CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Letter to my (old) church board...

(I've taken out my pastor's names and the church name - just because, I guess)


June 15, 2006

Dear Sirs:

This letter reflects the growing concerns I have about [ ] Community Church, particularly the ongoing relationship with Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries or New Orleans, Louisiana.

In January, [ ] hosted two teachers (Apostle Sherman and Prophet Corrine Shelton) who both preached and prophesied. The Sheltons are both licensed “network ministers” with Christian International Apostolic Network[1](CIAN), more commonly called “Christian International.” Both the CIAN registration and the Verizon phone book list their church as “Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries.”

In February Pastor [ ] assured me that [ ] Community Churchdoes not have an ongoing relationship” with Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries. He acknowledged that “there some problems” with their doctrine. In response to my concerns (and similar concerns expressed by others) Pastor [ ] also assures me that [ ] is not “going all Pentecostal … word faith … or five fold ministry.”

Yet church does have an ongoing relationship with Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries. [ ] church dedicated the Spring Break mission trip to rebuilding the Shelton’s church. The “June Prayer Letter” advertises that Pastor [ ] is “scheduled to be at Firehouse Ministries in New Orleans” on June 25, 2006.

Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries’ affiliation with Christian International Ministries Network is very real.

· CIMN’s goal is to “provide a place for both ministers and churches to be established in present-day truth and accountability” (emphasis mine)[2]

· Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries reflects this.[3]

· Christian International rejects the doctrine of the Trinity in favor of traditional “oneness” Pentecostal doctrine: “We believe in one God, eternal and self existent, self-revealed and manifested to man as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” The use of the word “manifestation” is the standard reference to the nature of God in anti-Trinitarian “oneness” doctrinal statements.[4] Firehouse reflects this doctrinal position: “The triune Godhead is comprised of three (3) separate and distinct personalities… Jesus Christ, who is God manifested in the flesh…” (note the terms “manifested,” and “personalities” instead of “persons”)

· CIMN is a 5-fold ministry, apostolic organization, as is Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries.

· Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries is a Word of Faith church (promoting “Total Prosperity” in the spiritual, mental, physical, financial, and social aspects of life.)

The “prophesies” that Apostle and Prophet Shelton gave to [ ] Church are extremely troubling. That the leadership of [ ] Community Church allowed an “apostle” and “prophet” into the pulpit is more troubling and allowed them to “prophesy” is nearly unthinkable[5].

That [ ] Community Church witnessed – in its own pulpit – an Apostolic-Pentecostal “activation and impartation” ceremony, during which a “Prophet” laid hands on a woman and “imparted the empowerment of the Holy Spirit” and “called forth the prophetic anointing” is mind-boggling and appalling[6]. All of these prophesies play to the flesh. No mention was made self-denial, repentance, Scripture study, or even reaching the lost to find salvation in Christ. In fact, the entire prophetic message was devoid of any reference to: salvation, evangelism, scripture, or Jesus (save invoking His name to authenticate prophesy and apostolic impartation: “So in the name of Jesus, amen, I impart to you…”).

This is not [ ] Church’s only brush with “second work of grace” Pentecostalism.

October 4, 2005, Pastor Dave [ ] posted “River Dream” (posted to “Prayer Thoughts” – no longer on [ ] website, but it is cached at Google.)

In Pastor [ ] prophetic dream, it is clear that there are two groups of believers – those who are in the “river” of the Holy Spirit and those who are not. His companion in his dream could not enter the flow of the river (that is, in to the Holy Spirit) because of his “deformity.” It is only after a second work (the anointing of the Holy Spirit) that his deformities disappear and he is able to enter into the flow of the Holy Spirit. The implication is very clear and very Pentecostal: a believer who does not have the second work of the Holy Spirit is deformed and it is only after the second work of the Holy Spirit that a believer becomes “beautiful.”

In December 2005, Pastor [ ] added “Prayer Thoughts” from the book of Daniel, in which the implication was that to question leadership, is to be in rebellion of God.

His teaching was followed in January 2006 by “Apostle” Sherman who said in his sermon, “I have summed it up into something else. This is what God is saying to us. The love God is looking for is a love that chooses to keep its eye on the authority in your life.

Prophet Corrine’s prophecy to the church threatened, “God says, ‘Whoever does not cooperate with the unity that is between the two of you (Pastors [ ] and [ ]) God says if they do not obey by the Spirit He will have to deal with their flesh.”

[ ] Community Church is a member of the Christian Reformed Church. I need to be able to trust that the [ ] leadership has its eye on the authority of the denomination. My highest authority is God, after that, the denomination and after that, the church leadership. I chose [ ]Community Church because [ ] is part of the Christian Reformed Church denomination. I did not become a member of the Christian Reformed Church denomination because I wanted to attend [ ]. The distinction is vital. My cooperation lies with God first, then the CRC, and only after that, with these two men.

I am asking the elders of [ ] Community Church to:

  1. Evaluate, against Scripture, the things that I have written and the material provided.
  2. Provide a clear confirmation or refutation of the prophetic plans—declared in the name of the Lord during the Lord’s Day service—including the changes in name, missiology, and ministry directions coming to [ ].
  3. Explain, with Scriptural support, why a prophetess declared, these foundational changes to the membership, in the name of the Lord, apart from and prior to any consideration or approval of the Board of Elders.
  4. Explain why ministry resources were directed, apart from CRWRC, to rebuilding the church of a oneness Apostolic organization that heavily promotes unbiblical Word of Faith and five-fold ministry theology; serious theological errors tantamount to anything seen in Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.
  5. Continue in prayerful consideration the direction that this church is going, and reconsider any affiliation with Firehouse Full Gospel Ministries and/or Christian International.

Sincerely,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a list of bullet points that highlight the "prophesies" made by the "apostle" and "prophet" at my church on January 30, 2006

Prophet Corrine’s “vision” on the way to Grand Rapids:

· Being on the platform at [ ] was a “fulfillment of prophesy” and they would be remiss if they didn’t “speak the word of the Lord.”

· The current building will not be the main campus. Rather, the soon-to-be-renamed church will be a mega-church on par with Saddleback or Willow Creek.

Prophet Corrine further prophesied that:

· “…by the word of the Lord I tell you that there’s a name change coming” to a name that is “indicative of your destiny, amen.” This new name will be given to Pastors[ ] and [ ], not to the Board of Elders. (Neither the elders nor denomination were acknowledged in any capacity.)

· The new mission of the re-named church will be to change other churches, to offer training and healing to ministers.[7]

· God will remake the church into “a place of healing”; implying that the current [ ] is not yet a place of healing (an assault on the sufficiency of the Word and its ability to work in lives).

· Those who do not cooperate will be dealt with by God “in the flesh”

· [Pastor's wives] would no longer be supports (i.e., helpmeets) for their husbands, but would “be beside them.”

· She also prophesied over [pastor's wife], that she would break the mold of what a pastor’s wife is supposed to be.

In what is commonly known as an Apostolic “impartation and activation” ceremony, prophetess Corrine laid hands on [pastor's wife] and “imparted the empowerment of the Holy Ghost and the gifting that is upon her life.” In doing so, the Sheltons acted out the Pentecostal doctrine of a second work of grace; a work that, in Apostolic circles, must be “imparted” and/or “activated” (in Apostolic parlance).


Apostle Sherman also prophesied:

· Other ministries (seemingly more prominent) will come

· The newly named mega-church will deliver unto them truth and light

· These people will go back in secrecy and “start something”


The Apostle and Prophet’s performance was no surprise. In fact, it was Pastor D- who extended this “prophetic ministry” beyond the service, “…but if the Lord is calling you to come down and enter into the prophetic ministry over your life and over your ministry during this song we invite you to come down come down to the front and we’ll continue ministry after church is over.”

Pastor B-, acknowledging that the service had run late, “I told you our drop dead time is 11:30. We’re [ ] and we’re always on time… (long pause)…but I guess we’re not [ ] anymore.”



[1] Christian International Ministries Network is a pseudo-denominational network that supports “Christian International” (http://www.christianinternational.org/)

[2] This statement confirms that Christian International (through which the Sheltons are registered) promotes the doctrine of continuing revelation as practiced by the Apostolic/Five Fold Ministry movement. Christian International founder Bill Hamon writes, “the first century church…didn’t recognize evangelists, pastors and teachers. They understood apostles and prophets, but they didn’t really understand especially evangelists and pastors.” (“The 7-Fold Anointing of Christian International” at http://www.christianinternational.org/articles/anointing1.html)

[3] “We believe that in order for the Church to truly reach God’s expectations we must have the presence and influence of the Apostle, the Prophet, the Evangelist, the Pastor and the Teacher operating through us.” http://firehousefamily.org/

[4] . For example, in “The Oneness of God,” the anti-trinitarian United Pentecostal Church states, “the Trinitarian concept of God…as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one…Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.

[5] Attached is a page that highlights the prophesies of the apostle and prophetess. The sermon is posted on [ ] website as an MP3.

[6] Prophet Corrine’s prophecy over [].

[7] Note that given the lack of mention of evangelism seen in the “prophesy” that announced these changes, one can only conclude that this vision is more about changing churches than changing lives; reaching other (presumably non-Apostilic pastors) rather than reaching souls; promoting CIAN-style fire fold ministry rather than anything seen at [ ] before.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

THE RUSSIAN FIVE


THE “RUSSIAN FIVE”

In 1930, St. Petersburg was a cultural center in Russia. C. Cavos (Italian composer) lived in St. Petersburg when he wrote his operas, “Ilya the Hero” (1807) and “Ivan Susanin” (1815). The first every complete performance of Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis had taken place there in April, 1824.

But in 1930, the only truly Russian “sounds” were religious and folk music – this was going to change. In a world dominated by Western Europe, nationalism was on the rise. In architecture, the “Church of the Savior on Blood” (right) utilized traditional Russian features to evoke feelings of national unity on the site where Tsar Alexander II had been assassinated. In art, Russian peasant life was being portrayed in increasing amounts.

In the music world, Mikhail Ivanovich Glinka (known and the father of Russian classical music) was one of the first Russian composers in the Romantic Period, writing his first patriotic opera, “A Life for the Tsar” in 1836. His later works were not as successful, but Glinka heavily influenced the Russian Romantic composers that followed him. Alexander Dargomyhsky (whose only musical education came from a set of exercise books loaned from Glinka)wrote the opera “Rusalka” in 1856, showing a talent for re-creating Russian characters, scenes, and speech rhythms.

Both of these men would have an influence on the “Russian Five”, a group of composers who would seek to free Russian music from the confining control of Western Europe. Also known as the “Mighty Five”, the Moguchaya Kuchka (“The Mighty Little Heap”) was joined by was also joined by Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov – not a composer, but rather an art critic. He served the “Russian Five” as sort of an “artistic advisor” and also gave them their name. Stasov actively supported the Peredvizhniki (a group of Russian realist artist who protested academic restrictions in the art community), so it seems natural that he would support a group of musicians who were struggling to develop a truly Russian music.

These five composers drew on Russian folk music and the basis for much of their work, but more importantly they encouraged those who came behind them to draw on their own experience and background, rather than conform to the norm.

The first of “the Five”, Mily Balakirev (January 1, 1837 – May 29, 1910) met Glinka at age 18, who not only encouraged him to enter the music world, but also sparked a love of Russian nationalism. Balakirev believed strongly that Russian music should be truly “Russian”, free from influence from both Western and Southern Europe. Perhaps known for bringing “The Five” together more than for his own music, his best-known piece is “Islamey: an Oriental Fantasy,” which is still popular among pianists.

In 1856, Mily Balakirev and Cesar Cui (January 6, 1835 – March 13, 1918), second member of “the Five” met for the first time. Cesar Cui was not a musician by trade. He was an army officer and he taught fortifications. In his private life, he was a music critic and composer, and devoted to Russia. As a composer, his works were not well accepted by other musicians, quite possibly because of his own professional criticism would not have endeared him to them.
Modest (sometimes Modeste) Mussorgsky first met Balakirev and Cui in 1857. Like Cui, Mussorgsky was a military man, with a commission with the Preobrazhensky Regiment of Guards, the foremost regiment of the Russian Imperial Guard. By 1859, Mussorgsky had met the rest of “the Five”, given up his military commission and had gained valuable theatrical experience, assisting in the preparation of a production of Glinka’s “A Life for the Tsar”. After a trip to Moscow, Mussorgsky claimed a love of “everything Russian”. Mussorgsky’s name may not be widely known today, but his music is. His most popular piece (used in the modern era) is “A Night on the Bare Mountain”. This piece appears in Disney’s “Fantasia” and excerpts of it appear in such films as “Saturday Night Fever”, Woody Allen's “Stardust Memories”, and a German heavy metal band, Mekong Delta, recorded a “thrash” version of the piece. Excepts of other Mussorgsky works have been used in Michael Jackson music, “The Big Lowbowski”, “Asylum” and the “Smurfs” cartoon series.

The fourth member of the group, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, was a Navy man. Rimsky-Korsakov in met Balakirev in 1861 and as a result began to concentrate on music. While he was on a world cruise (still in the navy), he wrote his first symphony. Rimsky-Korsakov was not conservatory trained – he was largely either self-taught or group taught by the rest of “the Five” – in spite of this, he became a professor of composition and orchestration at the Saint Petersburg Conservtoire. Some sources say that one of his most significant (although controversial) contributions to the music world was his editing of the works of the rest of “the Five”.

The final member of “the Five was Aleksander Borodin, who joined the group in 1862. Borodin’s career was not music – he was trained as a doctor with a career as a chemist – making significant contributions in the area of organic halogens. His avocation. Franz Liszt performed Borodin’s “First Symphony” in 1880, in Germany, making Borodin’s musical legacy possible in his lifetime.

Together, these five men formed “the Five”. These were the men that were determined to write and perform truly “Russian” music. Most Americans may not be familiar with the names, but they would probably recognize some of the music. Certainly we recognize the “Russian” sound, inherited from the Orient.

“The Five” did not stay intact for long; beginning to fall apart by 1870 – by that time, Balakirev had withdrawn from music for a time. He was the one who had brought them all together, and with his departure, they came apart. Interestingly, although the group fell apart, they are all buried in the same cemetery: The Tikhvin Cemetary in St. Petersburg.

The musical legacy of “the Russian Five” does not end with their music. The members of this group influences and/or directly taught many of the great Russian composers who would follow them, the most prominent of whom is Igor Stravinsky. These men, as a group, were an important part of musical history. If it had not been for “The Five” and their commitment to Russian “nationalism”, the music world would be a poorer place. The Russian culture is rich with history and folklore – “the Five” helped bring it to life through their music.





http://dorakmt.tripod.com/music/national.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3870/is_199810/ai_n8819390
http://www.karadar.com/PhotoGallery/moussorgsky.html
http://russia-in-us.com/Music/Opera/dargomizhsky.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest_Mussorgsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peredvizhniki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Stasov

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Rome/Arminians/Reformers

A commenter came up with a new “thought”: “But interestingly, I did learn that Mormonism came about in 1800 so it's only a mere 200 some years old. And interestingly Smith was originally a Methodist. I find the entire thing amusing in that Mormonism is really the stepchild of Protestantism.”

I would tend to agree. The closer Arminian move to Rome, the more heretical they become. Each step away from the Reformers is a step closer to Rome. Each step closer to Rome brings more and more errors.

Let’s take a look at the sotierological acronym: TULIP, comparing and contrasting all three systems: Roman, Reformed and Arminian. (the “Roman” view is quoted from James Akin)

NOTE: In all but the “T”, Arminius (Father of Arminianism – Methodists, many Baptists, Pentecostals) stands with Rome.

The “T” (total depravity)

Roman: The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.

Reformed: Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel.

Arminian: Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature.

“U” (unconditional election)

Roman: “If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema."

Reformed: The doctrine of unconditional election means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will…The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.

Arminian: It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

“L” (limited atonement)

Roman: Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would end up in heaven.

Reformed: Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.

Arminian: Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone.

“I” (irresistible grace)

Roman: Vatican II stated, "[S]ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery."

Reformed: By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

Arminian: He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution)

“P” (perseverance of the saints)

Rome: A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints.

Reformed: All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved.

Arminian: Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

The Allegory of the Cave

In the “Allegory of the Cave”, we see an example of people seeing “through the glass dimly.”  Plato describes a group of people in a cave since their childhood, chained so that they cannot move their heads.  I could not picture this until I saw the illustration, but imagine a fire behind the people, casting shadows on the wall in front of them.  There is also a walkway and animals, people and things are carried along between the fire and the wall in front of the prisoners.

All these people know of the world are the shadows on the wall in front of them.  In fact, they may not even know that there is a world outside of those shadows.  All they can see – all they can know – are the flickering shadows on the wall in front of them.

Imagine that one of these prisoners is set free.  He stands up and turns around, seeing the fire for the first time.  This is the first time he sees the direct flame and he is blinded.  At first, before his eyes grow accustomed to the light, the objects that cast the shadows seem unreal – less real than the shadows.  He rebels – this is not what he is used to!

This is the way I felt when I started looking at “reformed theology”.  All of my life I’d been an Arminian, my life, my faith, and my walk were all in my own hands.  I knew what I had to do.  Then, over the course of a year I started studying the passages of both “sides” – I started learning what the Greek meant.

For the first time, I belonged to a God that I knew was in control.  It was an adjustment; my human-centered ego just didn’t like that man is not in control.

To take the Allegory of the Cave a step further, what if this man – in the darkness of the cave since childhood – is taken out into the sunlight.  BLINDNESS!  Even the fire that he first saw is be nothing compared to this blazing ball of fire in the sky – the light that warms the earth.

This is where I am today.  It seems that after a couple of years being comfortable in “reformed theology”, a new curve has been thrown at me. Cessationism.  My entire life has been spent “understanding” - just as the people in the cave understand the shadows – that God “talks”.

Here is the question:  Was the problem the people had because of their wrong understanding of the shadows, or was the heart of the problem their unwillingness to embrace the new knowledge?  I am not ready to embrace “full cessationism”, but I am ready to look at the “real thing” and decide, according to Scripture, what is real and what is not.

The next step in the “Allegory of the Cave” is to bring other people out of the cave.  They don’t like (in fact, they detest) being dragged out of their comfort zone.

I went into the library at the church I attend and asked if they had anything on both sides of the cessationist issue.  There is a certain look that oozes arrogance and I got it.  “We don’t believe in that.  We are a “Spirit-filled” church.

I guess you can’t be Spirit filled unless you have a miraculous gift.

I’ve tried dragging the people at my church out of their cave.  Not to change their minds, but at least to take a look at the issue  - to look at the real basis for their beliefs, not just to go on believing because that’s what they’ve always believed.

It doesn’t work.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_allegory_of_the_cave

Friday, February 17, 2006

As man is, god once was...

Once upon a time there was a man that lived on a planet called “Kolob”, not so very far away. It came to pass that this man lived a good life and became a god; he came to another little planet called “earth” with his wife that he had married on his home planet.. In their exalted states, this god and his wife gave birth to “spirit children”; the first-born was Jesus – later would come Lucifer, along with many other "spirit children".

The “father-god” was concerned about the future salvation of humans on this new planet and he had a planned. One of his sons (Jesus) agreed with the plan. The other son (Lucifer) did not agree and rebelled, convincing a large number of (pre-human) spirit-children in heaven to side with him. As punishment, the father-god cast Lucifer out of heaven and made Lucifer’s followers into demons, who could never, ever be born as humans(1). Another large number (although not the remaining) of spirit-children sided with Jesus and would be blest to be born as Caucasians. The remaining spirit-children (who had not taken sides) would be born in the line of Cain, as non-Caucasians (black people).

These spirit children remained in heaven, to be born as humans – their race and location depend on the choices that they made in heaven in this great spiritual battle.

Some of these people moved to a place far across the ocean. A group of people from a place called Babel settled in what we now know as Central America(2). Another group, called “Jews” also came to this new place(3). A man named Nephi led these Jews. They divided into two groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites who fought each other. The Nephites were defeated in 428 A.D. The Lamanites continued and are now known as the American Indians.

The father-god’s plan of salvation included the spirit-child, Jesus. In order for the father-god’s plan to work, Jesus needed a body. So the father-god used a girl named Mary, in a process that is as natural as our own birth(4), to give birth to Jesus.

Jesus was born, got married (to three women: Mary, Martha and Mary Magdelene) and had children. At the end of his life, Jesus began to atone for the sin of man (but not personal sins) in a garden(5). After he began the work in the garden, he finished his work on a cross. After Jesus died on the cross, he arose from the dead after three days. During the time between his death and resurrection, Jesus’ spirit was in the spirit world, where the souls of the dead wait for their own resurrection, to be reunited with their bodies. There, he ministered to the “righteous spirits, training them to teach other (sinful or ignorant) spirits – extending his ministry on earth into the spirit world.

After Jesus was resurrected, he went to minister to the Nephites in America. He appeared before a congregation in their temple, and allowed them to feel the wounds in his hands and feet, staying with them for several days, teaching and healing.

For 1800 years, this father-god was quiet. Then(6) the father-god(7) appeared to a boy(8) and revealed to him that religion, as he knew it, was wrong – all of it. Teachers, churches, creeds and beliefs were all abominations. The angel told the boy that he had been chosen to translate a very special book that was written on tablets of gold. Four years9 later an angel(10) appeared and told the boy to begin the work of translation. As the boy translated, a prophet(11) appeared to him and ordained him to restore the “true church”

The story on these tablets was amazing. The story (as related by this boy) was the account of ancient people who came to the Americas, people from Babel and Jews who were fleeing persecution in Jerusalem. According to the boy (now a man), his translation of this book is more doctrinally correct than the Bible(12). He even boasted that he did more than Jesus to keep his church together(13)!

The boy (now a man) published this book(14) and started the one “true” religion – a religion that was so outside of orthodox Christianity that the church was driven from town to town. As the religion grew, so did its doctrine.

Just like the “father-god”, all humans have the potential for becoming god, with their own planets (like earth). One of the father-god’s prophets(15) said, “As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become." When this prophet said, “man…”, he meant exactly that. Women cannot be saved unless they are married to a “priest(16)” in this new religion.
Another teaching of this new religion was that the spirit-children in heaven could only be exalted (with the possibility of becoming a god themselves) if they were born into human bodies and that a man’s glory in heaven depended on the number of babies he had fathered. This meant that adherents of this religion must have as many babies as possible. In order to do this, polygamy was essential. This effectively reduced women to mere commodities. One follower of this religion said, "I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow17."


People, this is Mormonism. While the teaching may have “evolved”, this is what Mormon prophets teach and have taught.

For the Mormons that “don’t believe” all this – why are they still Mormons, if they don’t believe the foundational teaching?

And if Joseph Smith was not right, how is he a prophet of truth?

Bullet points:
  • Mormon doctrine denies the eternal nature of God (the father-god was a created man who became a god)

  • Mormon doctrine denies the Trinity )"That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)

  • Mormon doctrine denies the virgin birth (the father-god had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus)

  • Mormon doctrine teaches that Christ was in a plural marriage

  • Mormon doctrine teaches that Mormonism is the only true way to heaven (“If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670.)

  • Mormon doctrine teaches that all men have the potential to become gods

  • And it follows that Mormon doctrine denies monotheism (as there are as many gods as there are men who have become gods)

  • Mormon doctrine states that there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.)


  1. In one version, there were three different choices that these spirit-children could take. They could follow Lucifer (these would become demons), they could follow Jesus (these would become Caucasians) or they could choose to make no choice (these would become non-Caucasian races).

  2. These were the Jaredites, who settled in central America but perished because of their own immorality

  3. The Book of Mormon is the account of the Nephite leader, Mormon, concerning their culture, civilization, and appearance of Jesus to the Americas.

  4. In short, the father-god had physical sex with Mary

  5. The Garden of Gethsemane

  6. September 21, 1823

  7. Or maybe an angel, or three angels, depending on what version you’re reading

  8. The boy was Joseph Smith

  9. September 22, 1827

  10. The angel Moroni

  11. The prophet that allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith as John the Baptist

  12. History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461

  13. History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

  14. The Book of Mormon

  15. President Lorenzo Snow

  16. All Mormon men are ordained as members of the "priesthood," with the absolute authority to preach the gospel, bestow blessings, prophecy, perform healings and baptisms, and generally speak for God.

  17. Heber C. Kimball


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/beliefs/god/godchrist.shtml
http://www.carm.org/lds/nutshell.htm
http://www.biblefacts.org/cult/mormon.html
http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Paedo-Communion?

I’ve been pondering the final message of the book “Paedofaith” by Rich Lusk.

Two songs come to mind: “Faith of Our Fathers” and “Jesus Loves Me” (see the bottom of the post).

In an Arminian church, a parent “knows” that their children are “born saved” – because of the “age of accountability” – and at some point they lose that coverage and are as lost as the pagan’s kids next door. Parents are in the position of raising children to be young Christians, while simultaneously trying to get them to become young Christians. Do we disciple them or convert them?

Now, with a better sense of what a “covenant family” should be, I realize that the promises of God, like His promise to Abraham, are for our children. It is right and proper for us to baptize our babies into the family of God.

But the implications of this are “interesting” if you follow the trail.

Do I believe that baptism is what saves us? No.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism says:

Q. 94. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[193] doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.[194]

Here are the questions:

What benefits of the covenant of grace does baptism allow our children to partake of?
Do we baptize our babies to welcome them into the covenant and then keep them in some sort of stasis until they are able to understand the rest?

Are our babies in the covenant or out of the covenant? Are they part of the covenant, or are they anathema?

There are two spiritual “places”. You are either anathema or you are in the covenant of God. If our children are in the covenant, do we allow them the benefits? If they are not in the covenant, on what basis can we baptize them?

How do we provide spiritual nourishment to those in the covenant?


Q. 96. What is the Lord’s Supper?

A. The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth;[197] and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.[198]

If we do not give our children this spiritual nourishment, are we sending the message that they’re part of the family, but they can’t eat at the table with us?
We (on one hand) baptize babies through the parents’ covenantal faith – but that same faith doesn’t cover the nourishment. Would we adopt a child but not let him or her eat with us?

If we believe the Bible when it says that we must have the faith of a child, how can we then say that children don’t have enough faith to eat at the same table as we do?

When I bought “Paedofaith”, I didn’t realize that it would open yet another can of worms for me. And this can of worms has been around in the Christian Reformed Church.

The final question is "Are we bringing our children fully into the covenant, or into a “halfway house” where they are “sort of in, but not all the way”?


“FAITH OF OUR FATHERS”
Frederick W. Faber

Faith of our fathers, living still,In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;O how our hearts beat high with joyWhenever we hear that glorious Word!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!We will be true to thee till death.

“JESUS LOVES ME”
Words by Anna B. WarnerMusic by Wm. B. Bradbury

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

Friday, December 30, 2005

The Psychology of Deafness

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DEAFNESS
November 15, 2005

IS THERE A “PSYCHOLOGY OF DEAFNESS”?
When talking about the “psychology of deafness”, perhaps the first questions that must be asked are: “Is the state of being deaf pathology, or is it a culture?” Does this distinction matter? In either case, does the description, “psychology of deafness”, apply?

IS DEAFNESS PATHOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL?
The definition pathology that best applies: “a departure or deviation from a normal condition.” The “normal condition” of humans includes having a sense of hearing; any deviation from this norm, such as deafness or “substantial hearing loss” falls under this definition. If we want to, we can conclude that deafness is pathological.

On the other hand, the Cambridge Dictionary Online gives us one definition of “culture” as “the way of life of a particular people, esp. as shown in their ordinary behavior and habits.” Do deaf people, collectively, exhibit behaviors and habits that set them apart from hearing people?

When answering this question, it seems helpful to refer to people who cannot hear as either deaf (lower case “d”) or Deaf (upper case “d”). People who consider themselves “Deaf” see themselves as part of the deaf community (or culture) and regard their state as a way of life. Much like an ethnic identity, their culture is not something that they need to have “fixed”.
Deaf people use sign language as their primary means of communication and frequently as their “native language.

People who are “deaf” do not consider themselves culturally “Deaf”, though they may socialize with Deaf people. The “deaf” (in English speaking countries) use English or a form of signed English as their primary language and view themselves as part of the hearing world. The deaf see their deafness is primarily pathological (a deviation from the norm), rather than cultural.

DOES THIS DISTINCTION MATTER?
To the Deaf and the deaf, it matters. The deaf see their state of being as an interference with normal communication and learning; by extension, their deafness interferes with life in general. The Deaf see themselves as a group of people with a common language, and for whom vision serves as their primary means of interacting with the world. There is nothing “wrong” with them, they don’t need “fixing”; hearing people are visitors to the Deaf world, not the other way around.

SO, WHAT ABOUT THIS “DEAF CULTURE”?
For some deaf people, this distinction feels awkward and difficult; they feel excluded from both the hearing and Deaf cultures. The hearing culture finds it difficult to understand the deaf; few hearing people understand “sign” and a deaf person with verbal skills may be difficult to understand. Deaf people who read lips may find it hard to keep up with conversations with hearing people.

The Deaf care deeply about their culture and protect it from “outsiders”. We can easily understand this attitude – if we look at deafness as a disability, certain prejudices develop. As with all disabilities, there is something wrong. When people are treated as if there is something wrong with them, they react in kind. When Deaf people are treated as “disabled”, they respond.
I have learned from deaf people that I know that people Deaf from birth often see people that have lost their hearing as a sort of “second class citizen” of the Deaf Culture and people that can hear are even lower on the “social scale”.

A woman that works with me told me that she had dated a Deaf man. They would have his friends over and many of them would not even look at her, much less interact with her. She belonged to the “hearing culture”, not the “Deaf Culture” and they were not going to let her in. She eventually quit dating this man because he (understandably) would not give up his culture and his culture refused to include her.

K.M., on a Deaf Culture web forum, wrote: I am a hearing person who has been interested in the Deaf culture for many years. I learned some ASL years ago, and practiced it off and on, but didn't have much contact with the Deaf. One day in Walmart I passed a man and his wife who were signing to each other and I made the sign for "Excuse me" since the row was narrow. He stopped and asked me if I was Deaf. I said no, but I knew some sign, but he just waved me off and made a sign I've been told means "lousy", and walked away. I was crushed! I hadn't meant to offend, but clearly the fact that I had the audacity to use his language to speak to him was something I had no right to do in his mind.

A dear friend has a father and a stepmother who are both profoundly deaf. His dad began losing his hearing early in life and his stepmother lost her hearing totally as the result of an illness. They relate how they have been included in social events for Deaf people, but then are excluded and snubbed when it becomes known that they both have verbal skills and neither one of them were born deaf.

Clearly, a “Deaf Culture” exists and guards itself carefully.

HOW DOES “PSYCHOLOGY” RELATE TO THESE TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE?
If we consider the definition of “psychology” as “the study of human behavior and mental process”, does the state of deafness mean observable differences in behavior and mental process?

In other words, do the behaviors of non-hearing people (Deaf or deaf) appear different from those of hearing? Clearly, the answer must be, “yes.” Deaf people use a visual language, versus the verbal language of the hearing. Hearing people rely on sound to alert them to activity or conversations around them, deaf people rely on sight and touch. Deaf people find it extremely rude to break eye contact during a conversation, hearing people not so much. Hearing people might whistle or call out to gain attention, deaf people tap, wave, touch or even switch a light on and off. These different behaviors are easily observed.

Some research indicates that these different behaviors don’t necessarily indicate different mental processes.

The human brain uses different parts of the brain to process sight and sound. The prevailing view has been that speech and sound are critical to the organization of language in the brain. But two studies conducted by Laura Ann Petitto, a psychology professor from McGill University, challenges this view, suggesting instead that the specialization concerns patterns rather than sound.

In 1991 Petitto published a paper in Science explaining that profoundly deaf infants, when exposed to sign language from birth, begin to “babble”, using their hands, at the same age (seven and ten months) hearing babies begin to use vocal language, a “syllabic babbling stage.” The deaf infants began using single “real” words at about eleven to fourteen months – the same age that hearing children begin using single words.

In fact, the deaf infants using signed language matched the hearing infants using speech milestone for linguistic milestone. Petitto said, “The question this raised was: How is it possible? If language acquisition is so dependent on speech, how could the profoundly deaf children be matching the hearing children milestone for milestone? The only way it could be explained was if there was some common mechanism at work for both spoken and signed language."

This led to the second study, by Petitto and Robert Zatorre, a neuropsychologist from the Montreal Neurological Institute. Consisting of 22 individuals, 10 of the people were hearing and had no experience with signed language, the other 11 were born deaf and used only signed language. Positron Emission Tomography ("PET" or brain-imaging) was used to study the blood flow in the brains of these people.

The research team made two remarkable discoveries. The deaf people processed the highly specific parts of language (words and parts of words) at the same specific brains sites as the hearing people processed words. Even more remarkably, the processes took place in brain tissue that had been regarded for over 100 years as used only for processing of sound.

This discovery led the research team to offer a new look at the “system” of language processing. Rather than being “programmed” to understand only speech and sound as language, our “human computer” may recognize patterns - highly specific patterns that are common to the language of sound and to sign languages.

The “planum temporale” area of the brain, until this study, has been believed to be a type of sound processing tissue called “unimodal”, meaning that it performs only one function. The planum termporale is much larger in the left side of the brain than in the right side in both right and left handed people. Interestingly, 94% of chimpanzees studied at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York share this characteristic. When a person hears meaningless sounds in spoken language (such as la, ba, ta), the brain processes the sounds in the planum termporale. Petitto’s study discovered that the brain activates planum termporale in deaf people when they see meaningless hand movements that are part of sign language. These findings reinforce the finding that the brain processes both spoken and signed languages in much the same way.

There are (expected) differences in language processing between the brains of deaf people and hearing people as well. Petitto’s study showed that deaf and hearing people have increased blood flow to language portions of their brains, the deaf people also showed increased blood flow to primary visual areas. Since they use a visual language, not verbal, the brain must recruit different areas of the brain for language processing that hearing people do not use.

SO, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
We can establish that hearing people and Deaf/deaf people alike can choose to see deafness as either pathological or cultural. For hearing people, this choice has an impact on how they relate to the deaf and Deaf. For the Deaf and deaf, they can choose to see themselves either as part of the “Deaf Culture”, or they can choose to see themselves pathologically “outside the norm” (having something wrong with them). This choice can have a great impact on how they view themselves, their abilities, and how they interact with others.

We can also establish that some in the Deaf Culture choose to exclude those who are different than they are (either not born deaf or being hearing). We see this same tendency in many cultures; White Culture, Black Culture, religious cultures of many varieties. The fact that some people in the Deaf Culture mistreat those who do not fit in may only serve to tell us how they act like people in other cultures, not how different they are.

The “Psychology of Deafness” also shows how similar deaf people are to hearing people. The way we process language is important to our humanity, and the finding that the way these two groups of people (deaf and hearing) are so similar in this brain process is more significant to our alikeness than our differences.

My conclusion is that (as with most cultures) the more we learn about others, the more we see similarities, rather than differences.


http://www.answers.com/topic/pathology?method=6
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=culture*1+0&dict=A
http://www.med.harvard.edu/publications/On_The_Brain/Volume4/Number4/F95Lang.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9422693&dopt=Citation
http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/brain.html
http://www.nr.edu/cdhh/sotac%20resource%20guide/deaf-culture.htm#1
http://www.signmedihttp://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=2561.1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-deafnessa.com/info/adc.htm

Adult Christian Singles: Conclusion/Works Cited

CONCLUSION

Two places should fully accept every member that walks in; family and church (there are a few exceptions to being accepted – being single is not one of them.) If nay person walks out of a church service feeling lonelier than when they walked in, a problem exists. When a single adult walks into a church and sees nothing relevant to his or her own life situation, a problem exists. When a single adult walks out of the church and away from the bride of Christ because he or she feels disenfranchised by the church and pastorate, a problem exists. A problem exists in many American churches today.

The final question (that has been asked before): “Does the church find single people worth the effort?” Shouldn’t the church find all of God’s children worth the effort to minister to them, in the way that they need, right where they are? To what extent will the church invite, pursue and embrace single adults, the fastest growing mission field in the United States today? Only the church can decide.

“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine…you did it to me’” (Matthew 25:10)



WORKS CITED
Assemblies of God(USA) Official Website
Barna, George. Single Focus, Understanding Single Adults. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2003
Christian Connections Ministries
Christian Reformed Church of North America.
Duin, Julie. “Why Singles Boycott Churches.” Breakpoint Online (This article is no longer available online)
Dupont, Marc A. Toxic Churches. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 3004
Johnson, Jeff. “Singles’ Group Calls Marriage Benefits ‘Discrimination’.” CNSNews
September 23, 2003
Kamstra, Doug. A Single Focus. Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications
New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, 1995
Sacks, Glenn. "Convicted Murderess Can Get Custody But Decent Fathers Can't."
September 19, 2003
Sacks, Glenn. "Many Divorced Dads Struggle to Remain in Their Children's Lives." June 5, 2003
United Methodist Church
Unmarried America
United States Census, 2000
Widder, Wendy. A Match Made in Heaven, Grand Rapids, MI Kregel Publications, 2003
Willow Creek Community Church
Young Widows and Widowers


Monday, December 26, 2005

Adult Christian Singles: Options for Singles Ministries

OPTIONS FOR SINGLES MINISTRIES IN THE AMERICAN CHURCH


What the Church Can Do For Singles

The diversity of the singles population requires that any singles ministry reflect that diversity. A multi-faceted singles ministry can be built around the spiritual, emotions, physical and fellowship needs of the singles involved.

In a typical week, only one of three single adults attends a church service (Barna 86). About 30% of all singles have not attended a church service other than a holiday or special event within the past six months (Barna 93). Even among singles who consider themselves Christians, many are walking away from the church. In order to understand how the church can meet the needs of singles, we need to understand why they are leaving the church in the first place.

“We live in an age where the commutes are long and leisure time is short, “Duin writes, ”Singles, like everybody else, do not like to waste time nor suffer fools gladly. I’ve seen the same pattern all over the country; committed evangelical Christian men and women in their thirties and forties who have had it with their family-centric churches and who have quietly slipped out. They have put in their twenty or more years of service to their church and have gotten little or nothing back.” If churches do not make themselves relevant to the lives of single adults, church attendance will continue to dwindle, even as the singles population explodes.

The answer to the question, “What does a singles ministry look like?” is not simple; it depends on the church and the singles that attend. Single adults want to be integrated into the church as a whole, to be included as servants and as recipients. They also want to have peer support and fellowship to meet their particular needs as singles (just as seniors, women, youth, etc., want to meet together.) DivorceCare© and GriefShare© (both from Church Initiatives) are wonderful examples of the care that many newly single people benefit from. A single adult should be able to worship fully, help to teach, organize and minister – and yet have that niche where he or she can meet with others with a commonality; where they can all understand each other more fully because they have been there.

George Barna defines six pillars of the Christian faith that form the basis for healthy Christian development: worship, evangelism, personal spiritual development, resource stewardship, community service and fellowship. Christians (married or single) often see this list more like a menu – choosing one or two of the more comfortable areas and developing those, resulting in incomplete believers (75). When this happens, they have a lopsided view of Christianity that enables them to continue with their lukewarm beliefs. Helping singles identify and develop each of those pillars will help them make a major leap forward in their walk with God and become better servants within the church.

Single Christians, like all Christians, need an active prayer life. Like all Christians, they need intercessory prayer and the opportunity to pray in small groups and (if needed) to be taught to have an active individual prayer life.

Single adults who are entering the church for the first time, or who find themselves in a new life situation and serious about God for the first time, will need to have an opportunity to study God’s Word. They will benefit greatly from having a small Bible study group with a guide written by single adults. Singles, especially new singles, need to see the “dots connected”, to be taught how the entire body of Christ fits into God’s greater purpose. Until they have a chance to dig deep into Scripture, they will continue on the path they are on, ever hearing, never understanding.

Programs or Bible studies that address the unique needs of each group of singles involved in the ministry should supplement the universal needs of singles. Smaller churches can network together to form sustainable groups.

Younger people (either in age or spiritual maturity) may still be searching for significance and may be working their way toward discovering their place in the church. Younger adults who have never been married might need assistance learning how to relate to adults (married or single) as adults. Only a few younger adults (especially singles) have developed a significant understanding of Barna’s spiritual pillars and should have the opportunity to study and put what they learn into practice (Barna 130). The more mature Christian can offer experience and be valuable role models to celibate teens.

For the divorced person, life can be a wild ride. They can feel physically exhausted, emotionally drained, financially strapped and spiritually confused (Barna 131). Any person working in a ministry to divorced people, especially newly divorced, needs to have a deep understanding of the stress in their lives. At times, divorcees need plenty of space and other times they may want to cling; they want direction and support, but also want control. Those who minister to newly divorced people should not expect much enthusiasm about church involvement. The divorcee may have already felt the contempt of those “Christians” who look down on them because of their divorce.

Many widowed people live at a pace all their own. Typically older, they may choose not to be a part of a singles ministry at all, preferring to fellowship with “senior adults” rather than more active, younger singles. They do not want more responsibility, control or conflict. They may wish to help out with a ministry, but not run it (Barna 130). Younger widowed people may identify more with divorced people in their age range and should be encouraged to join whatever group (or groups) they feel most comfortable in.

Some singles do not want a segregated singles group at all; they want to be completely bonded to the mainstream of the church and get their “singles fix” some other way. Others want to be connected to the heartbeat of the church, but also want a smaller, more intimate group of single adults with which to fellowship. Still others would like to be part of an integrated small group, but have social opportunities for singles. In a church that cares about singles, all can be available. The church can facilitate the gathering of singles but should be careful not to make it appear to make it mandatory. The list of activities that can be geared toward single adults or be sponsored by a singles ministry is endless, and the list will vary from church to church

Many of the goals of a targeted adult singles ministry are universal to all ministries, but some are particular to singles. A sample list of “Goals and Objectives for a Singles Ministry” reads:
  • Recognize singleness as an acceptable lifestyle.

  • Equip single adults with necessary skills to live productive lives.

  • Minister to single adults during times of crisis.

  • Help single adults become integrated into the local church ministry and family.

  • Help members of the church family see single adults as family members.

  • Provide single adults a place of service to minister to the church family.

  • Develop support structures within the church to meet the unique needs of the single adult and single-parent family.

What Single Adults Can Do For the Church

Dick Schmidt says:
Singles ministry plays a vital role in the life and development of our church. It is viewed that way from the top down. Our elders view the singles ministry as vital for at least the following two reasons: 1) It is a key entry point into the church. Many people who are now in leadership…came through the door of our singles ministry. 2) As a church we believe…that every individual has spiritual gifts. Everyone is challenged and encouraged to nurture their God-given abilities to serve others…People who are part of the singles ministry have the opportunity to develop into strong Christian leaders…In fact, one of the stated goals for the singles ministry is that it be a leadership development center. A significant part of our church leadership is made up of single adults. They play a vital part in the life and growth of this church.” (Kamstra 4:8)


A targeted singles ministry can have an immense impact on a church. While there are many single mothers on the verge of poverty (or beyond), there are also many single professionals who bring education, skills and “sweat equity” to the church. Single adults have much more to bring to the church than filling the nursery or Sunday School duty that is typically open to them.

Susan notes that before any person can feel truly accepted, they must first feel truly useful. An integral part of a singles ministry should be to offer opportunities to serve the church in a wide variety of ways. If the church reaches out to single adults and gives them equal opportunities to serve on committees, boards and councils, singles will reach out in kind and become an involved and satisfied part of the church.


Go on to "CONCLUSION/WORKS CITED"

Adult Christian Singles - The Church's Response

THE CHURCH’S RESPONSE

Do We Need a Singles Ministry?

George Barna challenges, “Now that you know many of the complexities of singles and just how challenging such a ministry might be, are you asking whether nor not ministry to single adults is worth the effort? (If you’re not, I suspect you’re not paying attention!) (133)

Are
churches paying attention? How sensitive are churches to single adults?

American churches exhibit more sensitivity to the needs of families, the elderly, children, teenagers and the poor – and less to the needs of minorities, non-Christians and singles. The church’s sensitivity to families gets the highest rating, while single adults and single parents get among the lowest. (Kamstra 2:1)


In Grand Rapids, there are two churches that are located only a few miles from each other. One appears to have no immediate plans for a focused singles ministry; the other church already has one in place. The first church has the usual assortment of targeted fellowship groups, but no singles fellowship that meets on a regular (or even irregular) basis. There are singles there, but the church does not facilitate making it easy for them to meet together in an organized way. The church has chosen its focus, and a targeted singles ministry does not fit into their paradigm at this time.

Single adults quietly slip out the “back door” of the church to attend down the road, seeking fellowship with other in their life situation – and one of them, Anne, was sent. A small group leader at the first church had told her that if she wanted to be with singles, she needed to go to [name withheld] church.

My dad told me a story while I was researching this paper.

Two pastors were chatting over coffee. The first one proudly told the second one, “My church is so family oriented that there are no divorced people and very few single people in our congregation!”

The second pastor was sad for the first pastor, but just as proud of his own congregation, “Yes…I know. We have them all.”


This seems to go beyond the indifference that Elie Wiesel talked about. Anne did not leave the first church looking for something more; she was sent. A (married) church employee, when told this story said in response, “That’s not sending them away because we don’t want them. It’s an act of love to send them where they will be given what they need.” Unfortunately, while this sounds good, what would Christ really have them do? Is the “save them and send them somewhere else” attitude truly the “Christian” way of doing things? Jesus gave us the parable of the “Good Samaritan”. In this parable, the “religious” men of the church passed right by that hurting person on the side of the road. It was the Samaritan that saw the need and met it. He didn’t send the man someplace else; he washed him, bandaged him and helped him right where he was and only later put the victim on his own donkey to take him to a safe place to stay.

“But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.” (Luke 10:33-34)


The first church has a sign in their office: “All things must be saturated in prayer.” That is true. The Bible says that we are to pray about all things, without ceasing. But the Bible also tells us that if we do not follow up our prayers with action, our faith is useless. Until all members of the body are on board and truly making all people feel fully embraced as spiritual siblings, this attitude of indifference will continue.

“For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26)


Pastoral Staff


The Bible calls Christ “the Good Shepherd”, the senior pastor might be compared to the sheep dog, out in the field, running his heart out, trying to keep all those silly sheep going in the right direction. If the pastor appears indifferent to any one group, the rest of the church will most likely follow. “A ‘do it, but don’t bother me with it’ attitude will put the singles ministry right next door to the broom closet.” (Kamstra 4:10) Any ministry will die without the full support of the pastorate, and that includes a singles ministry. Pastors do not need to live the life of a single person; they do need to recognize that the church needs to make a focused effort to minister to all of Christ’s flock.

Most pastors have healthy marriages and families of their own so it may be difficult for them to “wear the shoes” of single adults; they may not be able to run a singles ministry as effectively as a single person.

Any singles ministry must be “owned” and headed by singles. Since an adult singles ministry will have a higher turnover in leadership (due to marriages and moves), there must be a specific and determined effort to develop new leaders. The leadership team should be larger for a singles ministry than for most other types of ministries.

The pastorate and married congregation must ask (and keep asking), “Are singles worth a targeted ministry?” In many churches, the answer seems evident – no, they are not. As long as single adults fit into the current programs that the church has, they are welcome to stay, but no new programs are on the horizon.

Many singles fell that they are never truly embraced. When they want change, the receive the unspoken (or spoken) hint: The church down the road already has lots of singles…why don’t you go there?” And many singles have. In early 2004, I was in the choir at my church, looking out over the sanctuary. There were many seats open that particular Sunday and the thought came to me, “If this church truly wanted single adults here – if we really invited them, pursued them and embraced single adults until they represented a third of the congregation, this sanctuary would be full and overflowing.”

Julia Dunn relates, “Look at church budgets. One church I used to attend had a vibrant singles group. We pleaded for some part-time staff help but were turned down because budgets, we were told, were tight. Yet at the same time, the church was adding on youth worker after youth worker. So our group died.” In that church, singles were not worth it.


Go on to "OPTIONS FOR SINGLES MINISTRIES IN THE AMERICAN CHURCH"

Adult Christian Singles - Desires and Perceived Needs

THE DESIRES AND PERCEIVED NEEDS OF SINGLES IN THE CHURCH

The life situations of single adults vary so widely that if asked how their churches could better minister to them, a dozen single adults would likely give a dozen different answers.

The wide range of needs and desires of singles fall mainly into four general areas: spiritual (their walk with God), physical (life’s daily needs and challenges), emotional (depending on their reasons for being single) and social (fellowship in the body of Christ). The organizational structure of the church cannot possibly meet all those needs and it should not even attempt to. The church can, however, make it possible for the congregation to meet the needs of their spiritual siblings. Caring pastors and boards can make it easier for single adults to find each other and meet each other’s social (fellowship), spiritual and emotional needs and help them navigate the organizational structure in place to meet their physical needs.

Spiritual Needs of Single Adults


All Christians, including singles, need to define and establish their purpose in life. Single adults, however, have different needs than married people. Couples need to focus on their marriages – God intended them to be as one flesh (Genesis 2:24) and they must pursue the spiritual aspect of their marriages with that in mind. Singles are “going it alone”, whether by choice, chance or circumstance, and they must recognize their spiritual needs with that in mind.

“Ministry groups” (designed to reflect the makeup of the congregation) hold the focus of one large church in Grand Rapids. The church urges these ministry groups to attempt to meet the needs of the members of their group before going to the resources of the church. When this paper was first written, there were no singles-only groups available and singles were mostly getting put into groups at random. A ministry group can easily consist of a group of people with nothing in common except Christ9. Many singles find it uncomfortable, if not inappropriate to share inner struggles of a personal nature in a mixed group of men and women, so the intimate sharing that could (and should) be taking place cannot. People in ministry groups are quick to reach out and help in any way that they can and they do support singles in many ways. For issues that relate specifically to singleness, however, singles may find the fellowship and support of other singles more useful. Some singles desire a “singles only” group; others do not. In an ideal situation, they would have both options.

Married couples with children, to some extent, have their spiritual path marked out for them. One of their major spiritual goals is to raise their children in a Godly way; God laid that path out for them.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6)


Single adults with children also bear this responsibility; without the help of a partner, the job becomes much more difficult. Single custodial parents may fill the role of both mother and father, creating a pressure that God never parents to bear. The Bible says that God supports the fatherless; single mothers find it easier to believe the promise when the men of God step up to the job description of mentor, teacher and guide.

“The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow…” (Psalms 146:9)


Single adults without children have challenges as well. Persistent matchmakers may cause singles to question their value. They may begin to wonder, “What’s wrong with me?” and “Why can’t I just be accepted for who I am?” In a church where the focus in on the family, a single person might be told outright that God has that one special person out there for him or her. Faith in God may suffer when that person doesn’t show up. This focus on marriage pulls the focus away from God (Widder 179)

The church must intentionally address the unique spiritual needs of single adults – issues like marriage and singleness, dating and preparing for marriage in a Godly way and relating to the rest of the church as singles in a married world. Until it does, church will become increasingly irrelevant to single adults, especially those new to the faith and those who are struggling with other life circumstances.


Emotional Needs of Single Adults


The emotional needs of single adults differ by population and age. Never married singles and those without children may seem more transient than those who have children, primarily due to either education or work related moves. This movement leads to high turnover rates in the church and makes it difficult for singles to develop and maintain relationships with other Christian singles adults. Because single adults are often geographically removed from their families, they have an increased need for relational connection (Kamstra 5:6). Single adults may want or need help making and maintaining intimate, long-lasting, same-sex friendships.

For divorcees, the emotional needs depend not only on the circumstances of the divorce, but also on the attitudes of the church that they attend. New divorcees often have a sense of alienation, guilt and failure. They not only deal with the end of their marriage, they suddenly feel the added responsibilities of being the only adult in the household. Divorcees with children are thrust into single parenting; combined with an overwhelming feeling that nobody understands and a sense of intense loneliness, life seems a recipe for burnout. They often feel not only rejected by their spouse, they feel alienated by their families, churches and even from God. More than nearly anything else, divorced people (especially new divorcees) have a need for acceptance. They need the support and fellowship of other single Christians and divorced people in particular; they often find value in recovery programs such as DivorceCare©, conducted by people that have experienced divorce themselves (Church Initiative).

Traditionally, the church accepts widowed people more than the other segments of the singles population. Yes, the marriage ended, but it ended with a death certificate, not a divorce certificate. Widowed people account for 6.6% of the United States adult population, with 2% being between the ages of 34 and 55 (2002 American Community Survey). Older widowed people in the church are more likely to be emotionally cared for by their families and many churches have programs for seniors, which offers older people the opportunity to fellowship with peers. Older people may also enjoy serving the body of Christ as “phone buddies” or by being mentors to younger Christians. Like all people, they have a need to be valued and needed for who they are (Barna, 131).

Younger widowed people walk a different path than older widowed people do. Many have children at home and may find that they share more challenges with divorced parents than they share with older widowed people. They may also feel anger and frustration at having to start over at a young age, when they should have been married for many more years (Young Widows and Widowers). This group often benefits from a recovery program, such as GriefShare©. While GriefShare© is designed for anybody who has suffered a loss through death, the program recognizes that widowed people may find it difficult to feel optimistic about the future. This faith-based program offers the opportunity to meeting with others who understand the deep pain that widowed people experience (Church Initiatives).

Newly widowed Christians, thrust (sometimes unwillingly) into singleness, find fellowship with other singles essential. For years, they have functioned as half of a couple – part of the whole; in the time it takes to draw one breath, the are the whole. Like divorcees, widowed people need to learn to socialize as a single person and given the opportunity, they can learn from each other.

The local church cannot meet all of the emotional needs of newly single people in most cases. Ideally, people are not “fixed”. Rather, they are given the tools to adjust to their changing lives. Of course, in some cases singles (like anybody else) do need counseling, but if the first option puts singles into a group of peers where they can get support and ideas from others who have been where they are, showing them that they are not alone, those adjustments take place much more quickly.

Emotionally, every person faces experiences that require a strong support system. Most marriages have that built in, but single adults must actively recruit their support. A single parent finds this support crucial in the case of illness.

When a married parent has a cold, in is an inconvenience – his or her spouse makes dinner and picks up the slack (although some married people would argue this point.) When a custodial single parent has a cold, he or she may not have a backup to pick up the slack. If the parent is sick in bed, the dishes will still stay in the sink, the laundry will pile up and life will rush on. If a sole custodial parent has a sick child, he or she may have nobody to take turns during the night, laving the parent exhausted. During the day, a single parent with a sick child may miss work to take care of his or her child, which can quickly lead to financial hardship. Susan, a single adoptive mother says, “When my daughter is sick, I have to stay home from work; it makes me look irresponsible to my boss, my co-workers. And I still have to pay for daycare!”

Even minor surgeries can cause big problems. I recently had a minor surgery; all of my family lives out of town and I had to make arrangements to get home. My siblings all work, my mother and father were in Florida. They did make arrangements to come back to Michigan a little early so my dad could drive me home. A friend volunteered as well and - somehow things got confused and both of these people thought the other one was driving; so neither one of them made plans to be there! It did work out – they both showed up. But it was difficult not having somebody there. Sometimes people complain that I’m too independent, but when I did need help, coordinating it was harder than I thought.

Serious illness wreak an emotional havoc all their own. A single parent can feel isolated and adrift. Helene is a young teacher, 26 years old. She has never been married and has a three-year-old son. A third year teacher, she currently takes classes toward her Master’s Degree. In November 2003, she also had cancer surgery. Helene lamented, “Married people just don’t understand! I need to talk with somebody who understands what it is like to be single and going through something this hard!” In a church that holds marriage up as the ideal, this woman wanted somebody who could empathize, not just sympathize.

Married people do go through serious illnesses, but illness can seem much harder for a single parent, unless they have had the opportunity to form strong relationships with their peers. Faced with the realization that life truly does not go on forever, a single parent has to deal not only with his or her own mortality, but also with the future lives of his or her children. In the lives of most divorced people, the other parent can step in. For single mothers with children whose father is not around, having to choose who will have custody of her children can be a soul-wrenching experience.

Most married people simply cannot comprehend the depth of feeling that a single parent feels during times of life-threatening illness. They can sympathize, but not empathize. This does not mean that married people cannot effectively minister to singles, but in times of great stress, most human beings feel a need to draw close to others with a single life experience in common.

Singles can and should fellowship with married people. The experiences of the entire body have value and nobody should ever go out of his or her way to segregate totally. However, married people may have a harder time internalizing some of the specific challenges that single people experience; other singles may more easily draw closer to the situation since they can more easily picture themselves alone and ill. The church organization cannot meet the single person’s need for peer support, but it can (and should) make it easier for single people to network (fellowship) and meet together to meet each other’s needs.

Social Needs of Single Adults


Known by the church as “fellowship”, people have chosen to fellowship with people that they have something in common with since nearly the beginning of time. Women gathered around the well in villages or at the river to do laundry and talked as they worked. In more recent times, quilting bees have drawn women together for fellowship and the Bible tells us about men gathering at the gates of cities. People have a need to socialize with other people and they are naturally drawn to those that they share a common kinship with. Single adults are no different.

One church tells singles that the church is not a “consumer church,” and they do not want to have one group of people segregating themselves. Looking at a table with fliers advertising a marriage retreat, events for “MOPS” (Mothers of pre-schoolers), people over 50, teens, grade school children, women, men and even golfers, it was hard to understand why all of these segments of the church family deserve targeted ministries, while singles were described as a “consumer group”.

Single people should, of course, participate in the church body as a whole but may also desire to socialize as singles. Churches need to avoid completely segregating singles and having a “church within a church”. Most of the time singles should have the opportunity to feel embraced by the church body and have a singles fellowship where they do not feel like the oddball. To fit in, to belong is a basic human need. Shortly after I was widowed, I was asked to attend an event with a couple. Afterward, I said to a (single) woman who had been a close friend for years, “I felt like a fifth wheel.” She responded, “You’re a fifth wheel. Get used to it.” That blunt statement of how this single woman perceives that couples see singles was my first real introduction to being single in a married world. Even women’s groups can feel challenging and frustrating for a single adult woman. Churches may unintentionally exclude single mothers when they do not offer child care for an event – assuming that there is a spouse at home to care for children. In women’s groups the topic often turns to husbands (and their faults), and single women feel not only left out of the conversation but can also feel that the married women around her just do not appreciate the value of the life they have. There are times in women’s groups when the conversation turns to more intimate topics; this can be extremely awkward for single women, who cannot participate.

Physical Needs of Single Adults


Single adults feel very aware that they are outside the church “norm” just by being single. Many Americans thrive on independence and singles are on their own; they may not want to admit that they need help with life’s daily problems (child care, illness and home/car repairs.) the one who gives is blessed as much as the one who receives; to deny a spiritual sibling the opportunity to help deprives him or her of the blessing. For single adults who may already feel isolated from the body, this may be a difficult lesson to learn. If singles are supported by other singles who encourage them to turn to the church, seeking help may be easier.

Singles should not bypass the church for their giving; goods and services have traditionally (and Biblically) been funneled through the organization. Christians should encourage other Christians to allow the body to minister to them by giving either goods or services

“For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.” Acts 4:34-35)


Single Parents
  • 60% of all children in the United States will live in a single parent household before the age of 18

  • The single parent is the most rapidly growing “poverty level segment of our society.”

  • Three out of every four teenage suicides occur in single-parent households (Kamstra 7:1)
Statistically, the children of a single parent are more likely to be at risk, and churches must make a choice. They can either embrace single parents, helping them mentor their children or they can treat them with indifference or worse. Single parents have many personal challenges – they may be recovering from the loss of a relationship and may be dealing with grief, forgiveness, depression and loneliness. A sole custodial parent must learn to adjust to being single while bearing the responsibility of being a parent. Many single parents are financially stable, but some are not; planning for the future can be frustrating when you are part of the fastest growing population in poverty.

Single mothers need the help of a few others with parenting. (Studies show that in contested cases mothers are granted the sole custody over fathers by a margin of eight to one. According to research conducted by Sanford Braver, author or “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths”, divorced mothers are five times as likely to be satisfied with their post-divorce child custody arrangements as divorced fathers (Glenn Sacks, Convicted Murderess.) With younger children, single mothers need a break now and then. The church can help by facilitating relationships that will offer those breaks. Single mothers with teenagers need to have a system in place that will provide a dependable Godly man to mentor her children into adulthood. All children need multiple adult models; they will find them whether the church helps provide them or not. If a child finds all of his or her adult role models in secular sources, congregation members should ask themselves if they church is filling its job description. Deb says, “I had people ask, ‘What can I do to help?’ I suggested they include my son when they take their son fishing, baseball – nothing! Nobody followed through.” My own experience is similar. An elder who had lined up a mentor for my son – as a trial for a church sponsored system, approached me. We were introduced, the man was given our phone number – he never called.

Non-custodial single fathers need the love and support of the church as much as custodial
mothers do. Two-thirds of divorce proceedings in the United States are initiated by women between the ages of 21 and 37 (U.S. Census). Studies show that (as mentioned before) in contested cases mothers are granted sole custody over fathers by a margin of eight to one. Many single fathers have not only suffered the loss of the marriage, they are also dealing with being separated from their children. Seventy-five percent of divorced fathers maintain that their ex-wives have interfered with their court-ordered visitation rights and 40 of the ex-wives admit to it. In some cases, the ex-wives have moved many miles away, making it nearly impossible for fathers to see their children on a regular basis (Glenn Sacks, “Many Divorced Dads”). Child support payments are often a huge drain on a non-custodial father’s finances, making the adjustment as a single even more difficult

Single parents need loving support, not judgment. They need to be surrounded with loving spiritual siblings – both single and married. Like every part of the body, single parents need to be supported in a tangible way – and that means that the body of Christ must step forward to meet their spiritual, physical, emotional and fellowship needs. Singles need to be included in the worship, the organization, the social structure and small group support system of the church. More than anything, they need to feel that they belong.


Go on to "THE CHURCHES’ RESPONSE"