Bring out your idols

The last month of progressive restrictions on life due to COVID-19 has produced an anguish that can  succinctly be described as mourning. Every day our expectations in every sphere of life are dashed upon the rocks of difficult new circumstances. The most frustrated among us feel like we are behind a slow-moving vehicle at a yellow light -- impatient and ready to lash out. We feel righteous if we are able to keep up a facade of calm in public, but inwardly we seethe and seek to lay blame at the feet of some enemy. That enemy often takes a predictable face, depending on our ideological predisposition: a political party, the CDC, a president, a congress, a governor, the media, the Chinese, the bureaucracy, the deep state, big pharma -- it's an endless list of convenient enemies from which to choose!

Read more »

A test of our zeal

Now that we are forced to stay home due to an outbreak, I've seen a few people asking questions along these lines: What is the worth of the instituted church? Unfortunately some don't understand the implications of what they are asking and how drastically the earth may be shifting under our feet at this very moment. 

Answering this question will be a culling for Christians. If we already understand how fundamental the instituted church is to our kingdom identity, then this time of "distance" will induce fervent yearnings to be gathered and physically numbered with fellow saints. Indeed, zeal for God's house is consuming us at this very moment. If we don't understand or apprehend the church, then this time is a two-edged sword: It will normalize and seal our habit of neglecting God's house and the means of grace, leading to greater working ignorance, selfishness, and idolatry. However, it may be that some will have their eyes opened and they will begin to treasure what they have lost.

We've all heard the numbers -- Church attendance is down, generation over generation. Each successive decade features an even steeper drop than the last.
Read more »

On Christmas, Scrooge, and various scrooges

I grew up with a few lovely sets of grandparents who made sure we were supplied with Christmas gifts. Yes, even though my father died when I was 3 years old, my mother and older siblings made sure that Christmas was especially distinct and happy -- dare I say "holy."

My memories include a lot of unique experiences: cutting a live tree and the inevitable disagreements over what type (Blue Spruce, Douglas, Grand, or Noble firs all had different appeal) of tree, how big, where to place it, and how to decorate it. We had a tradition for a while of decorating the tree together and bargaining over who got to put what ornaments up. There was always a special ornament with my dad's picture to place. Somehow there were never tears over who would place it, but it had meaning. Decorating the tree sometimes got "emotional" for me when I would argue with my older sisters. There was the one year they thought it would be fun to do a "Victorian" tree, which basically meant a Noble Fir, only white lights and a few less of the oddball musical ornaments. As an aside, I don't know where we got so many musical ornaments. There were SO MANY! Some played the same "midi" version of jingle bells and others had unique tunes. They were either little red pianos or gold or silver gifts-shaped boxes with switches on the bottom. Then there were the ones you could squeeze to activate. For a while, we had a game where everyone would grab a music ornament (needed all hands) and activate them simultaneously and laugh at the resulting ridiculous cacophony.
Other traditions were not so silly: We were all choir kids. Christmas meant somewhere between one and three choir obligations for which to prepare. Sometimes it was church family night. Sometimes the local city choral group singing the advent portion of Handel's Messiah. And gifts... About those gifts.
Read more »

Super Sunday

What? You have never watched the super bowl? It's the super bowl. Who doesn't watch it?

That would be the inevitably question were more people aware of my current status as a super bowl virgin. Am I just anti-social or contrary? Actually I'm not always very good at sharing these thoughts with people face to face. I even have trouble when its with otherwise like-minded folk because I don't want to trample on their conscience.

So, I guess it's in that spirit of caution and temperance that I would like to talk about it now.

Let just clear the air. These are NOT the reasons I don't watch the SB:

• It's not my sport. — Actually, I grew up playing backyard football and rooting for my 49ers. My brother and I were an arrogant pair that would take on the entire neighborhood with run patterns of our own making. I was the Jerry Rice to his Joe Montana.
• It's not your team — Well, actually, this year it is. If there was ever a year for me to break down and watch, it's when my beloved San Francisco team is in the big game. Even in other years, you will still find me catching up on Monday to see how it all went.
• I think I'm better than everyone else — No... Just no. Hence my apprehension regarding this topic lest I be misinterpreted. This is a very typical assumption, so there are only a few people I've shared this with. Most of them are fellow believers who I suspect still didn't fully understand my position.

I'm sure there are more false reasons to debunk, but let's get to the point.
Read more »

Sunday morning

So Tim Tebow is continuing his preaching tour this Easter Sunday in Georgetown. It's starting to get on this Christian's nerves. Check out this quote from the pastor of Celebration Church, where he will spend 20 minutes speaking:

“There will be the sacredness of Easter. It's not a Tim Tebow show. It's not about a celebrity. There's really only one celebrity that we are going to honor and highlight,” added Pastor Champion.

How do we politely tell Pastor Champion that we don't believe him?

Also--and I'm not trying to be petty--he called Easter sacred, and that is, frankly, wrong.

EVERY Sunday, God's people are supposed to be celebrating Christ's victory over death by keeping the day "holy" (you know, set apart). Instead, many only spend an average of 2 days out of the year pretending to remember His existence, much less all of His attributes, work and authority. So bringing Tebow in really isn't a surprise, even on Easter. Afterall, the rest of the year, most mainstream evangelical churches are just self-help clubs with a clever business model.

Lest we over-react

As a matter of untrained, meager observation, it's somewhat safe to say that the sacrament of the Lord's supper is receiving some long-over due attention in orthodox reformed churches. Perhaps it is due to a strengthening of John Calvin's influence, versus his reformed predecessor Ulrich Zwingli, whose legacy is a bit more narrow to our faith.

Zwingli seems to have been a bit of a reactionary -- being so adamant in his opposition to Rome that he preached a mere symbolic presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, becoming an arch rival of both Rome and Luther. A lesser known fact is his influence on frequency of celebration.
Read more »

Pacific Northwest Reformation Conference

If I could convince one or two people by this post to come to the conference this weekend at the Lynden United Reformed Church, I would be a very happy man.

The conference theme "Chrst-centered Christianity in an age of spiritual chaos" promises to be extremely applicable. Never more than now were there so many false gospels that need to be dethroned from the church as a whole.

See the church website for details.

Just remember, its FREE! No excuse to not come. If you are on the fence and even semi-local, jump right in and come! Your faith and zeal for the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ will thank you -- and I'm sure you will enjoy yourself.

Friday, October 9, 2009
7 p.m. -- Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Christ at the Center of the Church

Saturday, October 10, 2009

9 a.m. -- Dr. W Robert Godfrey on Christ at the Center of Worship
10:30 a.m. -- Rev. Christopher J Gordon on Christ at the Center of Preaching
1:00 p.m. -- Dr. W Robert Godfrey on Christ at the Center of Salvation

Genesis and the Word

There have been a number of times in the past where the issue of the creation account has come up in reformed circles. Most, from what I can gather, don't really have a problem with taking the text at face-value with regard to the meaning of "day" and such (I'm one of them). However, the more people press me on the issue, the more I find myself pushing back and trying to refocus on something that gets completely lost: the gospel of Genesis.

I believe it is very important that we don't forget to preach the gospel from this crucial book. I am very much thankful that my pastor has taken on this task. I had a discussion once with him to express my frustration that the book is not often preached from a reformed, redemptive-historical perspective. In other words, if the only way we read Genesis is as a historical account (which I believe is appropriate), we would stop being Reformed in our reading of scripture -- we would not be exegetical if that is where we stopped in our "preaching."

Let me use a little logic:

Premise 1:
"In the beginning was the Word..."
i.e. Christ and the gospel are present in the beginning.

Premise 2:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
i.e. All of scripture has meaning and implications for our life and walk and what we understand concerning God and his attributes.

Premise 3:
Genesis is a part of scripture (last time I checked)

Conclusion:
Christ and the gospel must be preached from the book of Genesis.

Trained sinners at the table

Sometimes the sanctified life can seem anything but. We like to think, as I mentioned two posts ago, that a victorious life has a linear, storybook line of progress, never allowing for the inconvenient fact of the "law of sin."

"I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." -Romans 7:21-23

This is probably the most inconvenient truth ever to be denied by mankind, even Christians -- a law of sin. Like the law of thermodynamics. Like inertia.

What does this practically mean? Sometimes I look at Paul's explanation of "the evil that I would not," as being inadequate to describe my heart. After all, at least the apostle's will seems to be engaged to correctly combat sin...

But what if the picture I see is more akin to Peter's description of false teachers whose hearts are "trained in covetous practices"? (2 Peter 2:14) That sounds a lot like ordinary selfishness -- the me-first mentality. Actually, it just sounds like me.

Earlier in the passage (2:12), he compares them to "brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed." The image: animals, only inclined toward self-service -- and not just brute instincts. We are trained to covet.

Trained to sin... Don't bother asking who or what trained us. It doesn't matter since we still do the sinning. What matters is that the solution does not reside in us. Not even after initial repentance (via the Holy Spirit's regenerating power). Repentance goes on. It is a vital part of sanctification. New life in Christ means so much more than our justified standing before God's throne of justice. It means, we continue to turn to him for everything.

What else can we say when we are confronted by 1 John 3:7,8?

"Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning."

Is this our doom? What is John trying to say. Who doesn't sin? Are all doomed?

But John is actually revealing the essence of the relationship between law and grace, since Christ is the fulfillment of the law. He goes on in verse 23:

"And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment."

That's when it comes right down to it, trusting in Christ is to be sinless. Sounds bold and daring I suppose. But we already know that in Christ, boldness is supposed to be our attitude when we approach the throne of grace.

Tomorrow, my church is celebrating the Lord's Supper. How will we dare to approach? Aren't we trained sinners? Aren't we inclined toward all evil? And having sinned, aren't we of the devil? Yes, yes and yes. But not in Christ. Indeed, this is the whole point of the table: we are sinners in need of Christ. His command is that we come, as indeed the command to the whole world is to turn and repent and believe in the Name of Jesus Christ. How much more should we, having repented, not obey and come boldly to partake of His grace at His table?

Have you sinned? Don't you dare hide and abstain! Come and be restored. It is His means of grace. It serves no other purpose.

The Church: invisible

This is one of a few topical notes I'm creating by means of several conversations I am engaging on some points of Reformed doctrine.

The invisible church:

The word church is used to denote those "called out" of the world, as Berkhof notes in his Summery of Christian Doctrine. This can mean both those in the physical, local church or it can refer to the church in its essence -- those who throughout all ages are the spiritual body of Christ, in which there is no unbeliever, hypocrite or false confessor.

It is important to mention that we cannot say these are two different churches. That would be one way of confusing the terms. The only point of the word "invisible" is to recognize the fact that as a sin-tainted institution the visible body or local church is not perfectly able to reveal all of those written in the Lamb's book of life.

From what I can see, some of the reasons many bristle at this is because of its misuses. For instance, if someone is struggling with assurance, it is not helpful for them to ponder whether they are "one of the elect" or "part of the invisible church." These are questions that belong to the secret will of God and not helpful to our faith and practice. The facts and promises of God's REVEALED will (scripture) are enough to give us the boldness to come before the throne of grace, knowing full well that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleans us.

Am I elect? Kind of a pointless question, just like asking if I am a part of the invisible church.

This doesn't make the term "invisible church" an erroneous term. It simply recognizes that God effectually calls out of all eternity an elect people which we as fallible men cannot know.

The Westminster Confession is one of the sources that uses this term. Here is how it reads: "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." (CHAPTER 25, section 1)

Personally, I don't see why this should be problematic. People can misuse any doctrine. People can overlook the reality of the covenant just as easy as they can overlook the doctrine of election. Just because there is an apparent need in reformed churches to understand the covenant, doesn't give reason for us to cast aside other historically reformed doctrines. The fact is, one of the reasons the visible/invisible distinction is made is because the Roman Catholic Church denies any difference. For them, the visible is all who are saved. Period. You get baptized and come to mass, you're good to go. They literally claim the authority to decide who is saved. The invisible church is invisible simply because we do not have eyes for what is secret.

The Third Reich and the church

I ran into some interesting reading today in some TIME Magazine archives -- in particular, an old cover on Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi "Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment." Although the article is a bit long and hard to read because of some formatting issues, I was unable to tear myself away -- considering the article was written in 1933, it provides a very interesting look at something that was very current. Perhaps it still should be.

I was especially interested in how the German churches responded -- since the article touched a bit on that. So little is generally known about the rise of Hitler and how the average Christian in Germany responded. An interesting figure to study is a man named Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, a man who eventually became known for his insistence on the church's autonomy from the Nazi state.


Claremont McKenna College has an interesting study on the details of German evangelical church of that day. I noticed an interesting fact: the Nazi-supporting "German Christians" tended to be worse persecutors of Protestantism than the government.

By the middle of 1934, Protestant opposition to Hitler was well organized, and the German Christian Church became fraught with internal division. Without support from the government, the German Christians and Muller became totally ineffective.

This did not stop Jager from brutally oppressing pastors in Wurttemberg (although the strength of the resistance in Prussia handicapped Jager's ability to interfere with church operations), and continuing to spread propaganda denouncing the Protestant opposition. A Protestant Kulturkampf ("culture struggle" -- my note) was instituted, and throughout Germany, with the exception of Westphalia, opposition was brutally repressed. Pastors were fired, arrested, and jailed.

In October of 1934 Jager was dismissed by Hitler, and all measures against dissenting bishops were annulled. Opposition leaders were summoned to Berlin, and Frick assured them that neutrality was now the official government policy towards the German Evangelical Church.

Mike Adams on going to church

Few conservative writers out there find the spot where religion and politics truly do meet in a beautiful way like Mike Adams. Part of this is I'm sure because of his background as a former atheist.

Scott told me he had raised his kids in the church and believed in God although he had not been to church regularly in a number of years. He said he felt no guilt over his absence from church. After all, it was a weekend business that kept him from attending. And, besides that, he said he was leading a “moral life” without going to church.

Immediately, I asked myself the crucial question: “How does one know he lives a moral life if he does not ever attend church?”...

...Life is full of uncertainty but without God two things really are certain: We will make a mess of our lives, and we will help others do the same.

Give the full article a read and don't hesitate to act on his concluding advice if you can.

Churches - Introduction and Part 1: ERPC

Introduction:

I've decided to post on a subject that I normally would keep somewhat private. The only reason I'm doing this is because these particular details are common knowledge and having them stated plainly for all who might be interested can't help but increase understanding where desired. There may be some difficulty in making sure I don't run ahead too far into matters which are best discussed with those directly concerned and likewise there are also matters of concern to me that I think have a more general bearing for all of us.

Our local church is going through a period of independence--we have left the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches for reasons which amount in my estimation to be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the difficulties that federation faces. Our consistory, along with another former OCRC are in the process of considering other denominational options. After meeting together and initial study, they decided to consider four possibilities (see respective links):

Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
Reformed Church in the United States
United Reformed Church / (alternate link)
Free Reformed Church

I do wish I had started researching these options a lot sooner. As it is, I feel like there's a lot of catch up. First of all, it must be said that this is a pretty broad playing field. I'm going to try to use the blog a platform for bringing the specific church distinctives to light as I research them.

Part 1: Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church (ERPC)

The first two options, which are being currently considered together, are both presbyterian in form and therefore might seem more jarring to some members of my church. Personally, I tend to lean that way anyway so that isn't the hangup for me.

My main concern is that the ERPC is a self-proclaimed split-off from the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) AND OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church). They claim that the OPC has become unfaithful to the "authentic" Gospel which is almost too much for me to even consider seriously. I understand why our church wouldn't be willing to join the OPC but it's quite another thing to join a group of ministers (which is what they are still) that makes such a sweeping claim.

I know I'm quite open to accusations of bias in the matter considering I have two close brothers-in-law who are OPC minsters (full disclosure: I write this from one's house and personal computer). But really, how can I not laugh when I have read the OPC Report on Justification. Somehow the ERPC still claims the OPC supports Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul and men like Norman Shepherd and other innovators of our time.

One of the works listed on the ERPC site is by one of their own, Paul M. Elliott, in a book which supposedly condemns the OPC report on Justification. I haven't had the pleasure of reading this work at this point, nonetheless, I found this post on Beliefnet.com from a supporter of Elliott and he alludes to an OPC "cover-up"! The comments on the post are worth reading because the poster has no reasoned response to them.

I must leave it at that for the moment. I'll either continue with the ERPC or move on as I see fit later. Cheers!

Lord's supper continued

God, who knows our weaknesses and needs, blessed us with tangible signs to seal his promises. To lose sight of those means of grace, even for a little bit, makes us prone to lose the present awareness of his promises to cleanse us completely from our sin.
I wrote yesterday with a visceral impulse on an issue I have refrained from publishing on here because it is not right to create dissention in the church. My rhetorical question was probably a little too obvious though. Matters such as these are supposed to be supervised by those who are ordained to that end (the elders). I do not intend in any way to rebel in the near future over this kind of an issue (in case you were wondering).

However, that doesn't at all limit my depth of feeling on the issue and also what I see as something that has deeply hurt Reformed people in general. The frequency of administration is just a part of it but it is also so easy to misunderstand the purpose and nature, and indeed the interconnectedness of the sacrament with the whole of the gospel.

One thing needs to be made clear--this isn't an issue of "they do it that way and we do it this way." I would rather just point out that this is an issue where the detailed directions are properly derived from scripture, if not specifically, than simply in the spirit of Christ's and the Apostle's teachings.

Ever since the reformation, there have been differences on the issue of frequency. I found one very enlightening article that traces the different practices from then till now. It is Published by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and falls in line against infrequent use--it makes some interesting connections that I were new to me, for example, the roots of the revivalist movement in America was centered around a ritualistic infrequent approach to the Lord's Supper. It is written somewhat aggressively but still worth the read!

I also found some very helpful reading from John Calvin himself who believed that the sacraments are “a form of the word of God given uniquely to the worshiping community," and therefore should be used as frequently as possible because "the more infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith, and advance us in purity of life..."

In his "Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper," he takes a running pattern through many different errors, misunderstandings and misuses from his day. Most of it is just as fresh today as it was then so I encourage you to at least browse through it.

On our need for the supper:

Seeing, then, it is a remedy which God has given us to help our weakness, to strengthen our faith, increase our charity, and advance us in all holiness of life, the use becomes the more necessary the more we feel pressed by the disease; so far ought that to be from making us abstain. For if we allege as an excuse for not coming to the Supper, that we are still weak in faith or integrity of life, it is as if a man were to excuse himself from taking medicine because he was sick. See then how the weakness of faith which we feel in our heart, and the imperfections which are in our life, should admonish us to come to the Supper, as a special remedy to correct them. Only let us not come devoid of faith and repentance. The former is hidden in, the heart, and therefore conscience must be its witness before God. The latter is manifested by works, and must therefore be apparent in our life.

He says this among other things to those who abstain because of their claim of unworthiness:

...he who would exempt himself from receiving the Supper on account of unworthiness, must hold himself unfit to pray to God....no one ought long to rest satisfied with abstaining on the ground of unworthiness, seeing that in so doing he deprives himself of the communion of the Church, in which all our wellbeing consists. Let him rather contend against all the impediments which the devil throws in his way, and not be excluded from so great a benefit, and from all the graces consequent thereupon.

Going back to frequency: Frankly, it is sort of a can of worms. What about our preparatory week (which I sometimes worry is interpreted as a time for "making ourselves good enough to come")? Liturgical alterations are no small matter in Reformed circles. It's easy enough to criticize the current method, but it is certainly another to decide what is the proper way of effecting change if change is decided upon.

What would you say?

Wouldn't it be strange if someone said that you must not repent too often, must not pray too often, must not sing psalms too often, must not read the Word of God or indeed hear it preached too often, must not trust in Jesus Christ too often--all because you might end up taking Him too lightly as a result.

What if someone said you should only do any of these things...say, 4 times a year?

Better stop there.

An opening

Last week included two 10+ hour days at work to make up for Monday and Tuesday. Being the classic loser, I found myself working one of those shifts on Friday.

However, that's not what made Friday so memorable. I ended up building outside with our in-house agnostic, sometimes atheist, Dave. Dave began working there sometime last November I think. Since then, he has proven to be a reliable worker. He recently broke 4 ribs while dismantling and was out for 3 weeks but he is back now with his trademark sharp and cynical wit.

He has been pretty open sometimes about his beliefs or lack thereof, but never with the intention to create bad blood. The fact remains that the company is owned and run by Christians and he would be the first to admit that he generally appreciates his coworkers and how well the place is managed. He mentioned his wife was impressed when all the owners most of his supervisors visited him in the hospital and even prayed there for him.

So Friday, I had the chance to probe his background a little. I was surprised by what I discovered. He was raised a Southern Baptist, was baptized once at a fairly young age, than again when he was around 17. He explained that he decided to repeat it because he felt he hadn't been cognizant enough of what he was undergoing. Perhaps he feels that he is now even more mindful of his baptism's import and that is why he has renounced it (It's amazing what can happen to our faith when it depends on how we feel). I shouldn't jump ahead of the facts as he stated them though. He left, by his own account, because of rampant hypocrisy in the church (I'm sure you've never heard of that). I pressed him for details and he mentioned racism as a big one, and also, what I interpreted to be a breakdown in proper church discipline, with elders failing to take action against an abusive husband within the church.

We moved through various other topics, not really able to get in-depth and still keep up a good pace on the work process we were manning, but I came away with a more hopeful outlook with regards to Dave. How could I not when I agreed with 90 percent of his frustrations and problems? He seemed to have a relatively full understanding of what he had left. His basic obstacle is cynicism and a heavy dose of self-imposed apathy. I say self-imposed because he has a good mind but would rather put on a carefree front to those around him than actually consider some larger questions.

Perhaps you could pray that what I say and when and how I say it will be used to open his eyes. It’s easy to be intimidated by someone who might think he’s heard it all. And while the important thing is the gospel, I did find him to be pretty uninformed regarding reformed thought in particular...

It creates an opening, however small.

A meeting of another kind

Today, I met with my pastor for the second time in a couple months...

Earlier, at our first meeting, we simply chatted, discussed some theology, and exchanged a few bits of reading material. It was a great time to learn about some things to which I hadn't given much thought in the past. Therefore, last Sunday evening, when I asked if we could get together this week, I don't think he had a very good idea of what had been lingering in the back of my head and was finally ready to come out.

It was a topic I had discussed with a couple of my closer friends outside of the church. One of those friends advised me that it was time for me to talk to pastor about it. The issue at stake, as we eventually concluded today, was one which involves the very survival of our congregation. You see, there has for years been a slow and barely noticeable drift of people (young people especially) from our church. This is not to say that we have not encountered bright spots. The big picture, though, has told a sad story of a dozen or so young people who, having barely graduated from highschool, essentially disappeared from our lives.

Not that today's conversation with pastor began on this exact note. My starting issue was about the fact that I, while president of the young peoples group, still didn't feel as though I was a part of the youth group. My issue was the fact that I was discouraged by the lack of desire to discuss such things as the bible, theology or other such things on a common every-day basis. My issue was the fact that I can sit-in on some conversations for 15 minutes straight and not remember much of what was said.

After these issues had been tapped and acknowledged, we got around to the topic of getting a post-highschool bible study together in the church. Pastor had mentioned something about doing it when we last met. I have been thinking about it since then and I wanted to figure out if there were tangible goals we might be able to work toward... It was also truly humbling and scary to realize how much is at stake. My assignment is to come up with a charter of sorts to be presented to the consistory and anyone that might be interested in coming.

I guess some of the problems we are bound to face is the lack of time people will immediately claim to be bound by. We don't expect to get more than a couple people to start out. It's a tough thought to deal with. I think that is the main thing that has held pastor back in the past. Now things are different, though. As pastor said, we cannot afford to sit and wait till more young people "have the time" to put into something like this. It must be understood that this is just as necessary as the food we eat--not something to be subservient to our softball or soccer schedule! One of my goals is to help people realize just how much we are currently failing to treat each other like the family we are. We are not building each other up and turning to each other for our spiritual health and happiness! I hope someday there will be a proper priority placed on the family of God as he has created it in the church! I long for the time when we can truly say that our best friends are of our own church family. I long for the day when, while in-between one Sabbath and another we can still look to each other for the help and care that we need as believers and fellow pilgrims. What a wonderful day, when each of us becomes so close in brotherly love that we cannot be unaware each other's trials--so that we may better serve to build each other up.

And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. -1 Corinthians 12:26

What a sad story if the Body of Christ knows not what the other member does and needs. How will a hand dress a wounded foot if the hand knows not that there is a wound? Is a body really a body if it does not as a whole feel even the slightest pain in the smallest member? God knows our every need. But does He not intend to provide for them through the means he has provided--namely, the members of His own Body. How can I know what my brother needs if he cannot or will not speak to me in a language which will convey it?

We can only pray for God's blessing on what we do at this point. Continuing as we are is not an option.