Profound Quote From Dan Matthews

 "It is not the spirit of wealth, of learning, or of culture that can make the church of value, or a power for good in the world, but the spirit of Christ only. It is not in fidelity to the past but in fidelity to the present that the church can be Christian. It is not the opinion of man, but the eternal truths of God that can make it a sacred, holy thing. It is holy to the degree that God is in it. God is as truly in the fields of grain, in the forests, in the mines, and in those laws of Nature by which men convert the product of field and forest and mine into the the necessities of life. Therefore these are as truly holy as this institution. Therefore, again, the ministry of farm, and mine, and factory, and shop; of mill, and railroad, and store, and office, and wherever men toil with strength of body or strength of mind for that which makes for the best life of their kind--that ministry is sacred and holy. Because I believe these things I am, from this hour, no longer a professional preacher, hired by and working under the direction of any denomination or church leaders. This closes my ministry as you understand it. It by no means closes my ministry as I have come to understand it." -Dan Matthews' parting words to that horrible church in Corinth. From "The Calling of Dan Matthews" 

What Does it Mean to be Human?

 Ai, or artificial intelligence, is becoming a thing lately. I remember hearing last year talk that blue-collar jobs like flipping cheeseburgers or driving trucks will soon be all done by robots. Yet, it now appears that white-collar jobs like writing are in more danger. I could have prepared this message by telling an ai bot that I want this subject matter to be written about from a Biblical perspective, and then presto, it would be done. Yet, it wouldn't have been me, with my quirks, mistakes, philosophy, and otherwise unique or weird take on the matter. However, from a secular perspective, what are humans for if AI can do all the work perfectly? That's what I want to address in this message.  

Secondly, what do we have now? 493 genders? Blasphemy. We also have the idea running around that you can pick a gender. It's what you feel that determines your gender. You can transition to it. Heresy. I also want to address that by examining how the two actual genders complement each other and represent God within the headship he created. 

Creation (Genesis 1-2)

God decided to create. He made the earth and heaven. The world was "without form and void"; it's somewhat implied that it could not be felt; darkness was here. Then God made light. Darkness was a pre-existing condition, but God created light. Light can be seen, and you can feel its warmth, but you cannot handle it. It has no "body." Nothing had a "body." Water was here, and that was the closest thing to something with substance. 

Then God moved on to those things of substance. He created dry land, or perhaps it's better to say he "appeared" it simply by gathering the water into one place with a spoken word. God then created grass, plants, trees, fruit, and seeds that made more plants from themselves. Now the world has seeable things and seeable items with a body.

God went on to the next stage; he created seeable things with a body and with emotion. I hesitate to use the word "soul" because these creatures are not eternal or God-like. However, they do have an operating system and some cognitive ability to make choices. They were the living—fish in the water, birds in the air, animals on the land. The world quite literally burst into a joyous, wonderful life. These creatures were seeable like light and possessed physical bodies, like the earth, yet they had something extra, a personality, an ability to really and truly live. 

Finally, it was time to pull out all the stops. God made a creature who could be seen and touched and lived like an animal, but something more. This creature could re-arrange the things God made. He was obviously in charge of all of it. He had a deep capacity for feeling, thinking, and determining. Many animals run on auto-pilot; by instinct, we call it. Not this creature, he contemplated, analyzed, learned. He also carried the image of his Creator. He was eternal, like his Creator, he loved to create and improve things, like his Creator, and he had a spirit in him. A spirit that gave him an identity and a desire to worship something or someone. This spirit gave him the desire to work for something or someone beyond himself. Regardless of outward circumstances, all was well inside this being as long as that Spirit was filled with a desire to serve his Creator or, in our day, the Holy Spirit. This fantastic creature was a human man. Men carry an inherent tendency to accumulate, build, and expand. Compare the most remarkable creation in the animal world with what men scheme up. There's no comparison. We see God's likeness in men with how they expand and build Kingdoms. I'm not talking about governments. I'm talking about ownership, the desire to buy a house, own property, start a business, build stuff, and have people of his own in the form of his own family. God is that way, he created all good things in the world, and he wants his people.

Yet God still was not finished. He took a rib from this man to create a woman like him in many ways. She was his partner. She shared all the beautiful attributes of the man, the whole enchilada of having a body, soul, Spirit, being eternal, being able to create, desiring to serve something or someone greater than herself, etc. All the man had, she had as well, yet, as the last created being, she added one more final trait. She was and still is the only physical being in the world who can create a new eternal being. She is the only physical being who can create a new man or woman. All of us owe our existence to her and her daughters. We will exist eternally because of them. (Yes, I know that she can't do it by herself, I know how it works, but she does most of it.) Women are also much better at appreciating and preserving God's creation. It's not just physical children; women are generally able to create, cultivate, and nurture their surroundings to bring out the best. You see it in how they decorate homes, and flowerbeds, cooking recipes, etc. This extra something special, this finishing touch, is a special gift available to all women, not just the married ones. We see the image of God in women with how they create beauty in their spaces. God does that, too; look at Niagara falls, the Scottish highlands, the Rocky Mountains, lakes, and the ocean. Then, look at the details, the colors on the songbirds, the hummingbirds, a monarch butterfly, a ladybug, and remember, this is all how it looks after the fall. Imagine how beautiful things were before! We also see the image of God in how women prioritize nurturing relationships over success. It's why they are so good at discipling children. No one will help a little boy mature into the man he was created to be, as well as a mom who cares about his heart. A father will give the boy identity, which is essential, but a mom will care for him when his little world falls apart. God is that way, too; there is a reason God gave us all the ability to reject him. God is more interested in a relationship with a few who genuinely desire it than he is in all being forced to obey his will in this life. 

Headship (Ephesians 5:22-25) 

With everything that was said about creation, there had been an order put in place by God. This order is not of importance or control; it's an order of headship. 

What is headship? To head something means to go first in the challenging matters, knock the door down and blaze a trail for others to follow. The best way to define headship is to examine how Jesus lived it out and how the church responded. 

Jesus got baptized, and the Holy Spirit descended on him. The church gets baptized and also receives the Holy Spirit. Jesus faced the Devil after his baptism and won. Now, with the same Spirit received after baptism, the church can do the same. Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom and created disciples out of those he met, fishermen, tax collectors, etc. With nothing but the power of God, he single-handedly locked horns with the religious people of his day who were not following truth, scribes, and Pharisees, and prepared the way for the church to do the same, only it's more straightforward for us because he kicked the door down. He put the gospel in words. The church only needs to repeat it. When something right is culturally awkward, we can go ahead and do it anyway, for Jesus showed us how by example, Masters don't wash feet. Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Now we wash each other's feet, for he who is significant here is least in God's Kingdom and vice versa. 

Jesus died so that the church could live. He conquered death by resurrecting, and now the church can face death and know that she, too, will have a resurrection. That is the ultimate headship. Men are to do the same and die so their wives can live. Dying might not mean being crucified; it might simply mean sacrificing something you want so your wife can be at peace. 

What does the church do? The church cares for God's children. The church baptizes them, prays for the Holy Spirit to descend, and implores God for his protection over his people. A Christian cannot survive spiritually without the church. I am convinced of this. Perhaps a Christian can survive without going to church, but not without the church. Who wrote scripture? Church people. Who baptizes? Church people. Who prays to God? Church people. Who are church people? All of God's children. Could God make it possible that a Christian could survive without the church? Yes, because he is God, but that's not how he chose to do it. 

Humanity cannot physically survive without women. Why? We all have an expiration date in this physical life. Who will give up her freedom and body to create a brand new human being? Who will spend the next 18 years carefully crafting this human being into an adult? Who can do all of it? Only women. 

What makes it possible for the church and women to nurture like this? Headship. Christ provided a pathway for the church to walk on. He laid a template and gave himself up. Men acting like God will turn from chasing the world's things long enough to meet a woman's needs. It doesn't always mean that a woman gives up her job, but it does make it possible for her to do so if she is going to raise children. I'm speaking in general principles here. Can you see the stamp of God in all this? Animals can't even have relationships like this with a creator and a church family, and AI definitely can't. The whole 493 genders idea ultimately falls apart in the headship order. There is no complementary, free-flowing, mutually beneficial dynamic; everyone is running around like an intelligent animal that somehow doesn't know what it is. It almost appears like they are trying to move away from the image of God. I want to clarify that these people are to be loved and prayed for. They need to be set free. 

This whole headship relationship is why God asks us certain things regarding headship. 

1. Women should refrain from taking leadership positions in the main assembly. (1 Timothy 2:12) At first glance, this might seem unfair, but consider that teaching is dangerous business, because God will judge sternly those who teach. (James 3:1, the word translated master in KJV, means teacher, it implies the idea of someone who has the authority to teach, a church as in this context or a school.) Also, consider that in the early days of the church, a leader took his calling seriously and was often the target of persecutors. You were literally putting your neck on the line when you were a leader. So, the notion of it not being fair is not valid; what happened is in our modern times, we take the idea of leading out in church less seriously than it is. We see it as a position of novelty or esteem instead of a dangerous but necessary work that women should be protected from. 
2. According to Paul, men should have their heads uncovered, and women should have them covered when praying or prophesying. (1 Corinthians 11:4-5) This practice isn't fair to the women in our day, but it isn't God's fault. If our culture said that it was improper for anyone to pray uncovered, then we men would be tempted to wear caps all the time. Yet, if you are in a big crowd of people, and the speaker says, let us pray, what happens with all the bill-caps? They come off. So, our culture is telling us that men need to pay attention to what Paul said and women don't. Covering women and not covering men is a physical acknowledgment of a spiritual reality. You can liken it to communion or baptism. Good physical practices that mean very little if the heart is not in the right place to remember the why behind the custom. I believe the cultural problem today is primarily men's fault. If we were the same kind of heads Christ is, perhaps we wouldn't find this issue such a hot-button. So, as men, we should learn to be Christ-like heads. (I compared head-covering to baptism and communion to help make a point of it being a physical symbol pointing to spiritual reality. However, I believe communion and baptism are more important than head coverings. Saving a soul with repentance followed by baptism and communion in remembrance of Christ, who made it possible, is more important than remembering headship with an outward symbol. It is simply an outward symbol of headship that Paul encouraged believers to use to honor headship, so I try to be libertarian about the matter.) 

Investment

This subject is the last item I will discuss today. It's one more thing that makes humans different. Investing is when you devote time or resources toward a future goal. Some people invest more than others. How is the amount of investment measured? There are two different scales to measure it: the worldly way and God's way.

1. The worldly way says that more is more. If you invest $1000 per month in a mutual fund, but your neighbor only invests $200 per month because he works at a gas station and not at a bank and therefore has less extra lying around the world says, the reward for the wealthier person will be greater at the end of the day. More is more on both ends. It's the same with time. If you work two jobs and put in 16-hour days to double your income, you will get rewarded accordingly. The world says the more time you spend on a thing, the more you get back from the same. If having money is more important than your family, you can get the cash and let the family suffer or vise-versa. 
2. God's way says it's about what you are willing to do without. If all you have is 2 cents, but you decide that you can do without those 2 cents to give the money to God. Then you have given more than the millionaire who throws in a $1000 check according to God's scale. The millionaire can still use nearly a million to care for himself, but the person who gave 2 cents cannot. God has to bail her out. (Luke 21:1-4) Regarding time, God's way of measuring says that the way to prioritize time is to remember that there is a thing that takes time, that makes all other time-consuming things seem unimportant, and you should prioritize it. That thing is to spend time with him. So, making all your other activities take a backseat to time with him is a path to success with how God measures time. (Luke 10:38-42) 

So, for the sake of discussion, let's take the world's scale of measuring our investing entirely out of the picture and pretend that we will only use God's way of measuring. Doing that informs us that we only need to know three basic things. 1. How much should we keep of the money we earn? 2. How do we give him the rest? 3. How much time can we handle spending with him?   

Question one. A few people were called to leave all things to follow Jesus; that was the 12 disciples. They didn't have to sell it; they just left it behind to hit the road. An even fewer group of people was called to sell all to follow Jesus; that was the rich young ruler. The rest are called to see the things they hold as God's and use them for him. That was the rest of the people who followed Jesus, like Lazarus, Mary, Martha, and the man who was delivered from the legion of demons. He wanted to leave it all but was told he was called to steward, basically, "go back to your home and tell others what God has done." Most of us probably fit in that third group. If that is the case, we need a number to live on. We should ask God to tell us how much we should spend monthly and how much we should save monthly. Then we invest the rest in God's Kingdom. We must remember this number is JUST FOR YOU. It would be in the New Testament if it were the same for everyone. If we make a church-wide standard of living, I believe we have corrupted our religion by speaking where God has not. I have a number, but I won't say it publicly. I'll tell you privately if I feel like you won't feel any obligation to copy me. 

Question two. How do we give the money to God? When we give it to God, we should remember that whoever we think is the best investor we know, God made him/her and therefore is even better at investing than that person. Jesus claimed that investing with God is the surest, safest investment possible. (Matthew 6:19-20) There are also different levels of rewards based on your work. (Matthew 16:27) Good work requires time and money; therefore, that's how you invest in the Kingdom. If you search the word "reward" in the New Testament, you will find many verses that say this or that good work give you a great reward.

What do all the good works have in common? They pertain to how you relate to other people. Jesus ties it all together by saying, "Come receive your inheritance, for you did this for me when you did it for the least of these..." (Matthew 25:34-40) How you specifically care for the "least of these" will vary significantly based on your calling. My calling is at least partially to write things like this message, share it with people, and financially support those in need. How do I know? I don't know for sure, but it's something I seem to have been equipped for, and I enjoy it. Others might feel the same about business. In that case, they should probably create jobs for the "least of these." A solid, stable job offered by a disciple of Christ is a tremendous blessing for a poor person struggling to get ahead. Others might be called to almost exclusively give their time for the least of these. In this case, they should do so, knowing that God will move those of us who have jobs and are obedient to give to them so they can do it.  

Question three. How do we spend time with God? There are two ways that we should consider. Solitude in prayer, reading the Bible, and also listening to him. I don't think we should do all the talking when we pray. In the great meeting of the leaders about how many Jewish things Gentile Christians should do, there was a consensus that it seemed "good to the Holy Spirit" (Acts 15:28-29). On that occasion, it would appear that some serious "listening" was being done by those who prayed before and during the meeting. The second way comes back to the whole idea of how if we do it for the least of these, we do it for him. So, when you spend time with others in a way designed to be positive for them, you do it with God. It might mean spending time taking a young boy bluegill fishing when you would rather spend the afternoon with a guide trying to catch a striper, or in my case, "driving my computer" with my steering wheel and pedals set. This idea of unselfishly giving time to others includes our family, by the way.

With the idea of rewards in eternity, perhaps we should ask ourselves: How much time can I afford to leave for my selfish desires? For me, it's still a lot of time. Like in money, I don't want to give you a number you must adhere to for your playtime. It's between you and the Holy Spirit. WE ARE ALL CALLED DIFFERENTLY. Is doing something that you enjoy good? Absolutely! How often? It's between you and God and none of my business. These are principles and not dogmas; if someone applies them differently from us, then Jesus might say, "What is that to thee? Follow thou me." 

In closing, human beings are amazing, not because of us but because of our Creator. The only thing on this earth that you can touch right now, which will still exist in some form a million years from now, is a human being. This fact also means a human being is the only thing worth investing any time and money into. Everything else that money and time can go to is a waste a million years from now. As we saw in creation, humans are three parts, body, soul, and Spirit. This cannot be said about anything from the AI world. 

Since humans are so complex, many opportunities exist for people of all callings and types to invest in them. The businessmen who handle many material possessions are extremely important because they can invest in human bodily well-being by providing jobs, housing, food, medical care, etc. The motherly and pastoral types matter because they care about a person's feelings. Motivational encourager types care that they have the will to do the right thing, and teachers want people to be mentally equipped for their calling. Feelings, will, and mind those all make up the soul. We need people who work on all those things dealing with soul issues. Finally, we need evangelists who set people up for eternity by having them invite the Holy Spirit in to take over their Spirit. That's a fancy way of saying, lead someone to Christ. 

Nowhere in scripture can I find any evidence that caring for one part of a person is more important than caring for another part. The three parts are all connected. If you give a poor beggar a burger and a new pair of shoes, you have helped his body, made him feel loved, and showed him a new kind of Spirit at work. You touched all three parts in that simple act, even though your work was focused on the body. The point is that people have multiple gifts and help people in various ways, but ultimately when done from the right heart, all parts of a person are blessed. 

What Kind of Love is Best?

I watch a lot of motorsports. I watch several racing championships around the globe and have a favorite driver or few in each one. Yet, of all my favorite drivers, Scott Dixon is my favorite. Why? He is a modest New Zealander that showed an immense turn of speed in a car, and now he is in 2nd place on the all-time wins list and championship list of IndyCar. The first-place guy retired, so Scott still has a chance to take the number 1 spot away from him. At any rate, in this generation, Scott Dixon is the greatest to set foot in an IndyCar! He seldom makes a mistake; he thinks through a race, and he knows when to save fuel, when to save tires, and when to push. He's the best at saving fuel of anyone. Scott also knows when to attempt to pass another driver and when to patiently sit behind him and wait for the other driver to make a mistake. 

Off the track, he's a gentleman, has a nice family, and is devoted to his wife and children. He takes time for the fans and appreciates their support. One time after a terrifying accident he was involved in, a little girl wrote IndyCar thanking them for making the car safe, so Scott survived. Scott visited her home and gave her several gifts as a thank-you. Also, he's so chill; in the accident the girl wrote about, his car went upside down and landed on a wall; the wall missed his head by only a few feet; we so nearly lost him that day; it was terrifying to watch. He calmly climbed out, and when he was given a clean bill of health, he agreed to do an interview, and calmly with his Kiwi accent, said, "I'm so gutted for my team; they built me such a fast car." He's also humble; when you ask why he's so good, he says something like, "It's the team! They do so well, and I'm the lucky guy who gets to drive the car." If you ask the team, they respond, "It's Scott; he's absolutely incredible!" 

Why did I tell you all this? Because I wanted to, I love Scott Dixon, but not with great love. Just a fanboy love. Ultimately, fanboy love is very shallow. When Dixon retires, if I'm still watching Indycar, I will probably pick a new driver and not give him that much thought other than the occasional nostalgic memory of how good he was. It's more based on what he can do for me than anything else. 

I love my customers! No matter what they believe or what kind of sin they are in, I want to accept them just like they are and sell them whatever they want. I'm not here to tell them how to live; I'm here to sell them what they want. Ok, I exaggerate a little to make a point. Obviously, we will not be a party to anything illegal in business. This is tolerant love. It informs me that the most loving thing I can do for another person is to let them come and stay as they are. 

There's one problem, though, this kind of love doesn't call a person to transcend to their fullest potential in this life or the next. So, how loving is it actually? Are we sure it's a good idea for churches to compromise Jesus' teachings on how to live and what sin is to accept more people? Is it worth being seeker-friendly or tolerant if it means that a person stays stuck in whatever deformed version of themselves they are? Is it worth being seeker friendly if the person's eternal well-being is compromised? Either on the treasures in Heaven that Jesus said to "lay up for yourselves" (Matthew 6:20) or, even worse, missing Heaven? Is tolerance worth it? Are we sure? 

I love my wife and daughter! I won't necessarily give them everything they want. Still, I want to do my best to provide them the best. My wife reciprocates this and is better at it than I am, but we both pale compared to God's ability to love like this. This is unselfish love. It's what God has given us; not only are the laws of God the way he wants us to live, it is the best, most fulfilling, and most peaceful way to live. As if the laws weren't enough of a gift, he saved us and sent his Spirit to help us live the best life.

So, three kinds of love...

The fanboy: I love what Jesus does for me.

The tolerant: I accept Jesus because I think he will accept me too. 

The unselfish: No matter what the cost, I will be a disciple of Jesus. 

What kind of love is best? 

-Loren

The Materialism Problem

I believe Martin Luther said something to the effect that people are like the drunk man who climbs onto a horse, falls off the left, and climbs back on only to fall off the right. The more I observe the unbalanced ping-ponging way I live and watch others struggle with the same, the more I think he is right. With that in mind, I think I’ve brushed into two opposite symptoms of the same materialism or mammon problem, which I’d like to discuss.

One side says having material things is good; let us collect them. This is where the prosperity theology lives. I will point something out to those inclined to believe this. The rich young ruler confidently swaggered up to the Lord and informed Him that he had kept all the laws from childhood until today. Jesus said, “Sell all your stuff and be my disciple.” He went away sad because his stuff was more valuable than discipleship. The cost was too high. This was a tragic ending for the rich young ruler. Then Christ informed the disciples that it is complicated for a rich man to enter God’s Kingdom. (Matthew 19:16-28)

The other side of the debate says having material things is bad. Therefore we accumulate as little as possible. This is where the non-accumulation theology lives. I also have something to show those inclined to think that material things are always wrong and decadent. There was a man who had possessions but was unable to use them for his life was dominated by demons. Jesus delivered him. We pause here and note that he sent them into the pigs, but if we just keep reading, we see something interesting happen. This man wanted to leave all and follow Jesus. Jesus said, “No, go home and tell others….” Even though this man wanted to leave his home and be with Jesus always, he was denied that. For him, to obey was to stay with the things he had. The happy ending here is that he decided the cost was worth it. (Mark 5:1-14)

How do we reconcile the two stories? Both wanted to be disciples on their terms; one wanted to keep his home and everything else. One wanted to leave his home and everything else. One was told no, he must forsake all. The other was told no, he must go home. Materialism, or if you prefer the Biblical expression, mammon, is the focus on physical objects in this world. If you are distracted from God because you serve the love of worldly things, you are found guilty of keeping mammon in your life instead of the Lord. If you are distracted from God because you serve your hate of worldly things, you are guilty of maintaining mammon in your life instead of the Lord.

The answer is obedience to the Lord. This includes redesignating all material things for a spiritual Kingdom. These tools are used, given away, or exchanged as the Lord leads. One of the great writers I wish I could have met before he went to Jesus was Dallas Willard; he said something like this, “For some disciples, the cost is to be rich when they’d rather be poor. For others, the cost is to be poor when they’d rather be rich.”

Two spiritually themed financial books partially inspired this writing.

Money, Possessions, and Eternity by Randy Alcorn. This one focuses mainly on New Testament passages about money and puts forth the idea of sending investments into eternity instead of working on retirement.

The Legacy Journey by Dave Ramsey. This book mainly defends the idea of generational wealth building with the argument that a big retirement becomes a golden goose handed down through generations that gives golden eggs that can then be given to help others in need.

I recommend both books because they reflect the diversity of how disciples of God might be called to use material resources. The only way to avoid mammon is to focus on Jesus and His ultimate ownership. If we focus on things, we will end up in one of mammon’s two greasy ditches.

-Loren Yoder

Church

Why put so much effort into writing about the church? Because it's something that's on my heart and because several things about modern church life bother me. I will outline a few points here. The links at the end will take you to articles with more details on specific topics.

1. We put too much emphasis on building the church. Jesus said in one place, "...seek ye first the Kingdom of God..." and in another, He said, "...I will build my church..." So, a Christian should actively be a disciple of Christ. A disciple will want to learn from Jesus how to live and how the Kingdom works. A disciple wants to let Jesus live His life through him. A disciple seeks to become the kind of person that automatically acts the way Jesus would if He were in her situation. Don't bother with the church if you are unwilling to be a disciple seeking the Kingdom. It's not worth the drama. On the flip side, if you are a disciple, you don't have to "make church" because as you fellowship with, learn from, and have communion with other disciples, you will find that you are in church. Our emphasis should be seeking the Kingdom, which is the same as being a disciple of Christ. We should stop trying to make church for Jesus.


2. Somehow, we hold the wrong definition of church. Intellectually, this is an easy problem to fix, but it seems more tricky in the heart. For example, let's say you have a friend who spends a lot of time dining with people, discussing things of God and His Kingdom, and regularly has communion with other believers. Yet, he decides that attending a Sunday meeting and hearing the preacher every Sunday isn't helpful, so he doesn't. What do you think of that? Is he part of the Church? The question is not whether you agree with his choices but whether you believe his church life is relevant. Let's take the other extreme; a person watches football every night and generally spends time building his personal kingdom. Yet, he does spend a few hours at church every Sunday to hear the preacher. What do you think of that? Is he part of the church? Ok, I set up 2 "strawmen" to make a point. My point is this, Biblically speaking, the word church was translated from ekklesia. In the Christian sense, ekklesia is a group of Christians gathered to worship God together. Or, in the worldwide sense, God's ekklesia is all His people worldwide. I am not saying that either situation is ideal. Instead, I'm arguing that Sundays sitting on a pew don't define whether you are part of the church or not. There are multiple ways that someone can be part of the church, as defined by the simple definition of ekklesia. If your definition of the church gets more specific than that, then you are beginning to speak where scripture has not. That's not a good idea. Keeping the definition simple and not adding to it specifics that line up only with our preferences and culture allows us to move with the Holy Spirit in how we meet. It also keeps us from feeling guilt or putting guilt on others if we or others aren't churching the way we prefer.


3. There is a clergy-laity divide that should not exist. In the New Testament, we see examples of deacons, elders, and bishops being appointed or ordained to go ahead with things. Yet, they were not given special privileges over the non-leaders. Many modern Christians view their clergy as "in ministry" and expect them to work themselves to death for their congregants. Many people seem to think the clergy has special rights or privileges. Like, "we can't have communion without the bishop"...where did that come from? Is that in the New Testament? I have yet to find it. What about teaching, are men ordained by other men the only people qualified to give a sermon? Who qualifies a person? God or man? Biblical leaders are those who are wiser and have been disciples longer. Not those on who we decide to bestow unique titles or privileges. Also, the laity should be in ministry as well. All who are obedient disciples in the Kingdom are in ministry for God.

-Loren Yoder

Kingdom Discipleship:

Church Defined:

Leadership & Administration:

What The Bible Really Says About Church Leadership

Germany Part 3 (The Evil End)

This is the final chapter. Last time, Germany had fallen in World War 1. This picks the story up from there and brings us to the evil end. 

After World War 1, the victors decided that Poland was allowed to exist. Before this, Poland had been split up between Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany. Austria-Hungary was split up. It became like we know today, 2 separate small nations. In fact, World War 1 was the war that for the most part created the current map of Europe. Germany's economy sunk after the war. The reparations they were asked to pay were brutal, and the leadership seemed to think that cranking up the ol' money printer was the best way out of it. So, can you say...inflation! The poor German people were made to choke on it. America stepped in with loans to Germany so they could pay Britain and France and then Britain and France paid America. Well, Germany rode that lifeline up up up, and then boom! Great depression, America pulled back sharply to deal with its own problems, and Germany was cut adrift.  Almost overnight, things reverted back to suck-Ville. Meanwhile, Russia had had a revolution, and become the Soviet Union. 

Along came a certain mustached man. What the German people saw was a man who would save them, and make Germany great again! In some ways, he did. Yet, he was also gripped by a demonically evil ideology. (I don't understand all those details of what he believed and how he got there for I never read Mein Kampf) Adolf Hitler got elected and set about restoring the economy. Then the ideology came up. All Jews were bad, in fact, anyone who wasn't a fair-skinned Anglo-Saxon was bad. Especially Jews though, they had concentration camps for them. (This is especially sad because Bismarck's Germany was a refuge for Jews fleeing antisemitism.) Then there was the revenge part. There was a desire to do World War 1 again but this time, win! Japan and Italy had both felt they got raw deals from World War 1 as well, so they were the allies this go around. 

Hitler started out by annexing part of Czechoslovakia, and Austria. (Austria's leadership essentially handed him the keys to their country!) He also signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Germany has always been working hard on their military, equipment, logistics, and tactics. They developed a military advance strategy called Blitzkrieg. When they unveiled Blitzkrieg in Poland, it was a beatdown. They took back "their" part of Poland and let the Soviet Union have "theirs" back as well because they invaded from the other side. Ultimately, in Europe, this was a straightforward war. Germany had such power and speed, that what they wanted they took. The countries that were ultimately conquered by them were many. So I will focus on a few "lowlights" and the ultimate demise. 

A constant theme throughout this series has been Germany's continual advance and France's continual stagnation. Germany had come up with a lot of new tactics under the realm of "blitzkrieg". France was still in World War 1 mode. They and Britain sought to defend the border. They didn't bother putting much effort into defending the Ardenne Forest region though, because no one could get through the Ardennes. Germany blitzed through it anyway. They punched a wedge of soldiers into the defensive line and separated the British and French. The British escaped back to their island, and France fell. For the second time in 80 years, Germany took Paris. 

I don't understand Blitzkrieg, but, it involved a very coordinated attack of infantry, backed by the latest and greatest tanks, and air support. It was designed to avoid trench warfare. Germany needed quick victories, not wars of attrition. Attrition and time in a war favored the British who were able to move soldiers and resources in from their holdings and friends like America. This blitzkrieg method worked in France. So Britain stood alone. Defiant, unbeaten but hard against it because the Soviet Union and Germany were still allies. Germany had to squash Britain somehow. They threw their air force against it, but to no avail, Britain survived. Another hat tip to the British. Once again, they held the line. In the First World War, they held the French trench, in the second, they held their island. This would be very important later.

Hitler made the decision that cost him everything. He attacked the Soviets. The blitz went deep into Russian territory but finally ground to a halt just before Moscow. Winter came and the soviets began to regroup with their huge reserves of manpower. Remember how Britain held their Island? America decided that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and opted to help the soviets. They began to ship the Soviets materials to fight with and then mass soldiers on the British Island. When the time was right they stormed into France and Italy. Germany, the world's most powerful nation (militarily wise) was overstretched. They fell back on 3 fronts. In the south, the British led an American/British invasion of  Italy. (Germany had been holding Italy when the regime fell. ) In the west, America led an American/British invasion of German-held France. In the east, the Soviets began to push back. All in all now is a good chance to drop in another quote from Bismarck, he said back in his day, 

"The Americans are truly a lucky people. They are bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors and to the east and west by fish."

Ultimately, Germany fell. The west was given to the western powers. The east was given to the Soviet Union. Berlin was divided into 2 zones. Germany ceased to exist for over 40 years.  Germany had strong neighbors, and this hurt it. This is something America didn't have to face after 1850. Still, Germany ended up being the victim of her own war in the end. 

Otto Von Bismarck had led the unification and creation of a powerful nation, but in 2 generations, through incompetence and evil, the men who came after managed to destroy it entirely. Otto had a clear vision. He wanted a united German nation. The greed, incompetence, and racism that came after ultimately destroyed it completely. Germany was built on the foundation of war and conquest. This was also how it died.

-Loren

Germany Part 2 (Germany's Downfall)

Last time we discussed the rise of Germany. A lot of details were left out, but I'm not sure how else to keep it concise. We left the story around 1900 or so. If you haven't read part 1. Click on this first before continuing with Part 2.  As we go along, I would like the reader to know that I don't want to portray Germany as being "the good guy." I really don't believe any nation should be so militaristic and cruel as Germany was here. Yet, it's hard to say that they were much if any worse than most of the other nations who were actively attacking in this war. 

Bismarck was fired by the new young king. Before he left, he had a complex system of alliances. This protected Germany from the type of situations you will soon read about. The new young king never learned this, and whoever he surrounded himself with didn't either. There was unrest throughout Europe. In 1914 a prince from Austria-Hungary was assassinated by a Serbian. There was lots of bad feeling between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. They were apt to go at it at any moment, and this was merely the tipping point. Perhaps in the future, I will write a series on World War 1, but for now, I'm going to keep it tight, because this is about Germany. 

2 things that were particularly alarming about Europe now that pertain to this situation. 1. It seemed like everyone in Europe was greedy and spoiling for a fight. 2. The alliances were alarming if things escalated. Let's try to work through this. Serbia and Russia were allies. Russia and France were allies. Britain had guaranteed Belgium that it would protect Belgium's neutrality. Germany and Austria-Hungary were allies as well. So let's blow it up, here's how it became the great European war. Serbia assassinated Austria-Hungary's prince. Germany agreed to back Austria-Hungary up if they sought to get "justice". Russia agreed to protect Serbia from Austria-Hungary. This immediately puts us in a situation where Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Serbia are at war. 

Germany's war strategy was thought out with the knowledge that they were in a desperate predicament, being stuck between Russia and France. Both were planning to attack them because France was going to help Russia. Germany decided to invade France and quickly knock them out before Russia had time to get going, and then turn and face Russia. France had great border defenses along the border they shared with Germany. Germany bypassed this border and invaded Belgium, and then into France from Belgium. The problem was, Belgium didn't cooperate. They saw it as an invasion and fought it. This brought Britain into the war on the side of France and Belgium. Germany advanced to about 20 miles from Paris and both sides tried to outflank each other, they dug trenches running from the English Channel to Switzerland and sat in a state of trench warfare for the rest of the war on that front. Hat tip to the British. The situation got so dire in France that their army mutinied and looked like they would lose to Germany again, but the Brits held the line for them. Germany also was unaware that France had mutinied and so didn't press their advantage. 

Russia mobilized and Germany's worst fear was realized. They had to hold their ground in France while beating back the Russians. They actually beat Russia. Partly by being way better militarily and because they helped Lenin get into Russia. Lenin started the revolution that created the Soviet Union. Germany also tried to attack various points of the British Empire in Africa and possibly a few other places to draw Britain away from France. Austria-Hungary really struggled, not only did they have Serbia, Italy attacked them, and so did Russia. Germany had to bail them out at various points. Germany talked the Ottoman Empire into coming in on their side, but the Ottomans were weak and not much help. Ultimately, Germany had a real chance of winning the war when they knocked Russia out, but, America came in.

America bankrolled Britain's war efforts. America got rich by continually building goods and sending them to British Canada for distribution and loaning money. This protected Britain from the financial ruin Germany was facing.  Germany got desperate and used their submarines to sink merchant ships. One time they sunk a passenger ship called the Lusitania, and many civilians, including Americans, died. American sentiment was turned against the Germans. They kept bankrolling Britain, but Woodrow Wilson the president kept saying that all parties should sit down and work out an equitable deal for everyone. When Germany tried to talk Mexico into attacking America to distract them from the British support, their telegram was intercepted and given to the Americans. So it was that about the time that Germany had knocked Russia out and was prepared to mass her troops to deliver the knockout blow to France, fresh well equipped Americans arrived in France and held the line. 

Germany remembered Wilson's talk of a fair deal and asked America for a truce. America entered talks with Britain and France. America listened to their sob story and believed it. In short, Germany was told to not only give up a lot of territories, but to disarm, she and her allies were to take responsibility for the whole war, and Germany was to pay an outrageous sum to the others for the damages incurred. Germany protested vehemently. They were told to sign or expect to be attacked. Since America now tipped the scale against them, Germany signed. Germany was awful in this war, but so was everyone else. Germany was never conquered in this war. She had fallen and even been beaten, but not vanquished. The people were angry. The stage was set for a radical to sway the populace, and for a dark menace to take hold. Germany would recover, Germany would rebuild, and then all these people would rue the day! All the German soldiers went home that day, and many were bitter and angry. For now, though they had lives to rebuild. One young Austrian-born German was especially angry, he survived the war, but he was obscure. One day everyone would know his name. It was Adolf Hitler.

Ferdinand Foch, the leader of French, British, and American troops saw the penalties on Germany as being too lenient. He feared that if Germany were not completely vanquished then there would be a problem in the future, he said, “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years!” He was right. The deal was harsh enough to anger Germany, but not harsh enough to break them. I see now with how long this has gotten that there will need to be a part 3, let's call it "The Evil End."

-Loren