty.<br /> <blockquote>And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.  And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:  And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?  <strong>So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.</strong></blockquote><br /> For this reason, we are challenged to covet earnestly the best gifts.  The treasures laid up in heaven are of the sort that cannot be taken away from us.  The dollar might decline in value here, but heavenly dollars only increase in value.  So, get in the Word, pray, be rich in good works (I Timothy 6:18), and make this wealth your strong city.<br /> <br /> (1)Tan, P. L. 1996, c1979. <em>Encyclopedia of 7700 illustrations : [a treasury of illustrations, anecdotes, facts and quotations for pastors, teachers and Christian workers]</em>. Bible Communications: Garland, TX http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=83#post-269 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:00:34 +0000 Behind-the-Zion-Curtain 269@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <br /> http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=83#post-268 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:50:39 +0000 KentBrand 268@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ The anti-tithing contingency argues like tithing is some extra-scriptural innovation to pad church accounts.   Russell Kelly exalts:  "Preachers have been trying to push tithing onto their congregations only since the 1870s and only since 1895 in the Southern Baptist Convention and they have failed miserably!" Here's what Matthew Henry (1662-1714, several years before 1870) wrote in his section on the <a href="http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=le&amp;chapter=027" target="_blank">last part </a>of Leviticus 27:<br /> <blockquote>A law concerning tithes, which were paid for the service of God before the law, as appears by Abraham's payment of them, (Genesis 14:20), and Jacob's promise of them, Genesis 28:22. It is here appointed, 1. That they should pay tithe of all their increase, their corn, trees, and cattle, Leviticus 27:30,32. Whatsoever productions they had the benefit of God must be honoured with the tithe of, if it were titheable. Thus they acknowledged God to be the owner of their land, the giver of its fruits, and themselves to be his tenants, and dependents upon him. Thus they gave him thanks for the plenty they enjoyed, and supplicated his favour in the continuance of it. And we are taught in general to <em>honour the Lord with our substance</em> (Proverbs 3:9), and in particular to support and maintain his ministers, and to be <em>ready to communicate</em> to them, Galatians 6:6,1Cor 9:11. And how this may be done in a fitter and more equal proportion than that of the tenth, which God himself appointed of old, I cannot see. 2. That which was once marked for tithe should not be altered, no, not for a better (Leviticus 27:33), for Providence directed the rod that marked it. God would accept it though it were not the best, and they must not grudge it though it were, for it was what passed under the rod. 3. That it should not be redeemed, unless the owner would give a fifth part more for its ransom, Leviticus 27:31. If men had the curiosity to prefer what was marked for tithe before any other part of their increase, it was fit that they should pay for their curiosity.</blockquote><br /> I ask you to notice all the New Testament passages he cross-references.  This isn't new teaching, brethren.  These posts are about what the New Testament teaches, but observe what John Gill writes about the "fifth part more" that was paid by someone for the ransom of the tithe there in Leviticus 27:31:<br /> <blockquote>[B]esides giving the value for what part of his tithes he redeemed, he gave a fifth part of that sum over and above; as, supposing the tithe was worth fifty shillings, then he gave that, and ten shillings more, and so in proportion. The use of this redemption, as Jarchi suggests, was, that he might have liberty of eating it in any place: for he understands it of the second tithe, as before observed, and which was to be eaten at Jerusalem.</blockquote><br /> Gill says that he redeemed his tithe with money. Money was interchangeable<!--more--> with other tangible gifts if so desired. A money tithe was not rejected by God even in the Mosaic law.<br /> <br /> I actually don't wish to wrangle at this time over every detail of giving under Mosaic Law.  You've probably noticed in the comments how much that can be done.  It is true that we don't live under an Old Testament economy. That doesn't mean, however, that we are now free to disobey God's law. I'll get to that later, so let's move on to another aspect about tithing in the New Testament.<br /> 1. The New Testament Does Not Do Away with Old Testament Standards<br /> 2. Jesus Taught Tithing<br /> 3. Jesus Taught Proportional Giving<br /> <strong>4. Giving to the Church for Scriptural Purposes Continued</strong><br /> <br /> The members of the Jerusalem church brought their offerings and laid them down at the feet of the bishoprick of Jerusalem (Acts 4:34-5:2).  Church people were already giving for Scriptural purposes and they didn't just go to whoever wherever to give the money.   You can see that they would sell what they had so that they could give money.  I am not attempting to glean from this that the tithe went to needy families.  I'm not even saying this was a tithe.  I'm noticing one point:  they brought their offerings to the church leadership for the money to be distributed based upon God's will.  As a secondary issue, I'm pointing out that they gave money.  You see this in Acts 4:34, 35 and then Acts 5:1, 2.<br /> <br /> On a side note, when Ananias and Sapphira gave less than what was expected of them based on their own commitment, God killed them for it.  Earlier I had mentioned that stealing the Babylonian garment meant death to Achan, his family, and then quite a few soldiers in the first battle of Ai.  In a comment, someone attempted to shame me for threatening people with death who don't tithe.  Of course, I didn't do that, but does it seem to you that some threat of death exists related to the issue of giving?  It sounds like someone could feel threatened by an honest exposition of the first part of Acts 5.  Should anyone feel scared when they read Acts 5?   Are we better preachers when we don't make that connection to the here and now?  We see required giving accompanied by the negative reinforcement of physical punishment (cf. 1 Corinthians 11, the Lord's Table).<br /> <br /> Akin to this place in Acts 4 and 5 is 1 Corinthians 16:1-3.  On the first day of the week, because that is when the church congregated, they were to collect their offerings for the purpose of God's will.  Those gifts were to be "as God hath prospered him."  Again we see Scripture teach proportional giving.  What is the proportion that we see all over Scripture?  The tithe.<br /> <br /> <strong>5.  Paul Teaches Physical Remuneration for Spiritual Benefit in Identical Fashion As It Was Done in the Old Testament</strong><br /> <br /> In Paul's treatise on Christian liberty (1 Corinthians 6-10), he makes the case for personal restraint.  In the midst of this treatment, in chapter 9 he establishes his right to receive physical remuneration (pay) for spiritual benefit bestowed.  He argues this several ways.  He makes a logical and cultural argument in 9:7.  He uses the Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 25:4) to affirm his point in 9:9.<br /> <br /> So Paul refers to the Old Testament law as an authority for New Testament Christian living.  Doesn't that make Paul a legalist?  Or does he give us an example of the law's continued authority over a New Testament believer?  Paul sees Deuteronomy 25:4 as still binding post-Pentecost.   Several anti-tithing proponents, if consistent, would call Paul "dangerous" at this juncture.  They don't undestand the nature of the New Covenant.  The New Covenant didn't do away with God's law, but enabled law-keeping through a transformation of heart.<br /> <br /> From that Old Testament Mosaic law argument, Paul goes further.  He twists in his point from Deuteronomy a little further in v. 10 and then makes a lesser to greater argument in v. 11.  If the worker is to be a partaker in his labors, then this especially applies in a comparison between the greater spiritual things to the lesser carnal things.  For anyone who understands the superior benefit of spiritual things, it is easy to give the far less valuable physical remuneration in return.<br /> <br /> In vv. 13, 14, Paul makes one more argument from the Old Testament.  As a basis for his own support, he uses as authority the example of how the Levites were cared for under Mosaic law.  Just like in vv. 11, 12 the more valuable spiritual things should be duly rewarded by physical things, the Levites were supported.  The people who fulfilled the maintenance of Scriptural worship in Israel were taken care of by the gifts of everyone else.<br /> <br /> The key words for the tithing argument are "even so" to begin v. 14.  The understanding of the two Greek Words are "even" "in this fashion" or "in this manner."  Identical to the manner in which the Levites and priests were taken care of in the Old Testament, the one who leads in spiritual things today should be taken care of.  In what fashion were they taken care of in the Old Testament?  The tithe.  The Lord ordained that men of God who minister in spiritual things should be taken care of with a tithe of the physical things of those who benefit from his ministry.<br /> <br /> Some might argue, "But Paul didn't partake of the physical remuneration."  He didn't in his church planting and he explains why as we go through the rest of 1 Corinthians 9.  He refused to take money from unsaved people and then even the newly saved people.  A pastor continues maintaining the worship of the church just like the Levites maintained the worship of the temple.  He should be supported in the same manner---the tithe.<br /> <br /> One commenter ridiculed the idea of financially caring for the spiritual overseer of the church.  He argued that since we're all priests, we would all then need to be supported.  Paul could have made that argument in 1 Corinthians 9.  He didn't.  That bit of rhetoric doesn't parallel with Old Testament tithing.  The Old Testament tithing that Paul likens to New Testament tithing supports the spiritual leadership of the congregation of God.  You see a parallel to this in Acts 6.  Deacons were chosen out to do physical labor so that the spiritual leadership could spend time in the Word and in prayer.  The tithes of New Testament church members should support the overseer of the assembly to hinder any distraction from the purpose of the Word and prayer.<br /> <br /> In addition to buttressing the practice of tithing in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 9 gives a bit of a lesson on the proper understanding of the use of the Old Testament in the New.  The rabid anti-tither would ask why, if we don't practice the prohibiiton against wearing woolen and linen together (Deut 22:11), we selectively practice the tithe.  I'm going to deal with this a little bit more later, but until then, all should look how Paul Himself uses the Old Testament law here in 1 Corinthians 9. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=82#post-267 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:03:17 +0000 Jack Hammer 267@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <h2> More haiku (in case you haven't yet tired of it):</h2><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Guess what our theme is</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">We will tell you when you guess right</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">We'll give three chances.</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"> </p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Theme introduced through</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Riddles in poetic form,</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Haiku not old (yet).</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"> </p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">April's theme hinted</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">It pays to discover the</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Card that pays you back.</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"> </p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">As light as paper</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Almost as valuable</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Heavy to the weak.</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"> </p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Some who have it don't</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">It has you, you don't have it</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Even when you do.</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"> </p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">The root of evil</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Not necessarily this</p><br /> <p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Though you might dissent.</p><br /> <br /> <h3 style="text-align: left;">Have at it! </h3> http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=81#post-266 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:39:40 +0000 KentBrand 266@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Perhaps you have grown up being taught that you should tithe, that is, give the first ten percent of everything you earn to the church.  As much as I have ever heard, men say that we've been wrong, that the New Testament doesn't advocate tithing.  One man who maintains <a href="http://www.tithingdebate.com/" target="_blank">an entire website against tithing</a>, Russell Earl Kelly, endorsed his position in a comment here at Jackhammer.  He and I exchanged emails and he sent me a pdf of a book he wrote in opposition to the tithe.  With eagerness I read it to find out where I might have gone wrong all these years, hoping to have any of my misunderstandings of Scripture exposed.  I didn't want to, as one man has accused, <a href="http://bible-truths.com/tithing.html" target="_blank">fraudulently fleece my flock</a>.  Kelly's book didn't persuade me.  By reading it, as is sometimes the case, I became stronger in the position I already believed.<br /> <br /> Some state or imply that a pastor might need to recuse himself from a conversation about tithing because of conflicting interests.  Russell Kelly advertises his work by saying, "[I'm] bringing you the other side of the story, the side a portion of Christian leaders would rather you did not hear."  Sounds sinister, doesn't it?  Like pastors have been orchestrating this tithing conspiracy<!--more--> all these years just so they will get a paycheck from the church?  They don't want you (hush, hush) to know that Scripture doesn't actually teach tithing.<br /> <br /> If you compared the number of people who didn't like tithing to those who did, which side would be the bigger group?  <a href="http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&amp;BarnaUpdateID=187" target="_blank">Barna researched people's giving </a>in 2004 and found that those who gave to churches averaged 3% of their income.  Only 4% who gave to churches actually tithed.  Out of those who claim to be "born again," only 9% tithed.  Announcement:  the tithing conspiracy is failing!  If tithing is actually being preached by churches, it seems that the conspiracy actually is <em>against</em> tithing.  Is that because the New Testament doesn't teach it?  Are people striving to regulate their lives by God's Word so that they don't tithe?  Scripture teaches tithing and I'm going to show you that at least 91% of those who claim to be born again, according to Barna's research, are living in disobedience to God.<br /> <br /> <strong>1.  THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH OLD TESTAMENT STANDARDS</strong><br /> <br /> Tithing is taught in the New Testament, but that doesn't mean that if something is taught only in the Old Testament, we don't practice it today.  Tithing was taught and practiced in the Old Testament.  It was the standard proportion for giving as an act of worship of God in the Old Testament.<br /> <br /> We first see tithing with Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18-20.  Melchizedek is a clear type of Christ in Scripture (Hebrews 7:1-11).  Abraham's grandson Jacob also paid tithes (Genesis 28:22).  Both of these examples were hundreds of years before the Mosaic Law.   Once God established worship of Him through the tabernacle, He expected the people to support the Levites, those who maintained the tabernacle worship, and the worship itself by giving a tithe of all their increase (Numbers 18:24; Leviticus 27:30).  The Levites themselves gave a tithe of their tithe to the Lord (Numbers 18:26).  Not tithing in this manner was considered to be robbing God, indicating that the tithe belonged to God (Malachi 3:8).  The place of worship in the Old Testament, the tabernacle or the temple, was the storehouse of the tithe (Malachi 3:10).  Besides being individual, worship was corporate and God designed corporate worship to be supported and maintained by means of the tithe.  Not tithing would essentially be a vote to discontinue corporate worship.<br /> <br /> The tithe portion of the increase was rendered from the first harvest of the crop (Exodus 23:16, 19; Deuteronomy 26:10).  The principle of the first fruit was that everything belonged to God, but that God's people would give a representative proportion of the increase to God to communicate to Him that they believed He owned all things.  At the root of tithe teaching is that everything comes from God.  We confess to Him that He is the Source by returning to Him at least ten percent of what He has provided.<br /> <br /> When Israel entered Canaan, God gave them Jericho.  They marched round and round and God knocked the walls down.  They were not to spare anybody or anything in the city.  Nothing was to be taken.  Of course, Achan took some items from Jericho, so that when Israel went to Ai for battle, Israel lost.  God taught them that he must receive the first of all the increase.  Israel stoned Achan and his entire family per God's instruction.  A few dozen men had died because a portion of the first fruit was taken.  Do you think God likes it when we don't tithe?<br /> <br /> The underlying principle begun in the Old Testament is proportional giving.  We don't give an arbitrary amount to God but a proportion of our increase.  We might give to God out of impulse, but our giving is not merely impulsive.  Neither do we give Him what is left over.  By giving Him the first of what He has given us, we honor Him with our substance (Proverbs 3:9).<br /> <br /> Jesus did not come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17).  The greatest of His kingdom will keep the least of His commandments (Matthew 5:19).  The law is good if a man use it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8).  Certain Old Testament practices ceased especially with the death of Christ---not all of them.   God didn't institute the New Covenant as a means of doing away with law.  The New Covenant enables the law by giving a man a changed heart.  Now he can honor God because of that change and the forgiveness of sins.   The New Testament did not rescind tithing; it enabled it.<br /> <br /> <strong>2.  JESUS TAUGHT TITHING</strong><br /> <br /> For purposes of pride and self-righteousness, the Pharisees kept the laws that they could keep and that would make a good impression to others.  In Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42), Jesus declares:<br /> <blockquote>Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier <em>matters </em>of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.</blockquote><br /> Granted, Jesus was scolding the hypocrisy of the religious leaders.  They should have been obedient to God in the matters of judgment, mercy, and faith.  However, at the end of the verse, Jesus says that they were not to leave tithing undone.   It looks clear to me.  "Ye ought not to leave tithing undone."   Positively stated:  Do tithe.  Tithing was still something that He wanted them to do.<br /> <br /> <strong>3.  JESUS TAUGHT PROPORTIONAL GIVING</strong><br /> <br /> In Mark 12:41-44 Jesus watches the giving in the temple.  He notices the rich people giving much.  However, He especially sees the giving of a certain widow.  She had two brass coins and she threw both of them into the treasury.  The widow gave less than the rich men.  However, Jesus says that she "cast more in," because her proportion was higher.  She gave 100%.  That was more than what they gave.  In this narrative Jesus affirms the kind of giving that we already saw in the Old Testament, proportional giving.  A tithe was just a measurement.  It was the percentage or proportion that someone gave.  Jesus supports that.<br /> <br /> The widow also gave money, not crops.  One of the arguments against tithing is that in the Old Testament, the tithers gave ten percent of their crop production---it wasn't money.  Of course, they had a different kind of economy in that day.  In an agrarian society, their earnings were crops.  They would most often trade their crops for other things they needed.  Today our increase comes in the way of money, so we tithe in the way of money.<br /> <br /> <em>(to be continued)</em> http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-265 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:34:35 +0000 KentBrand 265@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ You may be reading it first here:  the youth culture is dead!  Ding Dong!  Youth culture.  Gone.  Extinct like the bird-like, antediluvian therapod, the raptor (<em>dromaeosauridae</em>).  American civilization has bleached itself of traditional youth culture (those last three words no longer an oxymoron, for those not surfing Y<em>ouTube</em>) by transfering its most fundamental qualities to the mainstream of society.   All of the pawns have become queens.  The corner offices now live in tepees.  The major U. S. institutions have pandered so long to the shallow, self-centered, fad-driven narcissism of a majority of young people that their culture<em> is</em> culture.  Youth culture has gone the way of the comb-over like skin is the new hair.<br /> <br /> America has snatched the differentiating youth imagery from the bargain bin of life, leaving teens and twenties grasping at plastic.  Youth is now the dominant power structure marketing itself as authentic.  The adult population drinks the orange McDonald's koolaid at the fountain of MTV.  The institutional power informed by the old paradigms of adult behavior projects teen desires and values upon its blank canvass.  Tradition becomes novelty.  The neo-hormonic now dictates its oppressive random personalities upon the centralized hierarchy.<br /> <br /> Pre-adolescent civilization incorporated the previously received notions of subversion concerning societal norms into a validated, reassured consumer commodity in the form of pseudo uncleanliness and originality.   Now the<!--more--> warden is behind bars and no one cares.  A totem has fallen on the reservation and without any natives, does it make a noise?<br /> <br /> I understand that it is impossible for me as an "impartial" observing arbiter to assign accurate cultural interpretation with my already set idealogical biases.  My translation feature is infected with the presupposition virus.   I'm not able to determine even my own sanity with any authority due to my preexisting conception of <em>status quo</em>.   I can't possibly read the screen with so many pop ups in my broadband.  It is akin to analyzing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan" target="_blank">Jacques Lacan's </a>mother-child bonding through the "male gaze" of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault" target="_blank">Michel Foucault</a>.  Read my lips.<br /> <br /> Two words:  Katie Couric.  Two more words:  Walter Cronkite.  Peter Pan versus Captain Hook.   The crocodile the creeping cuff of restraint represented by a ticking clock.  Let yourself go. Do what you want.  You're going to die, so live it up.  Get that tattoo.  Wear the goatee that pronounces pubescent liberty.  Don't dogmatize.  Dialogue.  Consent the new authority.  The messy hair and dirty cheeks of the lost boys club.  A scruffy t-shirt hanging over beltless trousers pulling the noble savage back to his unspoiled jungle.  Man was young.  You're young.  No longer tied down by a failed hegemony.  Business man and unemployed cardboard bearer symbiotic, the Ocellaris clownfish dwelling among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones.<br /> <br /> This is a kickball team where everyone's up last; no one first.  You can purchase your props and then discard them when fashion changes.  We've convinced ourselves that we're better now, but it's only a new and more pervasive brand of consumerism.  We're a Madonna constantly reinventing ourselves to match the fad, to imitate the latest American Idol.<br /> <br /> We must shrink that gap between young and old by illustrating to young people what it means to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Him.  We must judge everything and lose the foolishness that underlies the spirit of this age.  We must frontload sacrifice and responsibility.  A role model necessitates a role.  Biblical manhood must be reflected and then mirrored.  The virtuous woman must be praised at the gates.  Young people must grow in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.   Churches and Christian families must preserve a godly culture that respects authority and elevates maturity, one that looks like what we see in Scripture, one with everlasting thoughts and affections.  We must lose the chaff for the tree planted by the rivers of water. With substance we must retard the flames of style.  Instead of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, we must see God.  Instead of legitimizing shallow, anthropocentric childishness by our silence, we must stand for a unique and sober adulthood that reveals the distinct, noncontingent nature of God.<br /> <br /> Let us stop the silliness.  Let us put away the toys and tantrums.  Let us quell the rowdy protests of the barbarians at the gate.  Let us leave behind the giggling girly goofiness.  Let us call incompetence what it is.  Let us rise above the casual conviction.  Let us be done with lesser things. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=79#post-264 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:15:07 +0000 DaveM 264@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ <br /> <blockquote>Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.</blockquote><br /> <blockquote>Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.</blockquote><br /> The Johnson family was not your typical Christian family. At least, not on the surface. Mr. Johnson was a dedicated teacher in his local church’s Christian school. Mrs. Johnson gave herself to the ministry in their local church. Joe, the oldest son, always wore his suit and tie to church, sat in the front row of all<!--more--> services, and in general, towed the line. In fact, all four of the Johnson kids were fine, well-behaved, and (seemingly, at least) godly children. So, when Joe strayed away from the church and went into the world, other church members began to scratch their heads.<br /> <br /> What went wrong? I suppose every reader could provide a theory on this. Some (in fact, way too many nowadays) will declare that these things are all up to chance, that if you train up your child in the way he should go, you give him the best<em> chance</em> of making it, but there are no guarantees. Others will want to know about the church and the surrounding Christian community. Still others will blame it on the age in which we live, where there are (admittedly) way too many temptations.<br /> <br /> If you say that something went wrong in the home, then you are on the right track. That should be obvious. At the very least, we are justified in saying so because Joe strayed from the church and went into the world. But beyond this assertion, pinpointing a problem can be a very delicate task. Since many of the readers of this blog are themselves Pastors, I will simply point out what every diligent pastor knows to be true… untangling these messes make for some of the most difficult work in the ministry. The Pastor must catch the tears of a heartbroken parent, while at the same time pointing out the problems in the home and urging them to change things before the same heartache repeats itself in the younger children.<br /> <br /> Perhaps I’m taking this month’s discussion down the wrong trail, but I don’t think so. Much of the current compromise amongst fundamentalists who once maintained a distinction from the world could, I think, be traced to our children. The standards were imposed, and a Christian culture maintained both in the home and the church (school and all), but when the kids grew up, they threw it off like a man whose shirt is on fire. And the fallout from this rebellion is predictable. First their fathers, then their pastors compromise in order to get the kids back.<br /> <br /> If you visit the typical fundamentalist church of average size, there will be a good-sized group of young people. And, if the church is like many of those churches you might find advertised in <em>the Sword of the Lord</em>, you will notice that a significant portion of those young people will sit together somewhere near the back. And, during the course of the service, these same young people will entertain themselves with all sorts of "disengaged" activities. Their general boredom and non-interest is as plain as the smirk on their faces.<br /> <br /> The more licentious churches will immediately point to the standards as the culprit. The "hypocrisy" of it all, the "legalistic" requirements caused all this, no doubt. And this charge could, of course, have some truth to it. But in general, I think that this explanation is too simplistic. Certainly, the licentious want it to be so. Nor does this surprise us. But if that was the explanation, then how does the licentious evangelical explain their own young people who stray from the church and into the world? Because, of course, this does happen – the licentious lose their children to the world too.<br /> <br /> The problem runs much deeper than surface hypocrisy. Certainly, a form of hypocrisy plays a role in the production. But hypocrisy afflicts the licentious as much if not more than the legalistic. Both sides of the ditch are filled with stagnant, stinking water. Pond scum is pond scum, regardless of which side of the road you find it.<br /> <br /> At the root, the problem has much more to do with our worldview than it does anything else. Those who believe that God depends on nothing, that everything and everyone depends on God, certainly are headed the right direction. But those who apply this Biblical worldview inconsistently are in great danger. Therefore, we should consider how the misapplication or subsequent non-application of the Biblical worldview afflicts our children.<br /> <br /> <strong>Ostrichism – If I don’t look, it isn’t there</strong><br /> <br /> Certainly, the lack of a Biblical worldview in many homes can be traced directly to the lack of Biblical teaching in the home. Christian worldviews are not passed on by means of a vaporizer. The atmosphere in the Christian home cannot bequeath a Christian worldview. Nor will your children acquire one the way they might acquire a cold the next time you sneeze. Fathers must diligently teach their children at home.<br /> <br /> But teaching the children in some sort of Family Devotions setting is no guarantee that they will pick up the Biblical worldview either. This is because of the nature of a worldview. A worldview, any worldview, is a way of looking at the world. It is very possible, as has been demonstrated time and again, for a family to teach their children all the right stories and all the right verses, meanwhile leaving their children without a clue about how to interpret the world.<br /> <br /> And why this general lack of discernment on the part of our children? One culprit is found in our general retreat from the world. We hide our children from the world, and the world from our children. We could call it the "don’t look" philosophy of child rearing. What they don’t see can’t hurt them. So, we bubble wrap our children and send them… home.<br /> <br /> There is a difference between sheltering our children (which is a parental duty) and raising them in a bubble. I once knew some parents who literally sanitized everything their children would touch. The mother would not allow the children in the church nursery for the first three months of their life. When she finally did put them in the church nursery, she personally sanitized everything in the room on a weekly basis. She carried sanitary wipes with her everywhere she went, and meticulously wiped down everything from grocery store carts to the car seat, to the handrail on the stairs. Not surprisingly, her children were sick all the time.<br /> <br /> This is not to say that we should carelessly expose our children to every diseased person we encounter. But hiding them from germs can prevent the building of necessary immunities. As I see it, this is the problem with families who, if they allow their children to ever see a TV at all, never allow them to see anything above a "G" rating. If they allow their children to read a book at all, they never allow anything that wasn’t written by Jennette Oake (or Disney). If they allow their children to play with anyone outside of their home, it is only with those children who are just as prissy or uptight as their own. In short, the family has decided on a "Neo-Amish" lifestyle, similar to what is recommended by men like Michael Pearl. "Hear no evil, see no evil" is their motto. Just as there is a difference between protecting our children from evil and attempting to put them in a world in which evil does not exist, so there is a difference between flaunting evil and hiding our children from evil. If we hide them from it like a doting mother, when they finally encounter some real germs they are in for a great sickness. Since we want them to build up immunities, and since these immunities take shape in the form of a worldview, what is needed is not a "hide your eyes" approach, but rather a pointing out the sin and error, teaching our children to understand, to discern, to judge the world with a righteous and Biblical standard. But when our children grow up in a bubble and one day leave the protective confines of their own home, they are sometimes surprised to find that there is a whole wide world out there that they never knew about. And when parents have not taken them on "the tour" beforehand, they are often caught and captivated in the glare of the neon lights. Godly fathers call their sons over to the window, point out the strange woman, and say, "watch how she operates, son." Godly fathers drive their sons over to the local good-for-nothing’s house, point out his overgrown fields and broken down buildings, and say, "notice what happens when you’re lazy, son." This is another way of repeating God’s command in Deuteronomy 6:6-7:<br /> <blockquote>And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.</blockquote><br /> <strong>Lone Ranger-ism – If I leave them alone, they’ll figure it out</strong><br /> <br /> Another all-to-common error among Christian parents moves in the opposite direction. Some parents allow their children to be exposed to <em>every</em> kind of sin and <em>every</em> kind of worldliness without <em>any</em> interpretation whatsoever. I’m not now addressing those parents who think that the world is cute or neat. Rather, I am speaking now about parents who are too lazy to teach <em>anything</em> to their kids. We have plenty of examples of this sort of thing. The family, when they have time together, watches a movie in silence. When the movie is done, everybody packs off to bed. There is no interpretation, no discussion of what was good and what was true and what was beautiful. Nor is there any discussion or of what was terrible and what was deceitful and what was ugly. There is no application of a Biblical standard to anything that was seen. The children are left to themselves.<br /> <br /> In such a home as this, the kids are often alone with a book when they are not watching television. They read literature that their parents have never even looked at, and are getting a worldview <em>independently</em> of their parents. When friends come over to play, they spend all their time away from the adults. Events at school are rarely discussed, and the children are left to interpret the world for themselves. Consequently, the worldview they develop may or may not resemble yours. Either way, they’ll turn out autonomous.<br /> <br /> <strong>Relativism – Your wrong is my right</strong><br /> <br /> Still another common error teaches a worldview, loud and clear. This problem shows up in two very different homes… first, in the home where anything goes, and secondly in the home where nothing does. On the one hand, we have "Mr. Nice Guy," who never says, "turn that TV off right now," who never says, "You will NOT wear that outside of this house," who never says, "your friends want to do WHAT?" He may chafe at some of the things that are watched, or discussed, or done by his family, but he allows it anyway. This father, contrary to what you might think, teaches a worldview, and he teaches it faithfully. His children learn their lesson well… we are the authority. What we want is ultimate. We will do what we will do. They are not dependent on God for their moral standards; they are dependent on themselves, on whatever makes them happy, on whatever they want, for these kinds of moral determinations.<br /> <br /> But in Fundamentalist homes, we often err in precisely the opposite way. Here is a father who sets himself up as the ultimate authority. He is exactly the opposite of "Mr. Nice Guy." He is "Mr. Authoritarian." If I allow it, then it is okay. If I don’t allow it, then it is sin. "Sin," he proclaims, "is transgression of my law." This is another, perhaps more subtle form of moral relativism. Subtle because the relativism is not so immediately apparent.<br /> <br /> Moral relativism rests on the authority of the self. Whatever is right for me is right. Period. Doesn’t matter how <em>you</em> view it. Ethics rests on the individual. When a father views his home as his own private empire, of which he is the rightful dictator, then he has fallen into this error.<br /> <br /> As I have already stressed, it is vital and urgent that parents be interpreting the world through the filter of a Christian worldview. This must be happening all the time, and especially during times when the rules are being expounded. Please don’t misinterpret this to be arguing for a less stringent rule in the home. I am not. God commands children to obey their parents. This is basic to the Christian worldview. But when a father demands that his children obey him because "he’s the boss," then he undermines the Christian worldview. From their earliest years, we must teach our children to obey because <em>God</em> requires this.<br /> <br /> One of the better writers on the family has urged parents to be regularly making a distinction between "house rules" and "God’s rules." In other words, every well-ordered house needs to set standards. Some of these standards are clearly laid out in Scripture (for example, in Matthew 5). Some standards require some interpretation and application. A diligent father, who is conscientiously incorporating a Biblical worldview, wants his children to understand that we depend on God for our moral standards. In a practical way then, a father who faithfully incorporates the Christian Worldview in his home will strive to have a Scriptural reason for <em>every </em>rule. Do we require our children to take their shoes off when they come in the house? There certainly is no Scriptural requirement for this. But, a diligent father will still give a Scriptural warrant for the rule. "First, you are always to obey your parents, because God commands this. But God also requires us to keep a clean home, and to be good stewards of what we have. So, we have decided that we want you to take your shoes off when you come in the house." This is but one example. In my house, we have three boys who love to play war. We struggled with the "never point a gun at a person rule." The rule seemed too wooden to us. What is the point of having a gun if you never aim it at anybody? Someone suggested that a better rule would be to apply God’s rules regarding war, self-defense, and murder to the toyland world of "playing guns." Again, the point is not to lay out a big thick rulebook for the home, but rather to lay down principles for determining rules, and for applying Scripture. When we fail to set a right ethic in our homes, we push our children towards their own interpretations and autonomous worldview. After all, if dad can be strict on his own authority, then I can be loose on mine. The point here is that a worldly worldview is bred, not in the institutions for learning, and certainly not at the neighbor’s house, but inside the four walls of the home where Christ is not Lord, where His Lordship does not extend to everything, where individual autonomy takes the day – either in a legalistic or licentious way. Why do young men like Joe Johnson stray from the church and into the world? Ultimately, the answer is that they never received a Biblical worldview, were never taught to interpret the world through Scriptural eyes. Somewhere along the line, either from a father who was too nice to say "no" or else from a father who ruled autonomously, these young men learned that they are the ultimate authority. And families like the Johnsons make up the local church.  Since Fundamentalism has reached its full maturity, we are now finding ourselves full of children.  And the children of Fundamentalism don't like all the rules.  One need not look any further than Jason Janz's now-famous Young Fundamentalist survey to see this.  These Young Fundamentalists are my own generation.  My generation doesn't like all the rules.  We want a more "liberated" (read, licentious) lifestyle.  Why?  A big part of the blame has to go to the way the standards were adopted in the beginning, and the way they were taught in the home.  I know plenty of Young Fundamentalists who either chafe at the standard, or who have altogether shrugged it off.  And I know plenty of Young Fundies who have not, who love the standards, who delight in obeying God's Word.  What is the difference?  I can't say that I've given it exhaustively, but I think the answer lies somewhere close to home. http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/topic.php?id=78#post-263 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:40:15 +0000 KentBrand 263@http://jackhammr.org/bbpress/ Have you looked at and compared the crowds that gather for a blue-state candidate or a red-state candidate? I'm not talking about race and ethnicity. Remove that from your thoughts and this discussion. I'm only referring to how they appear in dress and decorum. To make it more simple---notice the difference in the look of a Hillary crowd versus a Huckabee crowd (this is not an endorsement for either of these candidates or world views). By observation it is obvious that these two groups have different standards. Culture shock if they attended the other's rally. Does this matter? Do the differences mean anything?<br /> <br /> We can go further with this comparison. Look at this <a href="http://www.ingolfwetrust.com/golf-central/content/binary/babe.jpg" target="_blank">earlier female golfing attire</a> (and <a href="http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jsh/41.1/images/clemente_fig01b.jpg" target="_blank">here</a>), <a href="http://archives.library.wisc.edu/exhibits/images/athletics/tennis.jpg" target="_blank">early female tennis player</a> (and <a href="http://www.fashion-era.com/images/sports_clothes/POLISH.jpg" target="_blank">here</a>), early female <a href="http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Edwds1890-1915/cyclistsx20.jpg" target="_blank">cyclists</a>, and then early female <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/barnard/theater/kirkland/3136/Late_Victorian_Gallery/images/32.1890.5.4.jpg" target="_blank">swimmers</a>. Have the standards of dress changed? Are we better now? These men were <a href="http://www.hellocincinnati.com/Images/People/5262006spectators_1905.jpg" target="_blank">watching a baseball game</a>. Why have things become more casual all around? Is there an underlying philosophical reason? Are we better off with the new standard?<br /> <br /> <strong>Standards</strong><br /> <br /> Standard fare today on standards is that they are nasty ole additions to Scripture. I ask myself, "Why didn't the godly people, who loved the Word of God, not recognize that the standards they implemented weren't actually biblical?" Corollary: "Were they that much spiritual dunces?" Also, "How could there have been such a widespread conspiracy to get especially young people to do things, i.e. keep standards, that were so detrimental to their lives?" I contend that the standard bearers' spiritual and biblical elevators did go all the way to the top. They did have a clue.<br /> <br /> We have a regular attack on standards today not just in evangelicalism (<a href="http://contendearnestly.blogspot.com/2008/03/10-steps-to-become-legalist.html" target="_blank">typical</a>), but also in professing fundamentalism (<a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/11/30/chapter-8%E2%80%94i-just-love-rules-dont-you-part-one/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.danburrell.com/?p=278" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3355&amp;highlight=standards+Pharisees" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2612&amp;highlight=standards+Pharisees" target="_blank">here</a>). Are they<!--more--> trying to help us? Have we really been duped by modern day Pharisees? Is the world a more godly place with their new found influence? Or are they actually contemporary Mr. Worldly-Wises who can't say "no" to their worldly lusts?<br /> <p class="sds-list">"Standard" isn't an English word found in the English translation of Scripture, so to argue a proposition that standards are good and necessary and that obliterating them decays a Christian culture, we should define the term. The free dictionary online says that a <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Standards" target="_blank">standard</a> is: "<strong>a. </strong>A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment. <strong>b. </strong>A requirement of moral conduct. Often used in the plural."</p><br /> <p class="sds-list">When we talk about standards, we are talking about institutional application of biblical principles and commands. The two Scriptural institutions are the family and the church, but today there are schools you can add to that. Families have standards---"call if you'll be late," "put back what you got out," "elbows off the table," "answer when spoken to," and "you'll wear a tie on Sunday." Churches have standards---"no faithful attendance; no choir," "no tie; no usher," "no evangelism; no teaching," "alcohol; no membership," "divorce; no deacon," "no haircut; no leadership," and "movie theater; no leadership."</p><br /> <p class="sds-list">Defenders of Christian culture or personal holiness have taken these standards from direct statements or applications from principles. For instance, you might recognize that "divorce; no deacon" comes from 1 Timothy 3. Many evangelicals will argue against that. "No haircut, no leadership" comes from 1 Corinthians 11. No one with whom I fellowship uses standards as a means of justification or sanctification (Romans 3:20; Galatians 5:1-4). We have many explanations for standards that are found in 1 Corinthians 6-10 in Paul's discussion on the proper use of liberties. We are to flee idolatry and flee fornication. Do we apply these with track shoes? We aren't to get close to sin, thinking that we will stand and not fall. Romans 13 and 14 give more principles. This is how these verses have been applied or obeyed for centuries.</p><br /> <p class="sds-list"><strong>The Attack on Standards</strong></p><br /> <p class="sds-list">Evangelicals and fundamentalists combat these standards by many different means. Sometimes they use Scripture. Jeroboam used Scripture to support erecting his idols at Dan and Bethel. Who did he quote? He cited Aaron when Aaron defended his building of the golden calf. Normally, they will attack personally and speculate motives. They say that you are trying to sanctify by works. They claim that you want to impress people out of pride. They say that you are working at conforming everybody into something that you're comfortable with. They say that it is legalism and not grace. Most often today, they say that you are just making these standards up without biblical support.</p><br /> <p class="sds-list">Recently, over at a bastion of post-standard fundamentalism, SharperIron, Stephen Davis, an associate pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA (home of Calvary Baptist Theologic