Is the Jamaican Church ready for the Millennial generation?

Greetings to my readers, brethren, and sistren,

The following post uses a new media that I am experimenting with in conveying a message that I have been deeply thinking about for the past couple weeks since the Jamaican election.

If you are unable to view the image, click this link for the Pinterest version Or this version of the Pinterest link.

Infographic on Jamaican Millennial Church

An Adventist Church leader "gets" the young adults

I generally do not like to discuss a specific church or denomination in my blog, because I am not one to endorse any institutionalized way for practicing Christianity. However, I was impressed by a recent editorial and article by the Canadian Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Editor, Halsey Peat in the newsletter Ontario Highlights. In the Autumn/Winter 2014 edition of the Ontario Highlights, Peat pens two articles, which I will briefly summarize in this post and give a few comments on.

In the first article, entitled "Multi-Generational Churches or Seniors' Centres?" Peat expresses concern about the departure of the youth and the young adults from the church. In part of his editorial, Peat also points out what he feels is the problem with the church that is contributing to this:

We [SDAs] have sought to remain unchanged in a world that is constantly changing. We look to the past as if they were the glorious days, failing to recognise the struggles that our pioneers and those after them had to go through...we have stubbornly, and maybe even arrogantly, considered that our pioneers resolved every issue and question, so we default to regurgitating their answers. There seems to be a reticence to examine our beliefs and practices in light of twenty-first century North America. Meanwhile, our youths and young adults are scrutinizing what they see and hear in the church. Some will pick and choose what makes sense to them, ignoring what does not, but remain in the church. Others, what seems to be the majority, simply leave, discarding everything. (p. 2)

I believe Peat has hit the nail on the head. As a young adult myself, I have chosen to remain in the church community despite objecting to the way church is done. I see them putting out evangelistic meetings that have no relevance to my peers and the questions that my peers ask. Time and time in this blog, I have had to highlight some of these problems which are not just specific to the SDA church, but to Christian denominations that I am aware of. I feel that most Christian churches today are out of touch with the young adults and the youth and the spiritual challenges to faith in a secular world and a world increasingly hostile to Christian culture.

Peat goes on in another brilliant article to address young adults like me about why stay in the SDA church and how to go about reforming it. In his article, "For Young Adults Only", Peat begins with a lengthy introduction that indicates that he is in touch with the young adults in the church:

I f you are a young adult reading this, you’re doing so because you are still attending the church in which you were most probably raised. I’m glad that you are still there because you know of friends who no longer attend. For one reason or another, they ceased attending church, but you remained. 

I’m glad you remained, but will you stay? I sincerely hope so. I hope that you have recognised the truth that even though your church is imperfect, God still works through it for the good of His people. Yes, on occasion, it is even frustrating in how it addresses your concerns, and how it relates to contemporary society, but it is still a place where there is potential for you to grow, flourish and be happy to call home. 

Part of the frustration, I know, is with the word potential. Everything always seem to be in the future. Meanwhile, you feel side-lined, unimportant, unappreciated, and undervalued. Like your teen brothers and sisters, it can sometimes seem as if you are only appreciated when you fit the cultural stereotype of an Adventist in appearance, accepted behaviour pattern, and you use the clichés and jargon of Adventism. 

Over the years, while conversing with young adults, I arrived at a conclusion, shared by many of my generation, that you love the Lord. I learned that you are in this church because you believe, and you want to participate in its mission. You seek spirituality, but you do not necessarily believe that spirituality is determined by traditional views and practices. You want your church to be relevant to your community. You want it to be such a welcoming and relevant place that you will gladly invite your friends to attend with you. However, you’re often reluctant to invite them because of how embarrassed you’d feel by what sometimes happens on a Sabbath morning. So, you wait for change. 

Waiting for change is never easy. It can be very frustrating because just when it looks like it’s about to happen, something seems to derail it. Some of your former friends gave up waiting and left, but you do not want to leave truth for error. You’re very aware that when people separate themselves from fellowship, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain spiritual disciplines and practice. Over time, there is a distancing, not only from the practices of a Christian but from its principles, and ultimately from God. Yet, you wait for the church to change. (p.10-11)

 Once again, Peat is on target. No need for me to add to his words, as he said exactly how I feel about church and Christianity on a whole. Yet, make no mistake. I do appreciate my seniors and the work they have done even teach me the elementary stuff and preserve faith so that I could learn about it today. And I am happy that they have kept track of the history and preserved it for me so that I can know the evolution of faith and where we are coming from.

In fact, for as much as I have protested and critiqued Roman (if not Western) Christianity, I still respect it. In fact, I greatly appreciate that Roman Christianity took on Paul's revolutionary theology of becoming relevant to the culture in order to conquer the culture. According to the letter to Corinth, the multi-cultural Paul argues his theological method:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version [NIV])

I feel that Roman Christianity, by adopting this theological position made Christianity malleable, and therefore appropriated whatever it could from national or popular cultures in order to evangelize and win converts to the religion. And so far, this approach to spreading Christianity has been the most successful to date.Whereas Judeo-Christianity (or Jewish Christianity) failed to convert Jewish rabbinic schools and perished for a while after the destruction of Jerusalem, Roman Christianity converted the entire Roman empire, from Britain to Northern Africa.

Today, I recognize the same Roman Christianity principles in the present day Pope. Assimilate some of what the modern day culture and secular world see as good or reasonable in order to win them. While I may disagree on some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church accepts as not contradicting with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, I do realize that the church is merely pursuing a theology of adapting to its world in order to remain relevant.

So I welcome Peat's message and will try to be optimistic that at least a few adults in the church do understand the young adults and will listen to them. Nonetheless, I feel pessimistic that SDA church traditions will change anytime soon. Especially when I think of my experiences in rural Jamaican Adventism, where laymen cling to reading only the King James Version of the Bible and indoctrinate the youth into conspiracy theories about how Jesuits are trying to infiltrate the Adventist church and seminaries.

References:

Peat, H. (2014). Multi-generational churches or seniors' centres?  Ontario Highlights Autumn/Winter 2014, 2.

Peat, H. (2014). For young adults only. Ontario Highlights Autumn/Winter 2014, 10-11.

The case for child-centred church services

Being a father of young children causes me to look at "church" differently. Before my marriage, as a single man I was able to serve in offices and participate in pretty much any of the church's ministries. This changed even more so when I became a father. Just imagine getting ready for church and having to be late because you have to wait on the baby to awake on time. Then having to get up during the "service" to take your child outside, because the child cannot sit still and keep quiet during the sermon. Not to mention the mommies who have to breast feed or even bottle feed the child (which is informally and unofficially forbidden in the "sanctuary"). As such, being a parent, for the first time forces you to contend with how unfriendly "church" is to young parents and their children. [ Disclaimer: this does not apply to the home church where I raised in with my mother and father. Home churches always treat their grandchildren who they've not seen for a while with a grand homecoming welcome and spoil them of course.]

But that's not all. Your eyes begin to open up to the fact that the church in the 21st century is quintessentially structured for adult believers as the major constituency. [Maybe it is because this group is the major contributors of voluntary services (free labour) and tithes and offerings]. However, even with a church offering children services and programmes, you realise that these are the non-essential or fringe services of the church. Children services and programmes are merely outreach, and not the core of what the church is about. [Perhaps a way of reaching out to parents more than the children].

But when I look at the scriptures, I get a different image. Several verses and memory texts tell me of the importance of raising children in the faith from the womb or birth, teaching them while in their youth or infancy. Psalm 22:9-10 for example says:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. (NKJV)

From the child is sucking teats, the child is to be learning about God.

Another verse, 2 Timothy 3:15 says [breaking into the thought]:

from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Hence, children should be learning God's ways from infancy, not as teens or young adults.

A final example of scripture that tells me that the emphasis of teaching children about God is Psalm 71:17, which says:

Since my youth, God, you have taught me, and to this day I declare your marvelous deeds.

This is in addition to that proverb that says "train up a child in the way that they should go and when they are old, they will not depart from it".

But my point is that churches cannot be teaching children doctrines when they are teens or young adults. Doctrines must be taught when they are children. Further, church services cannot afford to cater to adult members and be centred around adult member programming. On the contrary, church has got to be vested in teaching, equipping and educating children for the work of Christian ministry. By this, I don't mean just investing in church schools, Sunday/Sabbath schools and one-off children programmes like Vacation Bible Schools. These are important, but even "traditional" worship services should be ceremonies for initiating children into the faith.

I personally find that church traditions like "communion service" in Protestant, Pentecostal and Evangelical churches fail to incorporate children unless they are baptized. Further, these churches generally baptize a child only when they are confident that the child has reached the age of "understanding" or consent. While church "worship services' are supposedly design to get me focused on God, there is no way that I can focus on God if my children are not engaged in what's going on. The structure of "church" has to be such that children can either participate or observe what is going on so that they can grow in either their understanding of the faith. This means providing opportunities for answer their questions about what is taking place as opposed to shushing them.

For me, an advanced believer with over 20 years of indoctrination (from both school and church), I don't really need the "worship services" as much. My spiritual needs lie in the discussion fora and the Bible studies. Those spaces and opportunities where I get to ask questions and share information. No need to be preached at (though I appreciate the storytelling, interpretations and retelling of familiar Bible stories). However, my concerns are now how to live out my faith in contemporary times. How to answer the questions of contemporary skeptics? Have we misunderstood anything that we now believe? Is there any more truth out of the scriptures that I need to comprehend? Did church founders miss knowledge that we now have access to?

Mark you, I am not saying that we need to do away with regular church worship service structure. Far from it, as this regular structure is still good for the newbies to the faith. It is new believers and children who need to hear sermons and instructions on morality and the purpose or meaning of life. The same group needs to be familiar with Bible stories and the themes of the Christian faith. The regular worship services should tell the grand narratives of Christianity's theme of salvation and redemption. However, we must ensure that children can meaningfully participate in such collective storytelling. (Didn't apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 admonish that we must make our services such that unbelievers can understand it and provide interpreters for those who have difficulties?) Hence regular church services should facilitate children participate in the telling and in meeting the introductory/orientation needs of newbies, while Bible classes/studies serve as the "extra-lessons" for the advanced believers.

After all, there is nowhere in Matthew's commission (Matthew 28:19) where I see a prescription for our current order of services. There is no prescription that we must collect offerings and listen to a sermon from one speaker. Jesus did not command those things and even in his sermons, there was space for interaction and the asking of questions. Rather, Matthew's great commission is for us to baptize, teach and make disciples. Hence, believers should be in the business of converting others to their viewpoint and worldview, instructing these new converts and mentoring them to take over the conversion business. And what better way to convert people to a particular worldview than when they are children with minds open for teaching and learning.

Bible study on the Feasts of the LORD in the New Testament

God recently gave me the opportunity to lead a Bible study at church on the Feasts of the LORD in the New Testament. As I prepared for the Bible study, I approached it with an open mind, seeking just to find the facts and draw conclusions only based on facts. As such, I present in this post what I found and my conclusions on what I found.

First, let me begin by indicate the scope and limitations of this post and Bible study. It is meant to be a mere overview of the feast days in the Bible, particularly as they are mentioned in the New Testament Scriptures. My study does not cover all possible mentions of the feats. Further I present the feasts in the order that they appear in the Jewish calendar.

1. Passover/Pesach and Unleavened Bread
From my study, Passover and Unleavened Bread observance are the only feasts commanded in the New Testament for Christians. Jesus first commanded it, that the Passover feast should commemorate his sacrifice (Luke 22:19). Then Paul, speaking to Gentiles in Corinth, declare that they must keep the feast, not in the old Jewish way, but with the new meaning infused into the feast by Jesus (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

Finally it is clear that what apostle Paul refers to as the Lord's Supper is different from what we call communion and celebrate today. The Lord supper according to Paul was an activity that involved more eating than just bread and more drinking than just a small cup or sip of wine (or grape juice). So abundant was the feasting at the Lord's supper that some people were drunk, while others came expecting to have food and were hungry (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

Finally in Acts 20:6, we see that Luke (a Gentile) also use

2. Pentecost/Shavout
Unlike Passover, there is no explicit command for the keeping of Pentecost. Despite that, the apostles were obviously together on that day (Acts 2:1). Paul made special arrangements to keep this feast in Jerusalem, despite other Gentile Christians wanting him to minister to them (Acts 18:18-21;20:16).

However, I would be hard pressed to state that Christians are commanded to observe the festival.


3. Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah
Unlike the previous festivals, Feast of Trumpets is not explicitly mentioned. In fact, the feast is only referred to in the New Testament implicitly through symbolism. Perhaps the best way to identify symbolic references to this feast is to browse the New Testament scriptures for allusions or references to the blowing of a trumpet or trumpets (See Matthew 24:31; Revelations 11:15-19; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:51-52).


4. The day of Atonement/Yom Kippur
This feast is the only one that I consider not a "feast" as it is actually a fast. In Acts 27:9, the feast may be alluded to as "the Fast". The symbolism of this feast is mentioned through Hebrews Chapters 9 and 10 (Hebrews 9:6-14,24-28; Hebrews 10:1-3,11-13).

5. Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Sukkot
Like the fellow fall festivals, Feast of Tabernacles is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, except for the references to the observance of these Festivals and events in the life of Jesus. Jesus goes up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast, even though he was risking his life in doing so (John 7:1-14). On the Last Great Day of the feast, Jesus announces the promise for living water for those who are thirsty (John 7:37-39). The symbolism of this feast is also alluded to in Revelations 21:1-6, where God comes from heaven to dwell with human beings and establishes a living stream that quenches the thirst of all the inhabitants living in God's earthly residence.

Concluding points
From these findings, I conclude that

1. The festivals/feast days were as much a part of the Jewish calendar as they were of the Gentile Christian calendar. Gentiles like Luke use the calendar to mark times and significant events in his account and retelling of the history of the early church and the biography of church leaders and apostles such as Paul.
2. One feast observance is explicitly commanded, both by Jesus and apparently even by Paul. This one feast explicitly commanded for Christian observance is not tied to the ceremonial laws nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). Passover and Unleavened (Exodus 12) comes before the Sabbath in Exodus 16 and the giving of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20. The very first Passover was kept before a tabernacle or temple was instituted. 
3. There is no evidence that Jesus commanded the discontinuation of the observance of these festivals or feasts. Rather, the feasts continue to be alluded to throughout the New Testament Scriptures.

I will hopefully in my next blog post thoroughly analyse why Christians should keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened bread.

Pentecost reflection: Issues about unity and disunity

I wrote the following sometime ago. Nevertheless, I read it today and still think it is relevant, especially as today is being celebrated as Pentecost by the Jews.

It is the season of Pentecost, and as such I pause to reflect and celebrate in my spirit and my mind the coming of the Holy Spirit to the early church. Rather than joy though I feel sadness for the state of churches today and even my own state of being on the fringes or sidelines.

A friend once asked me a question:



Question: What factors should decide what church you go to? Should it be that they have assembly on Sabbath or does the other beliefs they have matter as well?

My Answer:
For me, no church body is perfect. It matters not which fellowship I attend (as long as they hold Jesus as Messiah to be the core of the gospel). My beliefs will not be changed by the congregation that I attend, unless G-d convicts me otherwise.

I am basically a loner now when it comes to spiritual matters. My religious faith is patchwork. A piece of this group, plus a piece of another group.

I have no zeal for any church organisation now. I am weary of "organised" religious groups. I just want fellowship and outreach mission work with a fellowship.

I still go to church because it is commanded and despite the fact that these church organisations are not perfect, G-d still have to use them as his sole agent for preserving the elements of truth. Plus, I can always learn from the reading or hearing of the scriptures. You never know what scripture shall be read at any church setting. Scripture reading is the only thing that preserves truth.

Question: My friend then asked: God commands "sacred assembly"; what sort of assembly would count as not "sacred" for Sabbath? What decides that?

Answer: To which I replied, Sacred assembly does not mean church as we know it today. It is a gathering of people to hear the word of G-d so that they can learn G-d's purpose for them and be able to do and fulfill his will.

I know where I differ from many Sabbatarian groups and other non-Sabbatarian Christian groups. I am a Protestant, to say the least, waiting for the continuity of the reformation, knowing that truth and the reformation is progressive and does not stop. So there is no package of truth that is it, and nothing more. As long as the move is back to the biblical and religious heritage of the entire Bible.

Part of my difficulty in sharing my beliefs is the fact that my doctrines are not set in stone. I am open to hearing alternative perspectives and considering it, if a clear Bible logic is seen. There are many areas of uncertainty in my own faith.

For instance, I know I am suspicious of Trinity, but I am not convinced about Oneness, and still not certain about a Binity. The stuff I'm not sure of, I don't even speak about them much.

I am growing, and tomorrow, I may find that what I believe is false, and I'd just move on. So I am not going to say that I have the truth and that others need to see what I see. Most Sabbath groups are like that.

I believe that people must walk according to the conviction that they have.

For me, Amstrong groups like United Church of God (UCG) have a wrong outlook on current prophetic events, coming from the error that Britain and America are part of Israel. To me, that is error that is not yet corrected. It is based on speculation. I would rather believe the conspiracy theorists about the global financial bankers that influencing the world politically; I can't preach Amstrong's prophetic understanding.

Yet a prophetic gift/spirit is the mark of the last day remnant, and without preaching prophecy, you are only preaching part of the Bible. However even the use of the term remnant is questionable, as it may pertain to Jews who believe in Jesus/Yeshua/Yahshuah and not to Christians.

For SDAs with Ellen G. White, her beliefs came at a time when Israel did not even exist as a state. Thus she too made an error in substituting the Church for Israel. So SDA's prophetic outlook is also dubious.

I believe that to be the true remnant of G-d, you got to have correct understanding of prophetic events and history. The Jews were good at keeping their genealogy. So must we as redeemed Gentiles, ensure that we know the roots of our faith and can use the scriptures as a compass to show us where the world is headed.

They (the Jews) understand their roots. Genealogy for me means the study of one's ancestors. Jews know where they are coming from. They know their history. Genealogy was so important, that in the Bible, it is recorded. Which shows me that we as the redeemed Gentiles must also be able to trace our historical roots - the roots of Christianity. For Christianity, was not originally intended to be a separate religion from Judaism. Gentile Christians are to be grafted into the Jewish olive tree (Read Romans 11 for more on this subject). We are to become one (Jew and Gentile) (Galations 3:28).

When Jesus said other sheep I have (John 10:16), he was talking to Jews. He wanted to extend the access to G-d and the purpose of G-d to people outside of the circumcision. G-d told Abraham through his seed - JESUS - the entire world would be blessed (Genesis 12:3).

Making the church or "sanctuary" family-friendly Part 2

In my previous post, I have highlighted a problematic situation that I see in some churches. So now, let me not just stop there, but offer a creative solution. To do this, I tell an alternative story:

Jane approaches church with her 3 children. The usher asks: "do you need help? We have a program where our teens and young adults assist parents with their children during services".

Jane declines the offer, and the usher replies "Let us know if you change your mind, and I will alert someone to come to your aid."

Jane enters the main hall (or pews) and members smile at her and the children, even waving. As she sits a teenage girl comes up to her and whispers: "Can I sit with you in case you need someone to watch the baby or take one of your children to the restroom?"

Jane smiles and says "Thanks. That's very thoughtful of you."

The 2 year old after half an hour, begins to protest that she is hungry. The teen asks "Is it okay for me to take her to our snack bar?" Jane hesitates, then replies: "Okay, what do you have there?"

The teen replies "we don't give sweets, only healthy snacks like fruit, nuts, yogurt, vegetables. If your child has a nut allergy, we can just stick to fruits and veggies. We have things there like baby carrots, grapes, sliced apples and raisins."

"Sure, go ahead" says Jane. The 2 year old however does not want to leave without her mom. The teenage girl in assessing the situation says "That's okay. I will get the snack and take it back to you. Do you want a baby carrot?"  The 2 year old nods, and the teen goes off and returns with 2 carrots.

Within 2 minutes, the 5 year old requests to use the rest room. The teen offers to watch the months old baby, while Jane goes off to the rest room with both her children. When Jane returns, the sermon is about to begin. The pastor's booming voice startles the baby who begins to cry. The pastor recognises this and pauses his sermon to say: "I am sorry little baby. Did I scare you?" He then addresses the congregation "we pastors sometime forget that when we are preaching, our voices terribly disrupts the silence and startles babies".

Pastor continues the sermon, while Jane hushes the baby and eventually breastfeeds the baby with a shawl covering baby and mom's bosom. People around smile and no one stares or even dares to say: "You can't breastfeed in here. Go use the mother's room!"

Making the church or "sanctuary" family-friendly Part 1

This post is not to implicate any particular church or denomination. Nevertheless, based on experiences, I want to take to this blog to indicate a problem that I recognise in churches (especially Sabbatarian congregations) where young families can feel some what out of place in church "worship services".

I must begin, that I've always considered the church a family friendly place, having great memories of the church that my parents raised me in. It is only since I have left home and my home church and ventured else  where with a young family of my own, that I have realised that not all churches are young family friendly. At least the way that my Caribbean and North American church institutionalised cultures practice church. To illustrate, let me give you a fictional story based on lived experience.

Jane, a single mom, takes her 3 young children to church. One's 5, the other 2 and the other months old. On entry, the usher or greeter, points out "We have a mother;s room, down the hall on your right." Jane politely says thanks, but in her mind she thinks:

Why have I come so far from home, travelled to church via bus, spent bus fare to sit detained in a room just to watch the service from a TV screen? I could stay home and do that!

She goes into the main hall. After half an hour, her 2 year old starts to complain about hunger. The 5 year old at the same time wants to use the rest room. So Jane takes all three to the restroom where she supervises the 5 year old and insists that her 2 year old keeps quiet about being hungry as she played around the breakfast table and did not eat all her breakfast. Jane thinks to herself:

The service is short. It will perhaps be over in another hour. I can put up with this for 1 more hour. Plus, I definitely want to hear what God has to say to me.

She returns to the service and fortunately retains her seat. It is one of those days when church is not so crowded and well attended. As she sits, her 2 year old throws a tantrum, resisting mommy's command to wait until after service for a snack. The 5 year old, who previously passed the mother's room and say kids his age playing with cool toys, asks his mom if he can go play in the room.

Jane thinks to herself:

What's the point of bringing my children to church, if they are just going to sit in a room full of toys and not see by example how they ought to behave in church.

The person sitting beside her leans over to say "We have a mother's room, you know!" Another sitting behind her leans forward and says "Shh, I can't hear what's going on!"

The sermon begins and the pastor begins with a loud proclamation: "God is good!" At this the months old baby awakens, startled by the booming voice. Then the baby begins to cry. Frustrated, Jane takes her bundles and children and leaves the church altogether, crying baby, hungry 2 year old and disappointed 5 year old.

And this is just one of many stories. I haven't even told you about the Far-U-See that criticises when mom places a sweet into s hungry child's mouth to keep them quiet. Instead, the Far-U-See says "You are not supposed to eat in the sanctuary!"

So the place which ought to be a dwelling place for God's people, where it is Okay to eat communion bread and grape juice (if not wine), is not the place for food to be consumed by hungry children, even if it is just a grape sweet?

Then there is the Sad-U-See, who can't seem to concentrate if a baby is happily screaming or laughing during the church service. The joy and energy in the room are so distracting, that the Sad-U-See has to lean over to say "Why don't you use the mother's room?" Of course this is a rhetorical question. Further, when I go to the library, I see the sign about what is permitted and not permitted in the library space. I obviously did not see sign that says "No laughing, running or playing by children in the sanctuary!" I will look for it the next time I go.

Last time I checked, the Holy temple in Jerusalem was desecrated. I also thought that Christian theology taught that the new holiness is not in buildings but human bodies. I also thought that the church is not a building, but a community. It is the people or community who are holy and dedicated to worship. I further thought that we only need a room or space to gather at a particular time in order to"not forsake the assembly of the brethren" (Hebrews 10:25).

The same problem persisted in the beginning days when the church was yet to be organised. Jesus who had open door services had to contend with his disciples not wanting noisy children and their nursing mothers (who would be ritually clean, not having their period) around when Jesus was teaching (Matthew 19:13). They must have said: "the noisy bunch will distract us from the teachings and message".  Yet contrast Jesus' teaching that states:

"And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me" (Matthew 18:5; New Living Translation (©2007))

In my next follow-up post, part of the proposed solution!

A look at women ordination and roles in the church: Part I

So my place of fellowship is having a Bible study on women ordination. So far, I have been listening to the debates, especially to hear the point of view that promotes women ordination as pastoral leaders. I want to hear Biblical arguments and not just feminist arguments that have originated out of secular cultural movements. Hopefully, I will get those soon, yet within the mean time, I want to share my own understanding so far, based on past revelation.

I must begin that by being a father of all girls, I have become more interested in justice issues for females. Especially considering that as a father I cannot protect my girls from engaging with the wider society and perhaps encountering the gross acts that men take to satisfy their sexual lusts and cravings. Right now, my girls are all young and do not leave the house unaccompanied. However, in the future, I can't guarantee that I can lock them up forever and only let them exit with parental accompaniment. As such, I want to see laws put in place to protect them from abuse (especially perpetrated by males).

At the same time, my spiritual views do not see the need for the feminist movement within Christianity to go beyond articulating the personhood of females and the prevention of women abuse. I hold traditional views on patriarchal hierarchy because the Holy Scriptures endorse hierarchy, rather than sees it as an evil to be presently eliminated. The New Testament reveals this the most in the relationship between Jesus and God the Father, which could be liken to man and woman in the church. (Ephesians 5: 21-33).

Philippians 2:6 states that Jesus in his nature, being God: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" (NIV). Rather, despite their equality, Jesus ,  "gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being... [or appearing] in human form," (Philippians 2:7; New Living Translation).  From this perspective, Jesus, despite having equal rights and privileges as God the Father, chose to deny himself those rights and privileges, in order to work with God the Father and accomplish the larger picture and plan for humanity, which required great humiliation.

It is the same Christian duty that Jesus requires of us. Women though being equal to men, are asked to endure or even put up with men's often impoverished and poor leadership (especially wives), in order to please God. Let me just raise some of the scriptures that illustrate this point:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3; New International Version, 2011) )

Also women be they subject to their husbands; that if any man believe not to the word, by the conversation of women they be won without word. (1 Peter 3:1; Wycliffe Bible)

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22; New International Version, 2011)

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18 ; New International Version, 2011)

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12; New International Version, 2011)

Based on the above Bible verses, it seems as if women are asked by Christ to walk with him in humility and take a place less than they deserve in order to fulfil God's purpose and design for them and for the larger humanity. Again, I must emphasize that male-dominated leadership in a sinful world has often been abused and that women suffer dreadfully under such abuse as victims, as mothers of victims and even the disappointed mothers of the perpetrators of abuse. Christ in his treatment of women in the New Testament demonstrates a break with men's abuse of power:

• he teaches that men must look at women with dignity and not with an imagination desirous of fulfilling sexual cravings (Matthew 5:28); 
• he shows that we must not view a woman's one time sin of adultery as being greater than any other sin (John 8:1-11; New International Version)
• males must treat even prostitutes with dignity
• males must not criticise women's efforts to show and express their appreciation to God in worship in ways different from us (Matthew 26:7-13)

There are countless other teachings that I can't go into detail now, but look out for part 2 of my post on this subject. (I've typed it already; just to tidy it up and publish it).

Questioning 'Christian' rites & ceremonies

As I reflect on what I consider imminent marginalisation of those with conservative Christian worldviews, I stumbled across this article reporting on how atheists and secularists are establishing or institutionalizing "church" (Hallowell, 2012). The title of the article is very catching: "A godless congregation’: British comedians launch atheist church to provide secular weddings, funerals & ‘worship’ services". Comedian Sanderson Jones in commenting about the rationale behind this initiative states:

"We thought it would be a shame not to enjoy the good stuff about religion, like the sense of community, just because of a theological disagreement"  (Hallowell, 2012).

This article lead me back to consider what are the things that Christians do, believe and practice today that are really Biblical. In fact the same rites of weddings, funerals and community gathering services are not exclusively Christian. In reality, the world turning against Evangelical Christianity is pushing Christianity back to its pure roots and foundation. What business does Christianity have in conducting marriage ceremonies or even funeral rites? Aren't such rites actually state or secular functions? Where in the Bible has Jesus ever married any couple? While he was present at a wedding in Cana and blessed the union with a miracle, he never officiated the function (see the whole story in John 2). Neither did Jesus perform any funeral rite. He was absent from funerals, markedly his friend Lazarus' (see the whole story in John 11), and even cancelled his own funeral rites by dying close to a Sabbath and rising before his followers could embalm him (See the story of the resurrection as well as the Wikipedia entry summarizing the four gospel accounts).

When we look at the early apostles and the early church, there is also no evidence that 1st century Christianity officiated weddings or funeral rites. All these came much later, when the persecuted Church became the state endorsed church of Constantine. As such, I am contemplating that the only authentic Christian rites are baptism and communion (Lord Supper). Hence, when the state decides who must marry who, is it really the business of Christians to oppose legally? Even if we do oppose on moral grounds, are we to legally fight against the passage of state laws about how marriage institutions should operate? Are pastors to even conduct marriage ceremonies or aren't these to actually be done by the state? To me certain questions have arisen about how much the church has taken on state functions and rites, which is why the faith is in so much trouble today. As the post-modern state returns to its pre-Christian state, church as we know it today will indeed need to be purified and drop all the trappings that have been added by Constantine. Only then can we go on and be the church and do what Christ really wants us to do.

References:


Hallowell, Billy. (2012, December 21). A godless congregation’: British comedians launch atheist church to provide secular weddings, funerals & ‘worship’ services. The Blaze.com. Retrieved from

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-godless-congregation-british-comedians-launch-atheist-church-to-provide-secular-weddings-funerals-worship-services/

Questions about paying pastors monetary wages

I am reading through the book of Luke with the university student Adventist group on campus. Their closed Facebook page allow us to share our thoughts on what we have been reading. Being the critical and analytic person that I am by nature, some interestingly critical questions arise regarding the church traditions today in comparison to what I read in Luke.

On reading Luke 20, Jesus uses the imprint on the coin to tell the people to render to the Roman emperor what belongs to the Roman emperor. I then wondered if the people gave Roman coins to the temple or if they had their special temple coins. I know that some pastor taught me in the past that money temple changers existed and developed a business on exchanging currency to the temple currency, which gave rise to the situation where Jesus had to chase them out and rebuke them for turning God's temple into a den of thieves (See story in Luke 19:45-46).

I also noted that God did not require monetary offerings, but only animal and grain offerings which would also serve as the wages for the priests as recorded in whole book of Leviticus.


This got me wondering if the church today has totally rejected Biblical principles in its funding. Shouldn't we be bringing food offerings meet our pastors grocery and dietary needs? And shouldn't we also bring clothing offerings to meet the clothing needs of our pastors? I can understand the paying of offerings to take care of building and utilities, but tithe going to conferences to pay wages for pastors? Isn't is like using Caesar's money to pay God's officers? Just asking.

My views on Churchianity

Over the past month I have listened to some discussion as well as contributed my own views to the discussion. I have heard a discussion where believers were opposed to the idea of a small group ministry substituting 'traditional church'. I have also heard persons talking about traditional church services and attending these services as being very important as if these were the highest pinnacles of God's command. Participating and listening to these discussions grieve my spirit, as I know that what Christianity in the West is today, is inherited man-made traditions from which we need to break away and experience reformation.

I believe that the Christians in the West in general, and Jamaican Christians in particular, have a view of church that is different from that in the Bible. Our focus is so much on the building and programs (the so-called ministries), that we lose sight of the fact that the church is really the community of believers and that the early believers did not have a building for themselves from which they attended and conducted services.

Believers in the early church age went to the synagogues (clearly evident in the Acts of the Apostles) and gathered outside of the synagogues in houses and borrowed rooms or court yards/other land spaces to conduct their services and activities. There were more street meetings and house meetings than being within the four walls of a building called 'church' in the early church age. These services had no standardised rituals and liturgy has we have today. The believers did not go to a building at a set time each week to perform or carry out rituals. 'Christian' ceremonies today are man-made and not God-ordained, except for communion (which is another story) and baptism. Baby blessings, infant dedication, christening, funeral and wedding rites are all just cultural imports and adaptations of Jewish rites and traditions.

We must remember that Jesus warns that our traditions can come in the way of the commandments of God and in the way of true worship (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7). He states that true worshippers need not a place to worship God (John 4:23). We do a disservice to God, by erecting our own worship traditions and then insisting that these are how people must worship and to use these standards to judge others by. May I also remind you that Jesus went to the synagogues as a 'custom', but did his ministry both within the synagogue as well as outside and every day of the week. He needed not a set day to minister to the people, teach the people or heal them. But everyday to him was a day to do ministerial work. Jesus met the people where they were, and so the did the apostles, going into their market places, workplaces and their homes.

Conversation on the Judeo-Christian Feasts

I had another discussion on the Judeo-Christian feast days with a colleague of mind. I made the point that the churches need to engage in more discussion of the santuary and the feast days and the symbollism thereof. One can not understand New Testament or Biblical prophecies without understanding these and the rest of the Old Testament.

I also made the point that I do not hear much of this discussion in churches back in Jamaica, except for the Amstrong groups and the Messianic Jewish congregations.

My colleague then responded that the topic has come up directly or indirectly in almost all of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) lessons over the past couple of years. I replied that it may have been raised a few times, but not much and not in detailed seminars.

I also went on to share of the need for Christians to celebrate at least one communion similiar to how the modern Jewish Passover is observed.


My friend in curiosity requested more details about how such a communion would be celebrated.

This gave me the opportunity to share that the communion in the New Testament is with a meal - a real supper, with table spread with some of the Jewish passover symbols. Here is a transcript of some of the dialgoue that ensued:


My friend: Sounds nice but I am not sure why one would want to do that. The first communion was held on Passover but they commemorate different events. That is why the symbols are not all the same and do not bear the same significance.

Me: But Jesus Lord's Supper did have a meal. And Apostle Paul did mention it, rebuking those who came and greedily ate the supper. Supper also implies having the meal at night. Churches have it in the day. So we are out of step with the symbollism.

My colleague: I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the time of night is symbolic. I would say we should be able to have it at any time of day. We probably need to ask ourselves what the purpose of the communion is and then what is the purpose of each thing that we do in achieving that purpose. It would be good to have a fellowship meal during the communion service but is not having such a meal taking away from the symbolism?


Me: Well communion implies fellowship and eating together. So it just seems a natural fit to have a meal and not just break bread and have a little sip of grape juice. In fact Paul said some persons got drunk at the Lord Supper, which implies that they had a lot to drink, and that it was not a littl sip of grape juice.


My colleague: I agree with you on both counts but I keep going back to the symbolism. What has been lost? If we have only lost gluttony and drunkenness then the change was a good one.

Me: Well...we can only know what was lost if we recreate the original symbollism or least close to it (without the sacrificing of a real lamb, which would be unlawful now). After all, the church is being restored to its original doctrines lost over centuries. Yet Reformation is only a gradual process.

My colleague: You mean a little over a century and a half? (assuming you are speaking about the SDA church) It is not always good to return to original doctrines. If people always did that then reformation would be of no effect. A mature religion/church is one that is not afraid to admit that not everything we believed in the past was right and that we might not yet know everything that we are supposed to know.

Me: No. I mean the church of the apostles and their traditions. Before Anti-semitism separated the Jewish Christians from the Gentile Christians. Agree with this though: "A mature religion/church is one that is not afraid to admit that not everything we believed in the past was right and that we might not yet know everything that we are supposed to know." As the Spirit leads us, which is gradually into "ALL truth".

My colleague: Amen...and so we continue searching for (the fullness of) truth... me gone.

(Published November 24, 2011; Revised November 26, 2011)

Faith, Story-telling and Folk proverbs

When I go to church there is story-telling: Biblical and personal story-telling. I like the idea of going to church on Saturdays or Sundays to hear stories. Stories help to give me inspiration and the mindset and mechanisms with which to cope with and adjust to my world with all its chaos, disorder, oppression and injustice.

I like seeing the Bible as a collection of stories from the past as well as stories about the future. As a collection of stories from the past it details the lives, struggles and challenges of real people in different times, with different resources and opportunities available to them but with struggles and challenges that are common to all human beings. I love to use their own histories and stories for interpretations of the challenges and struggles in my own life.

I love to use the scriptures as a looking glass and viewing lens through which to observe my present reality and get new perspective. I love to use the scriptures to interpret what's happening around me. I do not believe figuratively in the Bible, but I genuinely believe that people experienced G-d and miracles in the way that is reported. Thus the scriptures and the stories in them give me comfort in that there is order in the chaos and that things are not out of control, but that G-d is in control and directing all events to the final destination and end of history.

On March 27, 2011, I recorded a saying, a Jamaican proverb from the preacher at Mona Baptist Church at the 7AM service. The preacher, who happened to be Courtney Stewart, stated "when trouble tek yuh, pickney shut fit yuh" (Translation: 'when you are in trouble, a child's clothing will fit'). There is wisdom in this proverb for the agnostic and even for the atheist. In my interpretation of the proverb, when calamities strike, what may be considered foolish or childish may become your only hope. The same Bible and G-d that people may consider to be a figment of humanity's imagination may become the only source of comfort, encouragement and hope in a difficult time.

On another matter, I am just awakening to the fact that folklore interacts with religious faiths, even in the church. Preachers in order to bring across their message to their audience sometimes draw on proverbial sayings that they know their audience understands and perhaps also agree or even believe in. These proverbs perhaps serve as a codifying system for storing collective wisdom in a nugget for people to organise, classify, assimilate and even retrieve for practical application.

Sex scandals and Christianity

Never have I heard of a religion that has been so tainted by sexual scandal as Christianity.
I have not heard any sexual scandals reported of Islamic or Jewish spiritual leaders as I have heard of Christianity.

When Christianity fails, it fails publicly and miserably. When Christianity fails to live up to the chastity ideals and then seeks to cover up those failures, the media scourges the faith and have reason to broadcast our failure publicly. Thus any Christian spiritual leader who gets entangled in sexual temptations and sins, will disgrace the religion and give it poor publicity that will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many unbelievers.

When one Christian leader fails, the entire religion is tainted with corruption. We have priests, pastors and spiritual leaders that have molested or sexually abused children, committed fornications/adulteries and even divorced. Our religion preaches about family and its importance, are against abortion and for marriage, yet many of our spiritual leaders fail to live up to these values.

These things pain my heart and my soul, and always make me feel embarrassed to be named a Christian. The people of my faith have disappointed me many times. If it were not for my belief in the Bible and the things written therein, and my proving G-d through it for myself, then I would not be a believer in Christ Jesus. I perhaps would have been Rastafarian, Jewish or Muslim, or perhaps a Garveyite.


These have only been averted because JESUS, blessed be his name, warned me through his gospels that in his movement in the latter days, there will be “wheat” and “tares”. With many parables JESUS foretold that there will be those in his movement who are acceptable unto his Father and himself, yet there will be those that though they are in the movement, they do not belong and are alien to his ideals.

G-d has let me know that there will be agents sent into the movement by the wicked one, to destroy the movement from within. There will be persons given prominent places in the movement that will fall – who are the agents of the wicked one, sent to make Christianity look evil and to prevent us from recruiting unbelievers.

The parable of the mustard plant that became a tree

Let me give you the background to what I am about to share.

I attended Pentecost services at Church of God International who observes the Feast on the Sunday, May 31 the day after the seventh-day Sabbath, instead of the Jewish community that observed the feast on Thursday eve to Friday eve of May 28-May 29.

However, I learnt something that challenged my perspective that I want to share. Before I do so, as usual, I want to give you the details of the location and the context of how I came into the understanding that I did.

1. the parable of mention spoken of in Matthew 13:31-32 (King James Version)


2. The event details


3. the message and lesson learnt

Matthew 13:31-32 (King James Version):

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Fellowship: Church of God International
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009 (Pentecost)
Location/Venue: Sagicor Auditorium, 28-48 Barbados Avenue, Kingston 5
Messenger: Pastor George Ramocan
Time: Evening service
URL: http://www.cgi.org/site/churches/jamaica/cgija.php


The sermon of Pastor Ramocan spoke on the parable of the Mustard seed. He challenged the congregation that much of what we learnt about the parable from the churches that we were from was incorrect. He stated that the mustard seed does not grow into a tree. It is a herb bearing seed. He defined a tree as a plant with hard bark that wood. A herb is one with a softer bark that does not produce wood.

Thus in the parable, when Jesus stated that the mustard seed grew into a tree, it deviated from its nature.

I was shocked and said he was incorrect. For some time ago before his sermon, I did a Web Image search for mustard and saw trees. (My librarianship training failed me this time, as I believed the images posted on the Web, not realizing that someone had put it there to illustrate Jesus parable.)

Pastor Ramocan went on to state that "the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" represents evil spirits.


He then went on to suggest that the parable indicates that the Christian Church at the end of the age will deviate from the pure movement that Jesus Christ started, and become inhabited by Satan and his demons. I was shocked!

When I came home that night, I drew for my Bible to look up "mustard".

I checked The Smith's Bible Dictionary that stated that the mustard is a plant and does not grow into a tree. The parable of mention is a "proverbial simile" with no literal accuracy. The mustard plant according to the same entry is too small for birds to make nests unless they are very small birds, such as linnets and finches. Birds may settle on it for its seeds which they are fond of. The plant could perhaps grow as tall as a horse and its rider. The entry also indicated that there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed.

Then I remembered that mustard is that which is placed on hot dogs.


As I wrote this, I also checked my English Language dictionary. Just for a second source. I consulted the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary which also confirmed that the mustard is a plant.

As such, I realised that Pastor Ramocan was correct.

I also remembered that what William Schnoebelen wrote in a book that I finished reading the other day, Masonry: Beyond the Light, that Lucifer is waiting for the World to reach a place where he can come and settle on earth amongst the citizens of the world. Schnoebelen also in revealing his perspective on the pyramid and the all seeing eye that adorns the US dollar indicates that the all seeing eye represents Satan and his demons hovering over human hierarchy and authority. Schnoebelen also presented in his book the idea that the Devil has established many secret societies where he have many of the world leaders making oaths and promises that basically enslave them to be willing servants of his will. Masonry and other secret societies with oaths and rituals according to Schnoebelen are basically worshipping Lucifer and giving him authority over these leaders in order for them to be possessed by demons and be controlled by these demons. Consequently this will lead them to be under the rule of Satan or Lucifer.

It all makes sense now, doesn't it?


Works Cited:

Schnoebelen, William J. Masonry: Beyond the Light. Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1991.

Smith, William George, F. N. Peloubet, and M. A. T. Peloubet. Smith's Bible Dictionary. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Soanes, Catherine, Sara Hawker, Julia Elliott, F. G. Fowler, and H. W. Fowler. Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

The dilemma of being unaffiliated

I read the following article, and it came at a time when I am spiritually hurting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/02blow.html?em

The need for truth in me and my need to be a part of a spiritual organization that has that same desire for truth and to be liberated from man's dogma and move into what G-d wants for them is unfulfilled.

All denominations that I know and have been in lack my specific beliefs. My wife has basically given up the search with me and has settled for what she is already used to. With that, she has thrown away all the truths that we have discovered. They are encumbering and prevents one from being at ease in contemporary Christian community.

Today I went to witness in Half-Way-Tree (HWT) and felt that my efforts were in vain. I was convicted that the person doing evangelism must be sent by an organization or a formal body, or G-d himself.

Secondly, I realise that one must be anointed to get people to follow what ever you teach, preach or say. All the truths known require a spirit behind you that will resonate well with your hearers.

On top of that, at Andrews SDA, G-d pointed out to me 1 Samuel 3:7. In essence, G-d showed me that many were like Samuel, ministering before the L-RD, doing ministry, yet failing to know him, for whom they ministered.