Frank Facts
Posted on February 27th, 2006 by catalyst into the Pastor Hank category
One of the funniest emails cruising the internet is a list of facts about Chuck Norris. Here are some sample facts:
-
Chuck Norris’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
-
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
-
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
-
The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
-
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can’t see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
In a similar vein, I asked one of our readers to come up with a list of Frank Damazio facts. I know some of our readers feel this blog lacks a feminine touch, but ummm… well, that’s not about to change. Sorry.
So from long time reader, first time poster FICM, I give you Frank Damazio facts:
-
Frank Damazio doesn’t preach, he simply speaks until someone tithes.
-
Frank Damazio once got tithe from a turnip.
-
Frank Damazio once gave a message on tithing that was so moving, God tithed to Frank Damazio.
-
The second dome of CBC is smaller than the first one, because Frank Damazio tithed on it.
-
Frank Damazio tithed on his luxury SUV by having its suspension lowered.
-
Frank Damazio was actually about 6" taller in college but then he tithed himself.
-
Frank Damazio no longer uses the word "Sunday". It is now "Titheday".
-
February originally had 31 days until Frank Damazio tithed on it.
-
Frank Damazio can solve any math problem by subtracting 10%.
-
When Frank Damazio goes bowling, he only uses nine pins.
-
People are only capable of flying on cloud nine, because Frank Damazio tithed the tenth cloud.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:12 am
You do realize that the concept of tithing and circumcision are essentially the same? Though circumcision is closer to 20% off the
tiptop for most folks.February 27th, 2006 at 8:31 am
ROFLMAO…..I love that Chuck Norris site!
February 27th, 2006 at 8:36 am
I’m usually pretty critical about this sight, but that comment is one of the funniest things I have read on this sight. I never heard a sermon at CBC about circumcison, it existed before the law,was affirmed and upheld as central in the law, and was mentioned in the New Testament. Same with the Sabbath too.
The chuck norris facts are funny, here is my shot: Frank Damazio has a lisp because he tithed form his speach. Funnier in my head than reading it.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Spurgeon time
BUT JONAH ROSE TO FLEE TO TARSHISH FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD. HE WENT DOWN TO JOPPA.
Jonah 1:3
Instead of going to Nineveh to preach the Word, as God told him, Jonah disliked the work and went down to Joppa to escape from it. There are occasions when God’s servants shrink from duty. But what is the consequence? What did Jonah lose by his conduct? He lost the presence and comfortable enjoyment of God’s love. When we serve our Lord Jesus as believers should do, God is with us; and though we have the whole world against us, if we have God with us, what does it matter? But the moment we retreat and seek to establish our own agenda, we are at sea without a pilot. Then we will bitterly lament and groan out, “O my God, where have You gone? How could I have been so foolish as to shun Your service, and in this way lose all the bright shinings of Your face? This is a price too high. Let me return to my allegiance, that I may rejoice in Your presence.” In the next place, Jonah lost all peace of mind. Sin soon destroys a believer’s comfort. It is the poisonous tree whose leaves distill deadly drops that destroy the life of joy and peace. Jonah lost everything upon which he might have drawn for comfort in any other case. He could not plead the promise of divine protection, for he was not in God’s ways; he could not say, “Lord, I meet with these difficulties in the discharge of my duty; therefore help me through them.” He was reaping his own deeds; he was filled with his own ways. Christian, do not play the Jonah unless you wish to have all the waves and the billows rolling over your head. You will find in the long run that it is far harder to shun the work and will of God than to at once yield yourself to it. Jonah lost his time, for he had to go to Tarshish after all. It is hard to contend with God; let us yield ourselves to Him immediately.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Honestly, FICM also came up with that lisp joke. But I was trying to keep the facts “good-natured”. So, I didn’t include it. Oh well, I guess I should have, since even our critics like that joke.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:09 am
That is mean to say about Pastor Frank. There is poking fun and there is being mean….. this is mean.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Chuck Norris once bet NASA he could survive re-entry without a spacesuit. On July 19th, 1999, a naked Chuck Norris re-entered the earth’s atmosphere, streaking over 14 states and reaching a temperature of 3000 degrees. An embarrassed NASA publically claimed it was a meteor, and still owes him a beer.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Frank Damazio can not only count to infinite, he knows what 10% of infinite is.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Anon 8:38 said-
“What did Jonah lose by his conduct? He lost the presence and comfortable enjoyment of God’s love.”
“Comfortable enjoyment” is all this doo hicky is dang it!
Am I the only one who sees this post by anon 8:38 as flighty and ignorant.
Faith gives you the moral abligation to deny others who don’t fit in the “christian” mold, it seems, and christians wonder why they are despised by many?
Lets get one thing straight Anon 8:38.
If one wants to TEACH, one better back it up with true facts.
If one wants to PREACH they merily need to threaten hell and the lack of comforts?
good luck with all that ANON 8:38
have fun in your comforts and the rest of us seculars will stick with facts and try to figure out a way to feed the world WITH FOOD.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
You guys remind me of the kid in high school who thought he was funny and cool and still tells the same high school jokes at age 30 . All the other 30 year olds are looking at him thinking,will he ever grow up.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
When God created cats He gave them ten lives, which they had until……..
February 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
God’s old and he STILL has a sense of humor. Go suck on a blow comb Anons of evil.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Dear mad magledon, this anon 838 and I didn’t say a thing, I quoted Charles Spurgeon aka the prince of preachers. He was just a man and his writtings aren’t scripture, but they are full of biblical truth. Just look at the prodigal son for instance, he was “lost from the presence and comfortable enjoyment of God’s love.” Yet he was still a son and God was waiting to recieve him when he repented.
Point is is that there are real consequences for sin in our lives, christians can loose thier communion with God, not their union,and believers are to confess their sins one to another and to the Lord, christian repentance is a biblical fact, or should I say “true fact”.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
OK, I wasn’t going to say anything because I had a hand in starting this post, and didn’t want to seem egotisitcal.
BUT…
Quoting Spurgeon, or anyone else, just for the sake of doing it is bad. On the Internet, we call that “trolling” or “spamming”. If the quotes from Spurgeon had been somehow relevant to the current post, I could understand. But random quotes from his sermons aren’t helpful - you’re being a nuisance. They might as well be ads for hair regrowth or penis enlargement as far as I’m concerned. You’ve been doing this for awhile now, and I’m surprised that the boys put up with it. Just cut it out. Go find some other forum or blog that wants to hear it, but leave us. Please.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
This is 838, sorry for ruining your fun with biblical thoughts, was hoping that they could prove benificial. Didn’t know city business church was runninig such a tight ship.
In the future I will try not to steal your thunder FICM, way to go and have something posted, know when to say when at tonights celebration.
February 27th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Lets take a poll. And please be honest.
In the large sceme of things ,what do you think is better: tithing , or not tithing?
February 27th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Tithing
February 27th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
What do you think is better…giving cheerfully because it’s the right thing to do or giving because you think God will bless you more and/or you’ll be cursed if you don’t?
February 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Lanny Hubbard has preached from the pulpit on circumcision. I was there.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
In the year of Jubilee, was there tithing? If not, do we get a break every 7 years? And haven’t we entered God’s rest which is the Sabbath, which is the Year of Jubilee? As in free from tithing? Hmm. Just thinking aloud. I have to go look it up.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Which is better, to give 10% of your increase and thereby be identified with the old covenant, or, give 100% of yourself to Christ and be identified with the new covenant?
And why, when someone is harping about whether or not people give 10% of their money, don’t the people respond that they have given far more: 100% - their very lives to the Lord?
February 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
You’re missing the point.
Nobody is going to argue that it is “bad” to tithe. The point is that CBC/Frank preaches an inordinate amount on tithing, and typically uses “fear” or “greed” to convince people to tithe… not by simply allowing the holy spirit to work on the
target marketaudience.Exactly. I see so many people who tithe, because they are convinced that they MUST tithe in order to be “financially successful”. Or they tithe because they fear God will take away whatever they do have, if they don’t. Or they want some kind of “blessing”, so they tithe because.. hey.. the bible promises a blessing, right?
February 27th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
You think the Chuck Norris facts are great, you should read the Vin Deisel facts, those are so great…I’ll try to find some.
Damazio can solve any math problem by subtracting 10%.
…. hahahahahahaaaaaaaa
February 28th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Come on people . Tithing is what this whole blog is about so lets get real for a second and post what you think is better to do .
February 28th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Tithing of course unless your just to stubborn to admit it.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Not tithing.
Those who preach the tithe (law) and those who tithe are fools, for both bring people under the curse of the law.
Tell me which formula is correct:
Jesus + tithe = salvation
or
Jesus = salvation
Feel free to substitute any element of the law of Moses for tithe above, and decide which formula is correct.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
From what I gathered, the question wasn’t about whether or not tithing brought salvation, but whether it is good to do it or not. Of course Jesus is the only way to salvation, that’s not the question. Loving people doesn’t give you salvation, nor does being kind, gracious or forgiving, but are those things that when you are a believer God calls you to do? Yes, and I think tithing falls into that category as well, God loves a cheerful giver, Jesus talks a ton about giving in the NT and in reality everything we have belongs to him, so I don’t think that giving him 10 percent, or any percentage of our income can hardly make you a fool…is giving money to the poor foolish, is giving money to the missionaries foolish? I don’t believe it is. This has nothing to do with tithing to CBC, but giving God a portion of what he has given to us, as he calls us to do it, and giving to the poor, etc. etc. is giving to God (what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me).
February 28th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
1:23 anonymous, it has everything to do with tithing. The original question wanted to know whether tithing or not tithing was better. That’s not a fair question because you’re comparing giving vs. not giving so it’s a loaded question. You know the answer you’re going to get and then you’re going to claim tithing is a good thing (as you just did). The problem is saying tithing is better is valid not because tithing is necessarily good or bad, but GIVING to missionaries, to churches, and to the poor is called for Scriptually.
The better question would be is tithing biblically mandated under the NT covenant? Jesus spoke a lot about giving in general, but you’d have a hard time finding a passage where He mentions tithing specifically.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Thanks for that comment Fezzik, but I was referring to the previous post that tried to lump tithing with salvation, which wasn’t the original question. And I said that my post had nothing to do with tithing to CBC (mostly to eliminate any comments about how tithing to CBC isn’t giving to the poor, b/c most people here would say that CBC doesn’t do that etc. etc.), not tithing in general, of course I was talking about tithing in general. I think you didn’t read my post very thoroughly. Do I think tithing is a good thing? Yes. Do I think it’s mandated? No. Do I do it to be blessed or get saved? No. Let me quote my last post “…giving God a portion of what he has given to us, AS HE CALLS US TO DO IT.” I think we need to be faithful to tithe as God calls us, individually, to. I know that when I give to my church (not CBC) that it is going to the poor, to our missionaries (we are a small church and I’m involved with the accounting). And my point was that doing those things with the money that God gives me is NOT foolish, like the previous poster tried to say.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I don’t think you understood. That post was specifically saying that making tithing mandatory was sinful, not giving in general. You were the first to mention giving in general as opposed to strictly tithing, and those two things are not the same. I’m very much against forced tithing and against any church that implies it’s mandatory. That doesn’t mean I oppose giving in general. In fact, I believe giving back to those in need is necessary as long as you’re doing it for the right reasons. That is the point I was trying to make, that being against tithing does not equate to being against giving.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
So we can at least agree thats its better to tithe than not tithe
February 28th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
No, you misunderstand.
The issue is the law. It is NEVER Jesus PLUS some element of the law that a hireling tries to impose on the flock, it is simply Jesus. How is it that people are so blind, as to come up with some OT/NT mixture, of law and grace, and still claim to be free, when Paul wrote very clearly, that those who try to follow the law, are cursed by it, and those who try to put the flock under the law, are in fact, false brothers, in danger of ‘hell fire’ as one version calls it (read Galatians, man).
So if we bring forward the tithe ordnance from the OT law, and say “you free sons of God have to obey this one portion of the law”, how is it that you exempt yourselves form virtually all of the law, except the tithe? Either it all applies, or none of it applies, to the freed sons of God.
Any one up for telling the women-folk that they are ceremonially unclean 1 week per month, and need to stay home for a week (or is it 10 days), when they’re menstruating? Or perhaps you think your teenagers, whenever they have a zit-outbreak, ought to do like the law of Moses says, and present themselves to the priest for an examination to determine whether or not it is an infectious skin disease, and therefore should be quarantined?
If one part of the law is compulsory for the son of God who is in Christ (and therefore having already fulfilled the law in Christ), then all of the law is binding upon us, and we are in deep kimchee baby.
I am in Christ. I have therefore fulfilled the law. Tithe included.
It is Christ, and only Christ.
Tithe schmithe. Let the hirelings get a real job and stop sponging off believers. The word does still say “if you don’t work, you don’t eat”, right? Are pastors (hirelings) exempt from the “dont work, don’t eat” scripture? There’s not one thing that a hireling (pastor) does that a so-called lay-person can not do, with the exception of perform a state authorized marriage.
Perhaps the real problem is, that believers have abdicated their God-given authority (and identity as Sons, Priests, Kings, temples of the Holy Spirit) to hirelings.
Tell ya what - you wanna draw some comparisons between the OT and NT - it isn’t the pastors who ought to receive the tithe. In the OT, it was the Levite priests who received the tithe, and they most closely resemble the worship leaders / musicians of today. Take a look at the headings on the Psalms - who wrote them - who lead the people in worship in Israel / Jerusalem? It was the Levite priests. Wanna see a church explode with a revival, marked by intense worship? Cut the hirelings off at the pockets, and give love gifts to the musicians so they can pursue the new songs that the Spirit wants to bring to the Bride.
Or just sit there like a lump of lard and listen to the hireling preach the tithe, while the praise band continues operating as a warm-up act for the sermon and offering.
“Play that music that will put ‘em in a tithing mood, boys …”
February 28th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
i cant believe ppl give a crap about this stupid tithe stuff. yes tithing is stpid because edveryone knows pastors drive cadillacs and mayors drive in town cars. its a system and all these verses do is prove it. have fun following a script. i always wonderede why actors liked scripts.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:40 am
So if we bring forward the tithe ordnance from the OT law, and say “you free sons of God have to obey this one portion of the law”, how is it that you exempt yourselves form virtually all of the law, except the tithe? Either it all applies, or none of it applies, to the freed sons of God.
Do you even read the bible. The ten commandments still apply. So yes,some old testament still carries over . The law that Paul always talks about is grace and rightousness by the cross versus the old law of circumcision that lead towards salvation.
Just because we are in Christ doesn’t mean we throw out the old testament and say “well, thou shalt not kill is old testament so I can kill someone” There were certain things that were done away with with the new covenant but tithing was never thrown out .In fact,Paul regularly told the churches to give ,and he even told them to give in proportion to their income .So unless one of the apostles or Christ said that we should not tithe anymore than it still applies today .
March 1st, 2006 at 6:46 am
Wrong logic. Unless something from the Old covenant is specifically mentioned in the NT, it’s out.
Heb. 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:57 am
Cool. Enjoy your yoke, dude.
In addition to reading Galatians, it might help you to read John 10, and Jude too - it’ll help you rightly identify the man and his sheep pen that you’re tithing to. I love the picture of religion that emerges from John 10 …
On the one hand, we have the true shepherd, Jesus, who leads His sheep out to open pasture. On the other, we have the hirelings, who keep their sheep in pens, and lay across the door openings, where no one can get in or out without going through them. The hireling makes his living by fleecing the flock.
All of which flies in the face of what Jesus said: “I am the WAY … no one come to the Father except through me” … and so, Jesus is the door we must use - yet the picture painted in John 10 and Jude, of hirelings laying across the door, is one of a man attempting to stand between the Father and the sheep.
Anyhow, I prefer open pasture and following Jesus.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Anon 2/28 9:52am & Anon 3/1 6:57am (I assume you are one in the same):
While I agree with your comments re: tithing (vs NT giving), the OT law, and adding anything to Jesus in an attempt to gain salvation (or favor or anything else), comments like the one below concern me greatly:
I’m concerned about the term “hireling” because its reductive and dismissive. How about “pastor?” How about Ephesians 4:11? Clearly, some church leaders do not function as they should, abuse their positions, and wreak all kids of havoc in people’s lives individually and collectively. Some believers, as you say, “have abdicated their God-given authority (and identity as Sons, Priests, Kings, temples of the Holy Spirit) to hirelings.” Some Christians are lobotomized, no question, either by their own hand or by turning over their brains to some authoritative church leader to do it for them. Clearly, most of us who blog here have personally experienced and otherwise observed wicked, warped church leadership. However, do any of these unfortunate realities mean that there is no legitimate purpose for pastors?
No. God CALLS some to be pastors. The mere fact that this statement exists in Ephesians 4:11 (not to mention Acts 20:28 & 1 Peter 5:1-2), tells us that God intends for pastors to exist and to function, and that they are to be instruments of blessing in the church. The purpose of a pastor is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, whatever ministry the Lord calls each one to, to feed and oversee the flock of God.
How about a leader? How about someone to identify, encourage, teach and equip church members to actually pursue, hone and use their gifts? Yes, we should do that for one another, but do we? You are certainly correct in that many in the body of Christ, other than pastors, are gifted in various skills and abilities typically ascribed to and desired in pastors. And, anyone who fills out a form in the back of Rolling Stone Magazine or some other random place can perform legal marriages, so we surely don’t need pastors just for that.
Also, you imply that pastors “don’t work” so they shouldn’t “eat.” While some pastors’ salaries are exhorbitant, many work for market or below market rate (i.e., family/liveable wages for professionals who lead organizations and provide sophisticated types & levels of human services). I’m not going to do a word or theme study for you, but I’m confident that if you search the Scriptures, you will find ample provisions for Christians supporting their leaders. Contemporary American churches do not remotely resemble the first century “church;” therefore direct parallels are difficult to draw. However, as we seek to live like “Acts 2″ churches, we need pastors, true shepherds of God’s people, who will coordinate service (I don’t mean the Sunday morning services/gatherings), lead community life, train up the saints, and all of those other good things that pastors can and should do. We should ALL be “addicted to the work of the ministry,” but I would contend that we ALL need examples of those who are, and who do it well.
I’m not a pastor, nor do I ever plan to be one, however, I believe in the local church and I believe in team ministry, and I also believe that the Bible clearly lays out a pattern for ONE person steering the ship, with lots of guidance and assistance from his/her team.
I would be curious to know more about why you made the statements you did about church leaders. My guess is that our philosophies are more aligned than not, so I do not say any of this antagonistically.
Blessings (NOT just financially).
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:43 am
Hi Matrix - like the moniker, and loved the movie. The original is quite a spiritual metaphor isn’t it? For the believer, the real ‘red pill’ is when Jesus baptizes a person with the Holy Spirit and the subsequent fire which burns off all the religious chaff, don’t you think?
Please forgive how I do the quotes here - the only option I have in Firefox is a complete quote - no editing options available to me here - so I’ve pasted your thoughts into notepad, and interspersed my comments.
> I’m concerned about the term “hireling” because its
> reductive and dismissive. How about “pastor?” …
> However, do any of these unfortunate realities mean
> that there is no legitimate purpose for pastors?
Then is the bible, which coined the term (John 10/KJV) dismissive, and should it be subjected to a re-write for sensitivity, and political correctness? (I’m not a KJV-only-ite, BTW). Kinda like Luke 13:8, and Philippians 3:8, where the greek word ’skubalon’, which means ‘dung’ (or more literally, shit), was cleaned up by the translators and rendered ‘trash’, ‘rubbish’, or ‘fertilizer’ in other, more politically correct translations? Or is white-washing scripture part of the problem?
Personally, I think someone who is truly functioning by the Holy Spirit, in the capacity of ‘pastor’, has no need of a title. They simply do as the Spirit leads them. Ever notice how Jesus never applied a label to himself? It was just us silly humans who applied the labels - likely because we can only think in finite terms, and therefore must label and pigeon-hole things.
> No. God CALLS some to be pastors. The mere fact that
> this statement exists in Ephesians 4:11 (not to
> mention Acts 20:28 & 1 Peter 5:1-2), tells us that
> God intends for pastors to exist and to function,
> and that they are to be instruments of blessing in
> the church.
Couple of observations. What if the common understanding of what a pastor, or any of the other so-called ‘5-fold’ ministry functions, is wrong? What if ‘pastor’, is more an ‘organic’ function, than official professional position? I’ve been told countless times that I have a pastor’s heart - but have never been to seminary school, and don’t have the degree. Yet I be-friend the outcasts, love and counsel them, encourage, help as I can with labor and finance, never once accepting or asking for payment of any kind. No official office, no credentials - just functioning as a brother, to God’s kids.
Does the bible describe a pastor, or for that matter, any of the 5-fold ministry functions, as some official position in a duly sanctioned and denominationalized institution, or, are they simply believers who are gifted appropriately for those functions by the Holy Spirit?
> How about a leader? How about someone to identify,
> encourage, teach and equip church members to
> actually pursue, hone and use their gifts?
What about 1 John 2:27, which says:
But Christ has blessed you with the Holy Spirit. Now the Spirit stays in you, and you don’t need any teachers. The Spirit is truthful and teaches you everything. So stay one in your heart with Christ, just as the Spirit has taught you to do. (1 John 2:27 CEV)
Either the Bible means what it says, or it doesn’t. Countless believers have bought into the ’system’ (the Matrix) as the de facto standard - the way it has always been done - and therefore presumed to be right and correct. We accept the big buildings, the seminary trained and paid professional clergy, the clergy and laity divide, the division of denominationalism, dispensationalism, etc.
Yet, the Holy Spirit, who is still in the world, and is still teaching believers, still giving spiritual gifts to believers (Romans 11:29) is calling people out of institutionalized religion.
It has been my experience, since responding to the call to “come out of her, my people” (Revelation 18:4), that everything the Bible says is true, that the Holy Spirit is still taking up residence in God’s people when they ask for it and submit to Jesus for the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16, Luke 11:13). The Holy Spirit is still teaching people (1 John 2:27) despite the institutions and their pharisee yeast that would turn men into bread.
> Also, you imply that pastors “don’t work” so they
> shouldn’t “eat.”
That is correct, though I more than implied it.
Jesus sent out the 12 (Matthew 10:5-14), telling them to find a home where you can sleep, take no money, nothing extra, and the only ‘pay’ they were to accept was the food that was set in front of them. In verse 8, Jesus said: “FREELY ye have received, FREELY give”.
Consistent with Jesus instructions, Paul boasted that he did not and would not take anyones money for the gospel. Countless times, Paul exhorted the brethren through his letters, to be like him - to emulate him. What was Paul like that we should emulate him? He took NO money for preaching the gospel, and in fact, worked a ‘day job’ mending tents, for what little money he had / needed.
How then is it, that professional religious people demand payment, despite the teaching of Christ and Paul (et al), i.e, ‘the gospel is FREE’?
Why then don’t we call a hireling a hireling? If a person takes money for preaching the gospel, the Bible says that person is a hireling. It’s really not me being insulting and ‘reductive’, but the very words of Christ (John 10, Jude 1, Matthew 23, etc.)
But some would say “but how do we support the buildings and the programs”, etc. I would reply “where is it written that we have to support those things”? It is people we should give our gifts to, and help. Not things. People starve and are evicted from their homes or go without medical treatment because the wealth of the body is mis-directed to buildings and programs.
Jesus once told Peter (and thereby the rest of us), that “the Sons are FREE”. The context in which that statement was made, was when the TREASURER (financial officer, collections agent), for the temple, approached Peter and asked if Jesus paid the temple tax. When Peter returned to Jesus, and Jesus replied “therefore the Sons are FREE”, it means, quite specifically, that the Sons have absolutely NO obligation to support the building fund(s), maintenance and upkeep, expansion programs, etc. (Matthew 17:24-26).
> I would be curious to know more about why you made
> the statements you did about church leaders. My
> guess is that our philosophies are more aligned
> than not, so I do not say any of this
> antagonistically.
Nor do I say these things antagonistically. What has happened to me over the last several years, is nothing short of a miracle - the miracle of the ‘red pill’ - and enduring the journey to learn how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I’m far from having it all figured out - but know that when presented with the choice of “go to church” or “take up your cross and FOLLOW ME”, I choose the latter.
In choosing the latter, every thing that can be shaken, has been shaken, including my most basic understandings of what the church is (people not buildings/places), my identity in Christ, etc. Many many institutional falsehoods have gone up in flames.
…
To that end, Matrix, that which your moniker implies, is discussed in Revelation 18.
The chapter begins and ends with the Lord calling His people out of HER. The blood of saint and prophet are found in HER. The Lord’s people are spared, but SHE is thrown down with violence.
Who is this HER that chapter 18 is talking about?
Among the clues - she has proclaimed herself QUEEN, and says she is MARRIED. What is a QUEEN, but the wife of the KING? Our King is Jesus - and so this false QUEEN - is professing to be the Bride of Christ - the ‘Church’ - and yet, SHE is thrown down with violence, because she is not really the Church, but a WHORE - a PROSTITUTE - one who buys and sells flesh.
Isn’t that the very picture, of the religious institution that has been built up around and has swallowed up the saints, in the 2,000 years since Jesus introduced a very simple faith of ‘follow ME to the Father’?
Whether the command to “come out of her, My people”, is literal (physical), or spiritual, or both, I don’t know the answer for anyone but me. For me, it has been to come out of her spiritually, and physically. I simply can not identify with institutionalism at all, with the calling that is upon me.
Make no mistake, I love the saints, and even paid professional seminary-trained pastors. However, I think most are in error where the institution is concerned. And I wish they would walk away from it all, and simply follow Jesus, and, love one another - with more than words - but in action (including financial assistance, of course). ;^)
> Blessings (NOT just financially).
Received. ;^) And thank you for listening!
Blessings to you and yours, as well!
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Dear 3/2 7:43am Anon,
To the following comment I lift a big, yummy glass of good red wine and say AMEN:
I am truly happy that you are free from the bondages of your religious past. The same is true for me. Definitely. I am FREE INDEED and FREE AT LAST (some of my favorite songs) from the matrix of the legalistic church system. That said, the Lord is overhauling my view of Christianity, ministry, and church. Like you, I don’t have it all figured out. Probably never will, but at least I’m free from the matrix. That has “made all the difference” (to quote Frost) already.
Now onto the rest. Either I wasn’t clear or you misunderstood me. I’m definitely not in favor of altering Scriptures for the sake of America’s ever-changing “political correctness.” I also agree with you that the Bible is true. I’m familiar with the Scriptures you referenced that include the term “hireling,” however I disagree that this term, by definition, means someone who takes (or demands) money for preaching the Gospel or shepherding God’s people. Per Thayer’s Lexicon, the word hireling (Strong’s 3411) means “one who has no real interest in his duty and one who is unfaithful in the discharge of it.” So, your logic that ALL pastors or ALL who earn money through ministry are mere “hirelings” does not work; that’s not what the Bible says. Per Eph. 4:11, God calls some to be pastors, so clearly some people pastor because it’s God’s will that they are. Clearly, many pastor who are not called of God, or pastor in ways other than they should. That doesn’t mean that many are not called and equipped to do so. I would contend that Christ’s use of the word “hireling” does not refer to ALL pastors or church leaders, but those who are not heart-compelled servants, those who do it for money only, those who do not care about their role and carry it out unfaithfully. That describes many we know. However, there are many pastors who are pastors ONLY because God has called them, ONLY because they are true servants and who carry out their duties faithfully. I’m with you in that the Bible does not direct us to pay for buildings and programs; these things are not the heart of the church. However, the Gospel and Christianity must be contextual and culturally relevant; by that, I mean that we must operate within the culture in which we live. We gather in buildings, we have programs. That’s what we do in America. That should not be the entirety of “church” even here in America, particularly our connections and outreach to unbelievers.
While I, like you, have a pastor’s heart, I would never want the job, at least not in a contemporary American church. I could never live in poverty, and I couldn’t in good conscience earn what I now earn professionally from a local church. I’m with Paul, let’s make money from our skills and support our ministry so that we can reach the poor without needing anything from them. However, this is not about me, this is about what the Bible says. Clearly, the Lord directs believers to GIVE financiall, to support the work of the ministry. The NT pattern for church tells me that it is more appropriate to give locally, to give to those we know and trust (either locally or afar), to those who know and love God and invest themselves in the Body of Christ…NOT to those self-appointed “high profile” “ministers” who do more damage than good for the Kingdom of God (i.e., those on TBN, etc.).
Please forgive me, but I’m going to wimp out and not even attempt to respond to your comments about Revelations. I get lost in the morass of metaphors in that book. I understand the intense human need to understand how it will all pan out, but after going through stages with all the eschatological views (amillenialism, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism), and years of frustration with most American Christians who think the only variance in eschatology is whether you believe in pre- mid- or post-tribulation “rapture”–a word NOT in the Bible, BTW)…anyway, after going through all of those phases, I rest easy, knowing that I don’t need to know the details of the end. I already know what I need to know: that Jesus wins and Satan loses, that those who put their faith in Jesus will live eternally with Him and those who don’t will suffer forever. If you think that’s a cop out, I’m OK with the mockery. Some things are just beyond my comprehension. Like the love of God. Let’s focus on that. Not really good debate material, but still.
Blessings to you, Anon.
Thanks for “listening.”
FFTM
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Hi FFTM,
Strong’s defines it as simply: “a wage worker (good or bad): - hired servant, hireling.”
Numerous commentaries treat it as you have, whether faithful, or just in it for the pay and abandon the sheep at the first sign of trouble.
But I’m not comfortable laying it all in the lap of “it depends on the condition of the heart” for whether or not it is appropriate to be paid. Regardless of their intentions, the Bible still says: “FREELY ye have received, FREELY give” where the gospel is concerned, and in terms of pay, all the pay references I’ve seen, refer to food and drink.
I’m not in favor of contemporizing scripture (re-interpreting scripture through the spectacle of our cultural values). Where would it stop? For example, it is often argued that “food” was the medium of exchange in the OT when the tithe was established, but today, money is the basis of exchange, therefore the tithe is now money.
Yet - money is mentioned in the KJV as early as Genesis 17:12 - silver and gold mentioned / implied even in Abraham’s confrontation with Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14). And so money (spoils / bullion) was accepted as a medium of exchange even before the law of Moses was established. Yet the tithe, established much later, to support Aaron, his sons, and the tribe of Levi (temple priests), was specifically flocks, herds, fruit and grain, and, only farmers tithed. Money is not mentioned in conjunction with the tithe.
Since money existed before the tithe was established, and when the tithe was established it specified food items, the ‘medium of exchange’ argument doesn’t hold water.
It’s interesting to me, that the passage I noted earlier - sending out the 12 - where Jesus said “the worker deserves his *meat*” (in the KJV), is translated in other versions to “wage” or “hire”. The word rendered “meat” (Matthew 10:10) is defined by Strong’s as:
From G5142; nourishment (literally or figuratively); by implication rations (wages): - food, meat.
Looks to me like the bible translators (seminary trained theologians with a keen interest in church finance (read: salaries)), have fiddled with the translations, to guarantee their income.
Perhaps one of these days someone will get bold during a Sunday morning offering, and plop a “Big Mac” down in the offering plate … and maybe, if he’s a cheerful giver, he’ll super-size it.
;^)
Time to scram - taking a weekend trip!
Have a blessed weekend, FFTM.
John444
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
>> Perhaps one of these days someone will get bold during a Sunday
>> morning offering, and plop a “Big Mac” down in the offering plate …
>> and maybe, if he’s a cheerful giver, he’ll super-size it.
That’s funny!
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:36 am
John 444, thanks for your response.
I am familiar with Strong’s definition of “hireling,” but, per usual, in order to truly understand a term (since Strong’s is superficial), I looked in Thayer’s Lexicon for a more in-depth definition, which I included in my last post. Why did you ignore that? I understand your discomfort with “laying it in the lap of the heart’s condition.” The heart of man is wicked and deceitful. We know that about ourselves, we’ve seen it in others. However, that is precisely what the Lord does. What he cares most about is our hearts. He sees and knows our hearts. He knows our motivations, whether they are pure (i.e., God-pleasing, man-serving) or self-seeking. We have to trust Him and His knowledge of people’s hearts.
I’m not for contemporizing Scripture, either. That’s not what I mean by contextualizing the Gospel and the church and making it culturally relevant. Of course we must keep it intact while doing so.
I enjoy this banter, but it seems like you are arguing with people other than me, and with concepts other than those I set forth. So, enjoy your weekend trip! Maybe we’ll have an opportunity to dialogue again in the future.
FFTM
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Hi FFTM,
You said:
“I am familiar with Strong’s definition of “hireling,” but, per usual, in order to truly understand a term (since Strong’s is superficial), I looked in Thayer’s Lexicon for a more in-depth definition, which I included in my last post. Why did you ignore that?”
I didn’t. I just don’t put much stock in commentaries. To you, Strong’s is ‘superficial’ – to me, it’s ‘definitive’. To you, Thayer’s is “in depth”, to me, it was soft-peddling the clearly negative connotation of “hireling” (in context of John 10) and advancing the author’s defense of institutionalized religion. The latter is the fatal flaw of most commentaries, in my view.
You said:
“… but it seems like you are arguing with people other than me, and with concepts other than those I set forth.”
FFTM, you have advanced a few ideas I don’t agree with at all. For example, you introduced the ideas of a ‘good hireling’ and of making scripture “culturally relevant”. (You did not say making our culture scripturally relevant). Regarding cultural relevance, in a previous post, you accept church buildings and programs (and presumably the support thereof), which is effectively nullifying scripture for the sake of tradition (consider Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24, 1 Corinthians 14:26, etc.)
Regarding the whole “heart condition” issue, which seems to be the basis of your judgement between good and bad hirelings, keeping it in context of my original assertion that people who take money to preach the gospel are hirelings – the Lord brought a scripture to mind this morning.
“If you love me you will obey my commands.”
Where Jesus’ command concerning the Gospel is “Freely you have received, freely give”, the ‘heart condition’ of those who take money for the gospel seems abundantly clear – they do not love Jesus as much as they love money.
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:34)
“We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says “I know Him” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, god’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.”
When you first wrote me, you supposed that our philosophies were more alike than different … the big difference that I can see, is that while you have escaped the matrix of legalism (as have I), we are worlds apart concerning the institutionalization of the church. Guess you could say that there’s a stone between us.
Check out Hebrews 13:13-14 … Christian City ain’t for me.
G’night!
John444
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 pm
The un-named scripture reference is 1 John 2:3-6.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:32 am
John444,
Here is where I think our main difference is: You believe that ALL pastors are “hirelings.” I do not believe that “pastor” and “hireling” are synonyms. You do seem to believe this. Hirelings are Christians who “do ministry activities” JUST for the money, not because they care or are called, and they do so unfaithfully. Not all pastors are hirelings. Some ARE called, ARE faithful, and ARE invested in their work. You are not comfortable with the reality that the condition of man’s heart is what matters to God. I may not be comfortable with it, but I know that is the truth, and that we must trust God to talk to His sheep, and to recognize His voice. As His sheep, we must listen to Him. Discernment is hard, but it’s possible.
I do not believe that the Bible uses these terms synonymously or interchangeably. You do seem to believe this. I do not believe that all local churches are “institutionalized religion.” Some are, some are not. As one given to black and white thinking myself, I think I understand where you are coming from. Better safe than sorry. Some pastors are apparently “hirelings” (as demonstrated by their character and life’s fruit), therefore let’s not trust any of them and devise a belief that no pastor on the earth serves as the Lord intends. However, we cannot throw the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.
I do believe that we need to make Christianity culturally relevant. I did not say that we need to make Scriptural truth culturally relevant, although Jesus certainly did that every time the Pharisees challenged Him. Every major “revival” throughout history started because Christians immersed themselves in the culture and made Christianity relevant. Paul became all things to all men that he might win some. Martin Luther King took bar tunes and put Scripture to them. We still sing many of these hymns today. Historical examples abound.
I definitely agree that we need to make our cultures Scripturally relevant, but we need to define that term. We can’t do that through mere behavior modification. Changed hearts result in changed behavior, changed people, famililes, people groups. The current fundamentalist attempts to politicize Christian morals certainly are not winning droves to Christ, are they?
Shall we agree to disagree on these points? Undoubtedly we agree that Jesus is God. We also likely agree that finding like-minded Christians is challenging, and even when we find them, living in community and functioning as God desires is challenging. I wish you the best in all of your endeavors towards these ends.
Blessings (NOT just financially)
FFTM
March 4th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Hi FFTM,
You said:
“Here is where I think our main difference is: You believe that ALL pastors are “hirelings.” I do not believe that “pastor” and “hireling” are synonyms.”
Nor do I think they are synonyms, and no, I do not think all pastors are “hirelings” - only pastors who are paid a full-time wage are “hirelings” … that is, after all, the definition of “hireling” - a “wage worker”.
Matrix - I’ve attended perhaps a dozen churches in my life, and have visited 500 more through a concert ministry I once had. I can count on one hand the pastors who took to heart the “freely give” command, and Paul’s exhortations to earn a living via day job and serve the gospel freely.
Like I said earlier, I think “pastor” is not an official title, degreed, nor warranting a salary and benefits, but rather, an equipping by the Holy Spirit to serve a purpose in the Body - that of coming alongside the brethren, for encouragement, counsel, etc.
…
Let’s say for example that the idea of ‘money being the current medium of exchange’ and thereby replaces the biblical idea of giving food items - and that it is OK to change “the worker deserves his MEAT” to “the worker deserves his PAY” …. when Jesus sent out the 12, the intent was clear that all they could expect for their work, was food - and to be put up in a bed by someone in the community where they were ministering.
If we convert “meat” to “pay”, what is the basis for giving them any more than grocery money? How did it go from ‘rations’ (grocery money) to a full-time wage, with benefits, and retirement? (Don’t answer “inflation” ;^) )
I have met just a few brothers who work for free, and with no expectation of anything other than enjoying a meal with the saints they’re working with. That’s how I did concerts for years - we ate together - then I sang and gave away CDs, and when there was a free-will offering, or love gift, that was given to the area food banks, or to the poor in the congregation. What little I kept, paid for making more CDs for give-away, or minor expenses like gas, or lodging the few times we couldn’t stay with a local family. This has been the call on my life, and I understand where that standard comes from scripture, and the Lord’s expressed desire / command for ministers of the gospel. I do not understand how others can view the same scriptures, and who claim to know and love Christ, can do otherwise.
Perhaps that clarifies where I’m coming from.
John444
March 4th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
John 444,
Let me clarify: not all pastors who receive financial support for their work are hirelings. While you seem to like the brief/superficial definition Strong’s provides, I have never found Strong’s as the most thorough source of a term. So, the “definition of a hireling” is NOT merely a wage earner, it is a wage-earner “who has no real interest in his duty and one who is unfaithful in the discharge of it.” Not all paid pastors are hirelings. While the Bible surely uses the term, it does not use it as you use it. I don’t believe the Bible addresses whether true pastors should be paid for their work or not. As long as pastors are truly called of God and have fruitful ministries, why should churches–who want a full-time pastor who is available 24/7 to meet the needs of the Body and to study and preach, etc.–not support them fully if they wish?
Your music ministry-touring sounds cool. I could relay my extensive personal past and current experiences in church to you, or my vision and plans for my own ministry, but neither my nor your experience is the point of this discussion. The point is that we disagree on terminology and definitions. You think that anyone who receives money (or other tangible things that people need to live) in exchange for any ministry is wrong, and I do not.
That said, I’m completely against the mega-church and para-church leaders who get rich on the backs of their churches. I’m also against denominations period, and their practices regarding rotating pastors around every few years. I belive “pastor” is not a positional term, but a heart and function term. These issues are complex and sensitive.
At any rate, let’s stop because we are not likely to agree on this subject. I’m glad we share common ground regarding the law, Gospel and “tithing.”
Blessings,
FFTM
March 4th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Cool.
Perhaps FFTM, my view is a bit tainted … I’ve literally heard from thousands of believers who have been trampled by ministers and ministries, abused and manipulated into giving and other service, all to build up organizations and people.
I can’t however help but take note of Jesus words - that the path is narrow - and only a few find it - elsewhere, I believe He also said few would be saved. And so it seems that there are more hirelings than not … perhaps even a majority. I’ve never imparted to them ‘motive’ - but observe simply that they are charging for the gospel, when they should not be. What I mean by that is, I can’t tell how many are simply sucked into tradition and institutionalism / denominationalism, and how many fleece the flock knowingly and willfully.
Click my name, check out my web site. And write me directly if you want to talk further. This medium isn’t the best for brothers getting to know each other.
Peace to you! Over and out.
John444