Krissi

I'm not sure what a priest did at the time this letter was written. I don't know what Peter was imagining when he thought of a priest. When Luther/Paul/Peter said that we are all priests, this radical statement meant that whatever special role or function that the priestly class used to perform would now be performed by all Christians. But what is a priest in the NT? What did it mean to be a priest? Since I really didn't know, I did a brief Internet search and found this rather dry but thorough article: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Priest-New-Testament The author/s of the article point out that when Paul (not Peter) was writing, the office of the priest was compromised and not very spiritual -- essentially, a priest was a government official, a bureaucrat in robes. Closeness to political power attracted men to be priests, not spiritual depth. Though Jesus was the "high priest," He didn't just have "a mindset" toward God, but was God Himself! He was executed by priests acting as a jury. It was an earthly high priest who eventually had Paul executed -- obviously, he was not a godly men. I assume Peter was executed by priests as well. As I read through this article, I had a difficult time imagining any positive connotations Paul could have had regarding priests. The ideas we have of priests as being humble and devoted followers of God may not have been in Paul's mind at that time. Jesus may not have thought highly of priests, either -- the authors of the article claim Jesus never used "sacerdotal" language. We tend to take the most favorable, spiritualized images of priests from the OT and impose them on the NT, and perhaps this is right -- Paul and Peter could have idealized priests, thinking of what they should have been, not what they really were. Interestingly, the article ends with observing that in the NT, there is "no hint of a priesthood" in the early Christian church. Also, they note that "in the language of the NT itself there would seem to be little to support either a priesthood among the ministry or a general priesthood of believers. Rather, the whole Church has been brought to God through the high priestly ministry of Christ; and the “royal priesthood” of the Church is the high privilege of mediating Christ to the world."

I will respond to the first part of the question that has to do with my relationship to the government knowing that many people on this site will disagree. I am emphatically opposed to our government. The government embodies, promotes, enforces and coerces evil and, conversely, does not perform it's minimal role of keeping order in society by punishing wrong and commending right. In other words, the point has been reached at which civil disobedience (or moving to another country) is the only choice a Christian can make. I live in the United States. To be subject to rulers and authorities in the United States means to tacitly or overtly support a government which acts in ways directly opposed to biblical ideals and harms or kills it's citizens. It is both sinful and unethical for a Christian to support a government that seeks to ... promote abortion and euthanasia, encourage mutilation of children in the name of "gender reassignment," encourage the use of drugs, promote sexual perversities including homosexuality make it impossible for citizens to thrive -- the government is composed of bureaucrats who barely work and suck off the productive labor of fruitful citizens who barely make ends meet, censor the truth and control godly communications force barely tested vaccines on gullible citizens that changes their DNA shut churches, but not gay bars, after creating COVID as a bioweapon and then losing control of it. endanger citizens by promoting stealing without punishment, open border policies, and a disloyal military with many fighting non-citizens, arming the IRS and other agencies. etc. directly murder hundreds of thousands of men in wars of anti-Russia and anti-Christian bigotry ... ditto with Afghanistan, Syria, and soon, China. Many of the people they kill are Christians ... many of the killers are not Christians. create an imaginary "green" agenda to control and limit the behavior of citizens manipulate elections thus rendering voting futile steal tax dollars with graft, awarding contracts to cronies, overtly taking money that can't be tracked in the military and intelligence agencies, etc. ... the list is endless. Unfortunately, Christians are now at the point where the only moral and godly response to the government is civil disobedience.

No one likes to be judged ... and no one lives without judging others. Church discipline is the sanctioned form of judging others, though we make little judgments about people all the time. God judges impartially -- we judge from within our cultural norms. But we're supposed to look at others impartially, as God does, and view our own cultural/class biases as if we were strangers to others. The reconciliation of final judgement with God's love is wayyyy beyond my capacity to understand. I'm sorry. The knowledge that we'll be judged by God should be fear-inducing, which is why every revival and awakening in the past emphasized "sinners in the hands of an angry God." Although we give short shrift to the idea of judgment these days, I think that deemphasizing judgment is wrong, that many people will still come to know the Lord precisely because they feel guilty and fear judgment. When final judgment is ignored, sin loses it's sting. Without some sort of reckoning, the Overton window for acceptable behavior is widened and society is coarsened.

The two purposes of Christ's redemption are 1) redeem us from "all wickedness," and 2) to purify us in order to have a people "that are his very own, eager to do good." Secular people do good works, so the sort of works that Chtistians do may not be differentiated by the work itself, but by the intention that motivated that work. A pure person does a good work for very different reasons than an impure person. I'm uncomfortable with this answer. I know that secular people can be self-denying and generous for various motives, some genuinely altruistic and others disguised self-promotion. Although these same motives may sully a Christian's desire to do good, at times, I would hope that a Christian secretly does good deeds, not expecting any kudos or public acclaim from them, that they would be done out of obedience or "unto the Lord." Most motives are in the grey zone, neither entirely pure or impure. I guess what I'm saying (poorly) is we don't really need to be purified if ONLY the deed itself is judged because very impure people can do the same deed out of impure motives. The secular person who builds free lending libraries across the nation, permitting people to learn to read and read widely, may do so out of partly good motives and partly self-aggrandizing ones, but the deed itself is good. The Christian who builds hospitals across the nation solely for the purpose of helping indigent people have access to medical care, is doing a good deed out of the prompting of the Spirit, I hope, and seeks no self-benefit from what he/she does. Similarly, the deed itself is good. Thus, to the author of Titus, motive or intention must matter as well as the deed.

I read through a few of these answers and was struck by how infrequently we mentioned the word, "sanctification." In my understanding, sanctification is the process of being made holy. It's initiated by God, actuated by the Spirit within us, and contingent on our own willingness to submit humbly to the pain and suffering that sanctification requires. So, holiness would be the end product or goal of sanctification. Am I holy now? No. I may be made holy at my death before God, forgiven of all sins on a continual basis, but my character ... my inner "man" is not holy. Sanctification won't happen unless we let it happen. We have to defer. Submit. Obey. Only then will we be changed into His likeness. My biggest struggle with holiness is less behavioral than mental. My mind is always in overdrive. I can't stop it. Sometimes it goes down paths of anxiety and depression and it's difficult to reverse direction.

I'm not sure Christ's imminent return would change the way we live. (I'd probably not bother to do laundry! ) Seriously, as I think about it, I would change nothing in my life. I'd still be praying and studying as I do and going about doing the menial things God has put before me. I strive to live a godly life now (not successfully). It's interesting that the word "hope" is preceded by the word "blessed" in that verse because the modifying word "blessed" is not needed to make the sentence meaningful: "... To live godly lives in this present age while we wait for the blessed hope." Paul added this word. He wanted to describe the hope as blessed, not empty, scary, undefined or meaningless ... but it's a good hope. A blessed hope.

Of course Joy is emotional -- it is an emotion. The source of the emotion differentiates between "joy inexpressible and glorious" and just standard-fare joy which is happiness. God is the source of the former -- the world, the latter. I hope this is correct: It is my understanding that there is no word for happiness in classical Greek. There is the word "chara" or "chairo" which is usually translated joy/joyful. One reason for the lack of the word "Happy" in teh bible could be that happiness is contingent on circumstances whereas joy is inner or God-given. In this sense, happiness is the counterfeit of joy. Happiness is not a bad in itself, but is not the real thing which is joy.

For some Christians, grace functions as a "get out of jail free" card, much like the idea of salvation as a "reset "or "fresh start." There's an element of truth to this statement, because God's grace, at salvation and beyond, DOES wipe the past away -- sins are forgiven. The sinner, too, is forgiven. We tend to abstract sin, as if it's something that happened to us rather than something we chose, willingly, to do. This is wrong. Sin is something we do or think. It's not "out there" but emerges from inside of us. True, we have proclivities and weaknesses, some of which can be very powerful, but we always have a way out -- we have a choice whether to sin or not. Given this choice, we make it wrongly, repeatedly. We're responsible for what we do -- we're responsible actors. We have agency. We can't pretend that sin just happened to us when we were looking the other way. We chose it. But grace, strangely, does just happen to us. We can ask for more of His grace -- most of us do -- but we are not responsible for grace. God is. It's HIs gift. The big idea is, then, that grace is undeserved and unmerited and connected logically with forgiveness while sin, in contrast, is something we choose to do thus it's consequences are deserved. God's grace enables us to fight sin within us but does not fight that sin for us. there may be times when God graciously empowers us, in a moment of danger, to supernaturally overcome our own tendencies or fears, but most of the time His grace gives US the power and ability to resist sin ... if we choose to do so. We have to choose to discipline ourselves, with the power of the Spirit's help and enabling, that is, to resist sin. Secular people without His grace, or special grace, can possess self-discipline, too. I've known many seculars who have amazing self-discipline (my father, for one). Some of these highly self-disciplined seculars intuitively understand that the inner line is quite thin between what they can control and cannot control. They know that "losing it" is right below the surface and could happen if they let down their guard. So they'e careful. Without the power of the Spirit, they have less to work with -- they're on their own fighting their own defeating and damaging tendencies. Many Christians don't take their own weaknesses and proclivities toward sin as seriously as do seculars. We take forgiveness and Spiritual power lightly because we know that God will give it to us when asked. The consequences of sin seemed lessened, in a way, compared to that of seculars, even though our sensitivity to sin is greatly heightened, unless our hearts are hardened.

Yes, I can both recall and am in the midst of circumstances that refine my faith, deeply trying and painful circumstances. God is bringing me closer to Him in radical ways, closer than I've ever been. This is not merely the sort of maturity that is a consequence of aging, but a deepening of faith that's happening in a concentrated period of time. I hope the deepened faith is not the end goal of my suffering, which is intense. I hope I'm being prepared to be used by Him in a new way, that the burning in the crucible has meaning beyond my love and trust in Him. I want to serve, too. It's not all about character but also has to do with calling and purpose. The glory I bring to Jesus is both internal and external, then -- it has to do with the changes in me as well as what I do in the big world. I've had 13 years of pain. The past six years have been particularly intense and the past seven months have been the worst. I'm praying God redeems these years that the locust has eaten as I praise Him for the changes they have wrought internally. My faith is much stronger. I'm centered, if that makes sense. My initial focus and intention is usually on Him. This is all good! Very good! Yet, I pray to be used by Him in ways more consistent with what He's done in me. I want these internal changes, my spiritual growth, to have tangible results in a ministry or work of some sort. I have felt shelved for many years. Unused. Thus, I pray for a purpose, calling and future.

Paul accepts without questioning the dominant values of his society which include submissive, chaste and subordinate young wives and self-controlled young husbands. He also accepts the social institution of slavery, expecting slaves to accept their low status in society. Part of his message may be to not push back at the social and political institutions around us, but accept and work within them -- this is a message that grates at contemporary Westerners who tend to think that all social institution can be "reset." This begs the question that has to do with our responsibility to ameliorate sinful institutions in society and be "change agents" in a corrupt government. -- I do think that the church should emphasize a respect for the elderly -- conversely, I think the elderly should feel responsible for mentoring younger men and women in the church. This respect/responsibility has been mostly lost; it's a grave mistake to ignore the gift of wisdom that older people usually have. Part of this teaching/mentoring concerns behavior or morality, though faith itself would probably be the most important purpose of mentoring. If younger people were "assigned" to an older mentor in church, and if they developed a close relationship with their mentors, perhaps it would be easier for younger people to listen, learn and defer to the church's moral teaching. They would trust, that is, the human source of wisdom. Obviously, our behavior is what seculars see in the church, not our hearts, intentions or even faith. We are judged by our deeds. Thus, our deeds either commend us to the broader society or convict us in their minds. Having said that, many seculars are so determined to defend their own sinful behavior (sexual proclivities and perversions being the most obvious) that they attack Christians for being pure and sticking to biblical ethical teachings. There is no guarantee that our good behavior will be accepted or lauded by seculars in the prevailing culture -- in fact, the more we live our faith out publicly, the more persecution we often experience.

I struggle with the question of "agency" -- that is, what is my part and God's part in faith, moral living and protection. I cannot resolve this. Not at all. I have decided to act AS IF my role is important, that is, I live and pray as if what I do makes a difference, that is, is determinative in some way. But I know that much of what swirls around me is beyond my ability to change or control. Being protected in a hostile environment is up to God as I cannot protect myself. When I feel I'm able to do something, I do it. If I'm able to protect myself and family, I do so. I try to be forward looking, too -- I have some food storage, for example, that should get us through a few months if our government and society break down. Yet, I have been told by some Christians that I am being faithless to not trust God to get my family through a time of civil strife, that I should only depend on God to protect us. Preparation means I'm assuming I have "agency" when I do not. Increasingly, I pray to have my family protected from the society around me, it's values, the government and the out-of-control bureaucracy. God has to increase my faith in His protection, power and control. He has to help me pray and be secure and peace inside, trusting Him to be there when I need protection and help. As I mature in Christ, my own abilities seem pathetic -- conversely, His control over my circumstances seems bigger. Perhaps, in the end, I'll realize that I never had agency to begin with, that He had been pulling strings behind the scenes the entire time, and whatever I thought I was doing to "help" didn't make a difference.

Most Mideastern cultures have wine as a regular drink, much like we drink coffee, tea and perhaps beer in America. It has been pointed out that wine is a "safe" and portable drink in places where water is scarce or impure, which may have been the case at that time, but I don't know. Obviously, over-drinking and alcoholism were big problems in the early church -- cultural behaviors that the new converts brought with them to their faith. Essentially, Paul calls them to live a higher, more moral and god-fearing existence. His commands to the men and women, particularly the older ones who should be modeling godliness to the younger, were generic truths. This leads me to think about behaviors we bring to faith, which are culturally acceptable but not godly or self-disciplined. 1. The studies we've done on materialism obviously speak to a cultural difference we should have v. the prevailing culture, but what else? 2. For many, the Internet is a huge temptation and problem, partiularly social media. I don't go on social media, but I do check foreign news sites regularly to get both sides of an issue, such as the war between the West and Russia taking place in Ukraine, and the war between Israel/America and the Palestinians/Muslims in Gaza. I probably spent too much time doing this. The Internet, fascinating as it is, is also a time-waster. 3. As a woman, **** is not interesting to me, but I know of many men who are addicted to sexual sins of this nature -- this is a cultural behavior that is unacceptable to the church for obvious reasons. 4. I live in a state that has legalized most drugs. The impact that it's had on this state is obvious, though I question whether it is the role of the government to determine the behavior of citizens. The church should be actively teaching Christians to not take drugs, get drunk, etc. We should teach our own to have a higher standard, not a equal one. 5. Overeating or gluttony is a sin that is totally overlooked in most churches. If Christians were thin, trim and healthy, our behavior would be a testimony to self-discipline in the church. But, in most churches, Christians look like the people around them. We don't stand out as different, but are just as fat and out of shape. If you look at photographs and movies of the West in the 1950s, for example, most of us were thin. Wouldn't it be a wonderful witness to the culture to undeniably look healthier and thinner than seculars, to "show off" our self-discipline in this regard, to look like we did a few generations ago? 6. For that matter, Christians should be healthy and healed. If we say God heals, but are as sick and ill as those around us, our words are shallow and faithless. Either God heals us or He doesn't, and if He heals us that this should be statistically obvious. Are Christians healthier than seculars? If not, why not? 7. Regarding children's education, Christian schools should be not only academically superior (because of our self-discipline, not native abilities) as well as lovely places to raise children when compared to government-run schools. We should stand out, and in many ways, I think we succeed at this. Ditto with homeschooling families. Our children should be superior in every way to secular children who have been herded into public institutions and, frankly, there abused intellectually and morally. 8. Also divorce. I am divorced and thus know it to be a tragedy -- I am in no position to critique the church in this regard. It's a horrible thing to be divorced. A huge black stain. I have moved on after being forgiven and healed, but the impact of my divorce radiates to my children and others. Divorce should be much more rare in the church. Accountability groups that meet over a long period of time composed of four or five people who are open and honest with each other may help -- perhaps knowing each other better would lower the divorce rate among us. We really have a long way to go. To sum: Paul, in these passages, is calling us to live differently than the prevailing culture, to live according to Christian values and norms. We should stand out as different, to be obviously superior, morally and in the way we treat each other and in our self-disciplined lives. Any secular person looking at us from outside the church should immediately see the difference.

I cannot answer this question well . It's too weighty. Below is a pathetic attempt ... I see forgiveness and obedience in chronological order. First, we try to obey. Since we inevitably sin and fall short, we're stuck in a self-aware and self-condemning mode. As we grow closer to Him, our awareness of sin grows. We're tormented by repetitive sins --things we say we shouldn't have said, for example, yet say again and again, even against our determination to do otherwise. We simply can't obey. Not consistently. Now, I know there's a strain in Holiness theology which says perfection is possible and, given enough time, a Christian can actually live an hour without sinning. I don't subscribe to this. As I see it, sin permeates our body, soul and mind. It's a lifetime battle to rid ourselves of even a fraction of our sin, even with the indwelling Spirit and God's promise to help. Thus, we need forgiveness. Forgiveness puts us back on the starting line. But, frankly, we need a lot more than forgiveness -- we need more of the Spirit within us. More and more. A bigger Spirit. We need to invite Him in to the nooks and crannies of our mind that need to be cleansed. But we don't even know where those nooks are! And forgiveness only covers what we ask to be forgiven. We ask to be forgiven of certain obvious sins. But there's so much we don't know. So many sins we've committed but have not confessed. This is where grace comes in. I may be able to confess a few of my sins, but not most. God's grace allows me to struggle on. It covers the unknown sin, the tendency within to sin, and the deep urges to sin of which I'm blind. Grace is forgiveness unaware. My works -- even if they were all good, which they are not -- will not go far. I need grace to carry me to real and total forgiveness as well as to improve my character so that my works actually please Him.

I have never heard of a pastor or elder correcting anyone's theology, at least in a public manner. Perhaps privately this is done, but if so, I have never experienced it, and frankly, I wish a pastor had cared enough to channel my thinking when I was young. The result of my own and pastoral laxity is confusion. It takes longer to sort through biblical truths without a guide to put up boundaries or hedges for belief. Theology is difficult. Christian thought is not intuitive, but often counter-intuitive. Those of us who come to faith from secular backgrounds don't have a foundation on which to build. The ideas of faith have to be ordered, connected and channeled. I have found this to be incredibly difficult. These past few months, I've struggled with the idea of suffering: does God cause suffering to improve our character and knowledge of Him, cf. Job? Does He put us in the crucible to burn off the bad stuff? Or, is suffering the work of Satan, thus keeping God's goodness intact? No pastor I know seems to struggle with this, or is able to talk, openly, about these two very divergent ways of conceiving God's power/sovereignty and goodness. In relatively contemporary thinking two schools of thought exist simultaneously: for example, Lettie Cowman v. Rick Renner. Perhaps the reason why congregants are not mentored or corrected is that many pastors don't have the courage or ability to do so. Many simply haven't thought deeply about theology and are incapable, therefore, of correcting us?. Pastor Ralph doesn't consider this possibility, but I think that pastors shy away from controversy and depth because they don't have answers and don't want to struggle their way to an answer, even one tentatively held. Christian history is full of competing ideas. Ultimately, it's up to us, the congregants, to sort through these ideas when they arise in daily life or cause pain and distance from God. God Himself corrects us. The Spirit gives wisdom to us when we ask. Our vertical relationship to God is the primary source of knowledge and wisdom, not our horizontal relationships with other believers on earth. We answer to God alone. We learn from Him alone, too.

How would you describe the behavior of a Christian who identifies more with his present homeland than his heavenly one? Have you ever caught yourself doing this? What has to happen to get our spiritual priorities straight? It's very difficult to conceptualize heaven, which is why so many people imagine it to be a physical place with streets, gold, pearly gates, mansions, etc. This may be why Christians tend to absorb themselves in the here-and-now, rather than the by-and-by -- we know where we are, or think we do, but really do not know where we will be for eternity. As we age and get closer to the time of natural death or if we're constantly ill though young, thoughts of heaven become more frequent and clearer. Heaven becomes more of a relief from the earth, a place of unlimited joy in Him, thus a place to which we look forward. In one's teens and twenties, thoughts of heaven rarely occupy us. I have read, though, that young men fighting in wars often think of God and death, for obvious reasons. "There are no atheists in foxholes ..." As we age, too, we begin to cut away the dross. Earthly concerns seem less important. Less vital. But relationships, creativity and whatever lasts become more important. Among these more important things is the idea of a heavenly future. I'm neither young nor old but in-between. I do sense my mind shifting toward an older, more mature way of prioritizing heavenly over an earthly life. I don't feel I need to get my priorities right, however, for God, Himself, changes all of us as we grow in Him. Our priorities invisibly shift as the process of sanctification and knowledge deepen.

Could it be that being loving and positive, when possible, guards the faith? The verses from the section, though, have to do with fighting, taking hold, keeping command, being blameless ... all difficult and sometimes contentious. Perhaps God wants us to not care about what others think, but only focus our attention and mind on serving and being like Him. If we're pleasant to be around, that's wonderful -- if we're battling and contentious, well, that may be God's will.

What kinds of actions are the best antidote for the love of money? How can we cultivate generosity so that it remains healthy, rather than let it go overboard and hurt our families? I'm not sure how to answer this question. I went overboard. I'm not sure my family is hurting because of my actions, but it is surely "less secure," in the earthly realm. The Catholic church viewed taking a vow of poverty as a sign of faith's seriousness; only God (and His church) would be expected to provide. Perhaps this is the best way of looking at money, as if it's not ours, but His, and if it happens to be passing through our accounts, then the money should be viewed as temporarily in our custody. The idea that we should leave money to heirs is not biblical. But the question is how to be generous without hurting our families? My answer is simple, though extreme: there is no intermediate level of generosity that guarantees security on earth as well as kudos from heaven. Give it away. Trust God to provide.

I read somewhere that a christian feels rich or poor only comparatively, that after looking at neighbors, siblings and friends, he compares his net worth and stuff to those of his cohort. Only after comparing does a christian feel wealthy or poor ... relatively so. Now and then, a Christian leaves his cohort and goes to a much poorer/richer country and suddenly feels the disparity between his own situation and that of others, but most of the time the comparison goes no further than the people he knows the best. This is why television and the media is so pernicious -- it permits comparison between himself and the fake, wealthy people who are portrayed on the tube or laptop screen. This may be how the desire for showy wealth grows in a christian's heart, from comparison and a sense of entitlement which in turn breeds a lack of contentment. Most people don't love money for it's own sake, but because of what it buys. It's not the love of money, but the love of status/comparison/achievement. -- What to do? How to escape? 1. Throw out the television. It's sick, perverse, low-brow and an utter waste of time. Get rid of it. Permanently. Buy huge bookshelves and substitute your tv/media time with reading. I don't see anything worthy in television as it seems to breed discontent as well as fills the mind with bad thoughts. The same applies to the computer. Stay off ALL social media. I know many will disagree with me, but social media is tailor-made for comparison. It's vile. 2. Hang around with Christians who don't emphasize or show wealth. Often these are older Christians who have been around the block a few times, made and lost their fortunes, and know the unimportance of "things" in a broader perspective. Avoid materialistic people, even Christians. Avoid those who parade their stuff. Avoid those who live above their means. Choose friends well. 3. Live wayyyy below your means. Never show wealth. Never let anyone guess you have more than shows. 4. Be willing, at the drop of a hat, to give away anything you have -- expect God to test you this way. Then, when you have nothing, you'll be forced to praise God and thank Him for your impoverished circumstances. He may reward you with wealth again ... or may not. But in the meantime, others have been blessed by your generosity. Everything you own, after all, is His, not yours. Everything He gives you He can take away. Your wealth is ephemeral and at God's whim. Treat it that way. 5. Ask God what to do with the little bit you have ... or the huge pile in your investment accounts. Again, it's His, not yours. Ask Him what to do with it. If He says to wait, then invest it in the wisest, most profitable manner you can. Think of it as making money for Jesus. Like the parable of the talents, if you make more of what you have, and submit it to God, it is possible He will give you more to submit and give. 6. Strangely, not having debt means having more money. Living below your means can be humbling but is always best in the end. Debt is a HUGE money trap. Debt exists because people want more than they usually need. Debt reflects greed. To spell it out ... NO mortgage, car payment, credit cards, etc. None. Use cash.

Some of us are happiest when striving and improving -- I know I am -- a grrrr of contentment comes from making progress, which, I suppose is a sort of self-validating pat-on-the-back sense of doing His will. I never measure progress in dollars/pounds/Euros but rather in more abstract ways, such as pages written or projects completed. But this question has to do with pursuing money or wealth, not other sorts of accomplishments, and, again, I'm not sure I can answer it very well. I know many bond brokers (unfortunately!) who quantify their success in dollars or pounds. For them, money = accomplishment. For them, money is a metric, a way of measuring their accomplishments not the accomplishment itself. Their accomplishment is selling debt. That's what they do. The money they make is a measure of the success they have at selling debt. So, perhaps in certain occupations it's logical to measure success using money as a metric?? Most of us get paid obliquely. When I do well at what I do, I don't get paid more. In fact, I get paid the same whether I work very hard or moderately hard. Thus, the motivation I have to make money is internal. It comes from my sense of accomplishing what I am put on earth to do -- my calling. We are called to do whatever is around us at this moment. We can strive to do more, or do better, but our calling is our circumstances. So if we do well at our circumstances, if we work hard at accomplishing our calling, then we should be content. I see no logical break, then, between contentment and the quest for being our best and improving. IN fact, I see the two working together. If God chooses to bless me financially so that my labor and quest for excellence is rewarded in this way, then I'll be wealthier. If not, I'll have enough. In both I can be contented. --- I just want to say that it's difficult to be contented when meals are scarce and bills can't be paid. A minimal level of provision has to exist for contentment to be possible. THat's what provision is -- it's the minimum required to do our calling. God only promises provision. He may graciously give us more ... or not. So, it's an act of faith to believe in this minimal provision. How provision is defined is between each Christian and God. But whatever one decided is the minimum, the faith to believe that God will provide our bare provision must grow, and as it grows, contentment simultaneously grows. I hope that made sense. My thinking is fuzzy today.

Why do you think people are so susceptible to distorted Bible teaching concerning financial gain? Admitting that there is some truth in popular teachings in our time, what are the distortions that you may have heard? How do they differ from the truth? I honestly don't know how to think of wealth anymore. Many Christians believe God will reward them financially because the Old Testament, in particular, is full of examples of God rewarding individuals financially for their strong faith and diligence. We tend to "spiritualize" miracles and blessings of God because we don't like our faith to be overtly challenged and, perhaps, called out as false. For example, if we pray audaciously for a blind man to be healed, but he is not healed, then our faith can be held up to ridicule. So, rather than pray for the blind to be healed, we avoid situations in which faith can be clearly judged. It is the same with wealth. In the OT, God rewarded many individuals with great wealth though in the NT the apostles were, or seemed to be, quite poor. The point is that God Himself gave ... and took away. Job was rewarded in multiple. Abraham, Joseph, David ... were made wealthy, not so much because of their savvy investments or work ethic, but by God Himself. Their wealth was described as a reward for faith-filled behavior. Thus, there's a tendency to think that God rewards for faith because there are so many examples in the bible. On teh flip side, most wealth is a consequence of hard work, either physical or mental. Calvin, for example, drew a clear connection between "diligence at work" and "reward." As a child, I recall my father telling me about the "work ethic," the idea that in normal circumstances, hard work "paid off." The opposite, he said, was also true, that most poor people were poor because they didn't work hard or smart. "Smart work" he said, always always resulted in wealth. The status given to the wealthy in churches, in small part is due to a residual sense that God blesses those who are 1) faithful, 2) diligent and 3) work smartly. Barely enough wealth is provision. There are promises of provision, that Christians will have "enough" because God's love ensures this. We will never die of starvation, it is said, or thirst because Jesus promised us "daily bread." Of course, we have to pray for our bread which makes this provision seem like a reward for faithful prayer, doesn't it? It could be, too, that it's a sign of God's care. But why would God give us barely enough to survive when He can bless us more? Why be stingy in this? Is God also stingy in other things ... like loving us or healing us or guiding us along a narrow path? The God who knows when sparrows drop also knows our needs. The God who is capable of springing Paul from prison (though He let Paul be martyred later) is more than capable of providing for us AND giving great wealth. I suppose you could draw a line between bare provision and comfort/wealth, but where is that line? Is it culturally determined or drawn by God Himself? I have had great wealth in the past -- now, I am very poor. In retrospect, I can see an inverse connection between wealth and spiritual growth or closeness to God, but this may be more due to age and situation and therefore is not an accurate read of faith's barometer. Unashamedly, I am praying for great wealth again. It's simply easier to serve Him without "dealing with money." I know how to live simply with much. I know not to reveal wealth. I know to hold wealth so lightly that I can give it away when asked, which is how I got into this situation. If God gave me wealth again, honestly, it wouldn't be a big deal. So, there's a sense, which I just revealed, that God gives money to those who have the spiritual maturity to handle it, and therefore wealth, if known, is a sign of His good favor. This is the OT idea in contemporary expression, that God chooses to give "good things" to his children as long as they don't turn it into a faith-threatening snake or coal. I do see a connection. It's undeniable in the Bible. God DID reward faith/maturity with wealth -- but does He still do so? And is poverty a sign of faithlessness and not measuring up to His favor? It's the converse that's so troubling. People -- including myself -- who are poor could be at the apex of their faith-walk. I see no correlation between my faith, now, and my poverty. It troubles me that there are many who are simply born into hard circumstances or live under corrupt political regimes that over-tax and regulate or simply steal the fruit of one's labor. Some are born into circumstances that barely permit labor to be turned into enough food to stay alive. Wars devastate the lives of some people (though others benefit handsomely from war). None of this is "fair." We do not race from the same starting line. Clearly God is NOT egalitarian. But does God reward financially, in this life? Can we depend on Him to do so? That's what I want to know.

Paul seems to defend the status quo often, perhaps because he knows our life here is transitory and not important compared to eternal life. We want to recreate heaven on earth with our ideas of equality and justice, but we know, deep in our hearts, it will never happen. The human condition, post-fall, is sinful. Wars ... slavery ... poverty ... inequality .... it's all part of sin. Slavery will only be abolished when sin is abolished. There are plenty of defacto slaves even in Western countries, now, many of whom work for the government. I don't believe Paul is condoning slavery, however, but merely acknowledging it's perpetual existence on earth. When I was very young, I believed that spreading the gospel would ameliorate human suffering on earth. This does happen, but only on an individual basis. Corporate/governmental-caused suffering still exists, and will exist until the parousia. I think this is Paul's message, that these things will persist. God allows sin. God allows human suffering. God allows injustice and persecution. He may even desire them, on some level. If such things bring us to Him, closer ... ever closer, then their eternal purpose overshadows their transitory, earthly sinfulness. Paul wants our eyes to be on Christ, not on our circumstances. He is fixated on Christ and, to him, nothing else is "gain."

In church, I've seen both the laying of hands in order to heal or ask for an extra Spiritual infusion, as well as the laying of hands to ordain a person's in his or her spiritual gift. Personally, I have experienced the former but not the latter so believe, but am not certain, that the former is far more common and broadly practiced than the relatively rare ordination. But, since the context suggests the latter, the laying on of hands must refer to ordination. I wonder why ALL congregants aren't ordained in their gift? Why do some gifts require ordination and not others? Why are leaders ordained but not other gifts? Paul seems concerned that spiritually unfit people were being ordained. He was cautioning the early church to take ordination more seriously by doing it more deliberately. Since we all are promised one gift (or more) it's important that we develop that gift. Though we may be talented naturally in a particular area, it may not be God's calling on our lives. I think this was a concern of Paul: he saw Christians ordained who were naturally gifted in a particular area, but not spiritually gifted. A natural gift can carry a person quite far -- seculars do amazing things without God's spiritual gifts. But Christians are called to go beyond nature, to part the sea and ask God for miracles. Many Christians are asked to do things at which they are NOT naturally gifted, perhaps to develop humility and a sense of utter dependence on God. One way God lessens the danger of natural gifts is by calling in ways we feel inadequate and uncomfortable. The church would then both realize that person's inadequacy as well as his or her calling. They would need to pray for him or her because, frankly, they would see that that person needs supernatural help and strength to succeed. The laying on of hands on a naturally ungifted person, then, would be an act of faith, not reason.

MY hunch is that very few churches existed in that area and at that time, so the early Christian converts couldn't "vote with their feet" and leave the church to find another. They had no choice but to stay within that particular church, so they had to purge the church of sin rather than purge themselves of sinners. Today, church discipline is rarely done for several reasons: IN the West, society is mired in lawsuits. If you accuse someone of something they feel they didn't do, they'll sue you for defamation. So the church rightly makes a risk-reward calculus. There are very few "pure plays" in life. Most of the time we live in the grey area, doing things that are not-so-good and not-so-bad but don't quite rise to the level of needing discipline. This would be equivalent to a church with an elder who is not spiritually or socially mature. It's troubling to point fingers at elders when deep inside, you know your own heart is sinful, even if only in thought. Thus, the "Who am I to accuse you?" problem arises in church discipline. It is simply a fact that we are sinful and fall short. But there seems to be a cut-off line where sinful tendencies and behavior rise to the level of church discipline. Where is that point? There's also a problem of knowing which behaviors merit discipline. Stealing from the offering plate seems obvious, but what about easily triggered anger? Adultery seems obvious, but what about authoritarian treatment of children? Why this sin and not that one? So today, rather than deal with the problem of corruption in the church, members simply walk away quietly and join another church. It's safer and easier, quite frankly. I've done it myself. From the standpoint of the church, as membership keeps dropping the church is forced into soul-searching to figure out what has gone wrong. Sometimes churches die because of circumstance -- rural areas of the country have depopulated, for example. But in a suburb with church "competition," Christians have a choice. If the number of people in a church keeps dropping, Christians must feel more fed more deeply elsewhere. The old canard that Christians seek the church that doesn't challenge them doesn't seem to be true, as I see it. I have seen Christians leaving churches and attending new ones precisely because the church or it's congregants are shallow theologically. I'm sure many will disagree with this, but I think Covid was one of the best things that has happened to the American church scene. It exposed weak churches and championed strong ones. Churches more susceptible to the Covid hysteria and afraid of governmental edicts have, for the most part, lost members to those who put fellowship and obedience to God before obedience to Caesar. This is at the level of church, not physically weak individual Christians for whom it may makes sense to be cautious. Covid also exposed the churches that were most nimble at meeting the fellowship needs of their congregants: some were quick to go online -- others, like my church, took more than a year to reopen their doors and feed their flocks. My church, for example, split into three churches over it's tepid and weak response to Covid. This is "Creative Destruction," as Schumpeter once said in an economic context ...

First, I do not understand why "double honor" refers to financial compensation. Why doesn't it mean as it appears -- that elders are doubly honored/esteemed (compared to other honorable people) BY the congregation? Yes, this phrase is followed by the reference to muzzling an ox, but even that could simply mean that only elders who are financially independent should be in this position. Paul, himself, was a tent-maker. He didn't demand compensation. Is this not ideal? Second, God promises to provide our needs. He MAY choose to use the church's budget, or may not. I read, a few months ago, a bio of George Mueller who depended solely on prayer to meet the huge financial obligations he had incurred by rescuing orphans off the streets. Mueller never asked for money. He simply prayed. Donors, some of which were not Christian, would feel compelled to give to his orphanages. That's how God worked. Third, right now, in the Western Christian church, there are a bevy of traveling "entertainers" who come to the church to do a single service or, more than likely, a mini-crusade-revival half-week. Their services are not free -- often, what they charge is quite steep, in fact. Now, it would be easy to say that these itinerant preachers provide a needed function in the church and therefore should be compensated financially. Obviously, they're not situated within the church as are elders, but are a class of traveling, unassociated evangelists/prophets/apostles who may or may not have a home church, so, the likeness is not complete between these verses which refer to elders and this contemporary practice. Fourth, plenty of Christians give hours upon hours of their time and labor to a church never expecting to be compensated. They look to God alone to provide their needs. To single out elders as the one group that merits compensation seems wrong. Perhaps impoverished elders had been an issue in this particular church which needed to be addressed? If so, tehre's no reason to generalize it. We all know that the "lesser" positions in the church often require as much, if not more, time than that which elders give and, if the principle is to not muzzle the ox, then these "lesser" oxen shouldn't be muzzled either.

This topic is close to my heart. Six years ago, my father asked me to move in with him to help him die. When I started caring for him, I thought it would take months, not years. He is in his 97th year, now, and is still very much alive. I do not like the talk of duty, debt or responsibility when dealing with family members, though understand how our language devolved to this. To care for the elderly is a privilege, not a duty. It is also a trial. My father is a confirmed atheist, btw. His care has fallen solely on my shoulders -- my sibling, who claims to be a Christian and lives nearby, has visited him once in the last three years. I confess that I am praying for His justice regarding her, for she is "worse than an unbeliever" and her selfishness is hurting me. Caring for the elderly is a full-time endeavor. One has to give up career, income, travel, opportunities, joy, friends, romance ... life itself. I have had few, if any, compensations. STILL, and this is important, I believe God will make up the years the locust has eaten, that He sees my lack and ebbing hope as opportunities to do a great miracle. I pray for my father's salvation and though he has not accepted Christ, God has heard my prayers and will answer them in His time. I believe that God will bring good out of this circumstance. Lately, I've been listening to Rick Joyner videos on Youtube -- one of his themes is that trials are opportunities that shouldn't be wasted. Caring for my father, then, is both a trial and a privilege/opportunity. It is growing me into someone that God can use in the future. I spend hours studying and worshiping. I'm not wasting this trial.