Masamuru Ltd.

The Bible tells about the prophet Elijah and his story
When his work on earth was done God took him to glory
Other prophets of old were instruments in God’s hands
They brought God’s words to people in many lands

A prophet marches to the sound of God’s voice
The message he brings causes many to rejoice
He is often misunderstood and abused by scorners
And is often seen in the company of mourners

Sometimes he sighs and weeps over the state of affairs
He often prays to God and has many burdens he bears
His sleep is disturbed by divine dreams and visions
He seeks God’s wisdom and will when making decisions

The office of prophet is very special indeed
To his words the people need to take heed
The message he brings is not one of his own
But the words are from God who is on his throne

The Lord still has prophets like those men of old
They are filled with the spirit and are very bold
The Lord has said do my prophets no harm
Listen to their words as they sound the alarm

Jesus Christ is coming back and very soon
The sun and stars will change so will the moon
Be prepared to meet your maker this I do say
It may be your time to die this very day

Copyright 2005 Irvin L. Rozier

About the Author

Author of My Walk with the Lord, www.selahbooks.com, various other poems and articles (do a google or yahoo search on my name), preacher, retired military

Prophecy as usualthis is not!

Swirling amidst the confusion in the Middle East and amidst those in the media, think tanks, and Left-Behind-oriented prophecy buffs is a plethora of disjointed and ever-changing analyses and strategic conclusions/confusions which becloud the real issues playing out in the unfolding apocalyptic drama they interpret. Events twist and turn, but history’s inexorable march to finality confounds the skeptic, thwarts the agnostic, and befuddles the wise in his own conceits.

Yes, this is an eschatological compass which takes its cue from the Book, but it’s not what you’d expect, not at all. Of Samuel Huntington’s major civilizations which encompass the globe, there are but three that militate against each other: Western, Chinese, and Islamic. All three, according the Bible (and this is not a wild eyed conjecture, but a calculated hermeneutic of Scripture) were forecast to clash “in the latter days” by Hebrew prophets Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel and Ezekiel, and were substantiated by New Testament counterparts; namely, Jesus, Paul, and John.

No, “events have not overtaken us” . . . nor do we rely upon their fickle interpretations to fit the Biblical account. To the contrary, the Word of God stands unalterable, unchanging, persistent in its discernment; yet, dynamic in the manifestation “by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations” at the close of this age (Romans 16:26a).

The current realignment of nations in the Middle East, and for that matter, throughout the earth, astounds and comforts, persuades and consoles the masses on the planet . . . while alerting Gentile World Powers (“to all nations”), their days are numbered, for “with evil intent” have they conspired against His purposes (Zechariah 1:15).

Syria, Iran (Persia), Magog, Tubal, Togarmah and Mesheck (Turkey or Magog), Egypt, Libya and Cush (Sudan) have, are and will conspire together as they face the Willful King of the West. This is not Lord of the Rings: This is the unfolding of those final Biblical conflicts . . . Gog and Magog, and the Campaign of Armageddon. Here, the West’s final confrontation with the Kings of the East over the “Hidden Treasures” reaches its vile and horrid termination . . . for the Antichrist/Beast, False Prophet and Image have sought to amass the wealth of the nations, subdue all nations, and destroy the witness of both Israel and the Church.

No, no, no . . . this is not a “prophetic game” . . . you’re in this, we’re all in this . . . “multitudes, multitudes in the Valley of Decision, for the day of the Lord is near in the Valley of Decision” (Joel 3:14).

A final word . . . those who contend that “Apocalyptic/Armageddon oriented souls” are the enemy of civilization and progressive thought (at worst) or ignorant day dreamers (at best), unfortunately view the world through their own understanding secured through the wisdom of man. May I be so bold to suggest that they who adhere to absolutes are neither as barbaric nor absurd as their critics make them out to be . . . who knows, knowledge of this nature just might be so dangerous to the intellectual elite, that they could actually find hope in the current insanity gripping the earth through the reading of what initially may be dismissed out of hand as trivial contemplations.

In any event . . . May the rant and writ of this compendium of thoughts and insights bring us closer to the One Who knows our frame, our deepest thoughts, our real intentions . . . and clarify those essentials of His Word to us who believe, while penetrating the heart of those who do not believe, thereby leading them to salvation through the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Go here to see the rest of the article:

During the Feast of Tabernacles, the Jews had a ceremony of lights. They lit huge golden candlesticks with golden bowls on them and placed them in the Temple area in the Court of the Women. These lights illuminated all of Jerusalem.

Chapter 8 of Book IV of the classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim, tells us in this connection that the term “light” was specially applied to the Messiah.

It was in this context that Jesus Christ clearly indicated that he was the Messiah when he said “I am the light of the world,” as recorded in John 8:12 (KJV). Christians are called to reflect the light of Jesus Christ to the world and to help spread the gospel to all the world.

We Are to Walk in the Light

We have been called by God the Father to walk in the light of his truth as the apostle John shows in I John 1:5-7:

“5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (KJV)

God has given all power in heaven and earth to Jesus Christ, who is head of the Church. Jesus Christ has given his disciples the great commission of spreading the light of the gospel to all nations. We must follow the light of Jesus Christ because a good example is important in fulfilling our calling to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20).

Although Satan may appear as an angel of light, the true light comes from Jesus Christ and the Word of God. They light our path so that we can follow where the light leads with boldness. We are to study God’s Word diligently so that we can see the true light for our journey.

We need the light of God’s Word to guide us in our daily lives at school, at work, in the home, and in the church. We must admit our sins when the light shows us that we are off course, seek God’s forgiveness, and ask Him for a course correction. Sometimes the course we are following seems to be good, but we must be willing to change course as we better understand the Word of God.

We must walk in the light by faith. We must grow in grace and knowledge so that we can better reflect the light of Christ to others (II Peter 3:18).

We Are to Be Lights to the World

Jesus Christ instructs us to be lights as recorded in Matthew 5:14-16

“14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (KJV)

Jesus Christ, the source of light, tells us that we also are to be sources of light. However, the light does not originate with us. We can only reflect the true light that comes from Jesus Christ.

Our good works light the path for others. Nothing teaches others better than does a good example.

People usually do not care how much we know about the Bible. However, they are moved by our example and how much we care about them as shown by our good works.

What are some of the ways that we can reflect the light of Jesus Christ through good works? Our good works do not have to be major events or cost a great deal of money. Little things mean a lot. A card, letter, or telephone call can help to brighten someone’s day. Prayer for those who are sick is something we all can do.

When and Why They Will Glorify God

People who see the good works of Christians will glorify God in the day of visitation as the apostle Peter wrote in I Peter 2:12:

“12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (KJV)

The day of visitation is when God calls them and begins to work with them. They will glorify God in the day of visitation when they view the good works they have seen from Christians more closely. They will see that God is the source of their light.

As we navigate our ships through life’s stormy seas, we should keep our eyes on Jesus Christ the true lighthouse. We should walk in the light of Jesus Christ and the Bible and reflect it to others. We should keep our eyes on the mission of helping to shine the light of the good news of the Kingdom of God to all the world.

Alan D. Campbell lives in Brandon, Florida. For more good news, please see his blog The Good News of the Kingdom of God at http://goodnewsofthekingdomofgod.blogspot.com

Understanding Daniel’s 70 Weeks

Scholars generally agree that each of the seventy weeks represent seven prophetical years.
The seventy weeks are divided into three sections, seven weeks, sixty-two weeks and one week. The first seven weeks are added to the sixty-two, bringing the total to sixty-nine weeks. This would bring us up to the time of Christ. This marks the closing era or last days of Israel evoking the statement from Jesus, “The time is fulfilled…the kingdom of God has drawn near, (Mark 1:14, 15).

Daniel predicts Jesus’ violent crucifixion saying that the Messiah is cut off, that is crucified, after the sixty-ninth week. There can be no mistake therefore that Jesus was crucified in the last or seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy.

Since Christ was cutoff after sixty-two weeks and because these followed the first seven weeks, then it is clear that Jesus was crucified after “sixty-nine” weeks or in the last, final or seventieth week. Some like to place a 2000 year time-gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel. To do so would violently upset God’s prophetical scheme for the crucifixion of Christ. It would place Jesus’ crucifixion in our future. Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye have done this very thing with their “gap-theory on Daniel 9:25, 26. See The End Times Controversy, page 341.

Daniel’s seventy weeks mark out the time of Jesus crucifixion and his return in judgment upon the nation of Israel. There is no gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It is a clear testimony that the time of the end has come and gone.

William Bell is a public speaker and author on Covenant Eschatology. Visit http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com Write to: info@allthingsfulfilled.com

Now, let’s recall again the text: “Let her be covered.” That is God’s decree.

All right, let who be covered? That is question number 4. “Who is to be covered?” If this is for Mennonites only, as some wrongly suppose, then it ought to read “let every Mennonite sister be covered.” But the text has in it no such limitation. This is not a denominational teaching. This is a Bible teaching.

Already in verse 3 we are being prepared to think in a much broader scope, for there, where the principle is in focus, it is stated that the head of EVERY man is Christ. No exception is made. Christ is the authority figure for every man, whether or not he obeys Him, Christ is his head. And, by the same token, man remains woman’s God-appointed head, whether or not she submits. And then when we come to the application, verses 4-6, again it’s EVERY woman and EVERY man, indicating the widest possible application, conveying the idea that this practice is intended to be universal. There’s also no reference here to marriage, which eliminates the idea that this is applicable only to women who are married. You may sometime be confronted with that idea. Really, the headship of man over woman is an aspect of God’s government in this world. And, as such, it is not limited only to life in the Kingdom of God. But, since judgment begins at the house of God, Paul is here singling out an instance that would constitute a violation in the context of church life.

I’m driven to the conclusion that EVERY woman who wants to take her God-assigned place under man is duty-bound to signify that purpose of heart by being covered. “Who is to be covered?” SHE is to be covered — the woman who recognizes and submits to her God-ordained place in God’s arrangement.

Growing out of this is a fifth question: “With what shall she be covered?”

An increasing number of voices are responding to this question with this easy answer: “With her hair. Let her be covered with her hair.” But this answer simply cannot survive close scrutiny. To begin with, at the time of this writing [of 1 Corinthians 11] there was practically no need in Christian circles for a plea to retain the hair covering. Long hair had been the long-accepted practice, and to my knowledge was not even being challenged.

Furthermore, those who claim that this passage has in view no other covering but the hair are knowingly discrediting about 1900 years of Christian practice and Biblical scholarship. For that long of time, the wearing of an additional covering was taught and practiced on a very wide scope. Those who argue for the hair only are thereby implying that in respect to this issue the Christian church started out wrong and has been wrong for most of her history. I’m not ready to believe that.

Verse 15 does speak of long hair as “A” covering, nature’s covering, but it’s not “THE” covering called for in verses 5-6. And that conclusion is substantiated by the fact that, in the Greek, the word for covering in verses 5-6 is not the same word as is used in verse 15. And this difference comes to light in a number of the more reliable modern versions. They actually use the term “veil” in verses 5-6.

But a careful reading of verse 6, even in the King James Version, should convince anyone that another covering beside the hair is in view. Let’s right now take a moment to look at that verse. Verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered”. Let’s stop right there. If, as some claim, the hair is the only covering in view, than this clause would envision a woman whose hair has been removed, right? “For if the woman be not covered.” That envisions a case where the hair has been removed, if the hair is the covering called for. Now, look at the next clause: “Let her also be shorn.” Now you have a problem on your hands, for how can you remove something that has already been removed? How can there be two successive removals of the same thing? What the statement really means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair covering and the sign covering, or none at all. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace: that of being shorn.

And here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s will.

Now remember the question was “With what shall she be covered?” Here are possible ways of stating the simple answer. She is to voluntarily cover her head with a material covering. It ought to be distinguishable from protection coverings. It ought to be identifiable as one that carries religious significance. To think of it only as a symbol allows for it to become too small. The terminology employed here requires that it be also a covering, that which “covers”. Although it is a symbol, it must be a symbol that covers.

And now I raise question number 6: “When is she to be covered?” And in response to this, I can imagine someone saying, “Well that’s an easy one, your answer’s right there in the text. ‘Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head’. There’s your answer – she’s to be covered when she prays or prophesies.” As far as it goes that’s an acceptable answer, but I don’t think the evidence is conclusive that this practice is to be limited to such times. That would reduce it to a “devotional covering” or a “worship covering”, when actually the larger context supports the view that it’s primarily a “headship covering”. And, since the headship of man extends to all of life, and since the world so much needs the awareness that the covering creates, isn’t it logical to conclude that the wearing of the covering should be constant?

But why does Paul single out times of praying and prophesying? That is a valid question. Although we can’t know for sure, it may be that those were the occasions when the Corinthian women were beginning to think that they would be justified in throwing off their veil in the name of their newfound Christian liberty. I’m simply suggesting that Paul might have received reports of violations occurring at such times. If so, that would explain why he would name these specific times.

Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the words of my text, “Let her be covered,” are in the present active imperative form, so that, by grammatical structure, it really means “let her continue to be covered.”

In relation to this question, I would conclude with these remarks. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that “here is a soul that is presently praying or prophesying.” Rather, it signifies that “here is a woman who seeks to honour God in all of life.” So, it’s not really a prayer veiling, but a woman’s veiling, worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. Let’s think of it in those terms. Not a “devotional covering”. Not a “worship covering”. But a “woman’s covering”. A “headship covering”. That, I think, is the main thrust of the passage as a whole.

Shall we come before the Lord in prayer? Or have you made up your mind? If you think that I am boring or irrelavent, or that I do not know what I am talking about visit www.successmagnet.org
In part FOUR I will give you food for thought.

For more on this subject please write this ministry:
Living Waters For Thirsty Souls,
40 Wood Corner Road,
Ephrata, PA, USA,
17522

There are many good reasons for being vegetarians, but I
think that the Bible (both in the gospels and in the epistles)
is fairly clear about religion not being a good one.
You have Jesus saying that it is not what goes into one’s
mouth that makes one good or bad, and you have writings
from Paul about people arguing over whether they eat meat
or drink wine. Also, there is the story (in the book of Acts)
about the sheet coming down from heaven with various
forms of “unclean meat” in it for Peter to eat. What all of this
is saying is pretty strong. It is saying that a religious slant on
dietary issues tends to destroy good relations between
people, because it is so easy to become self-righteous
about what we do or do not eat.

Any theory that Jesus himself was a vegetarian seems to be
strongly overshadowed by his clear understanding that
vegetarianism is a non-issue. Even if he WAS a vegetarian,
it would not be significant. I think there is no doubt that meat
eating was practiced throughout the Old Testament. So if
vegetarianism was to be any part of Jesus’ new message,
he would have had to be quite specific about it, and, of
course, he has not been. What he is quoted as having said
seems to lean more in the other direction, as stated at the
paragraph above.

Certainly when you get the vision of the difference between
religion and the kingdom of heaven, you see just how
foreign to that whole teaching it is to start preaching
vegetarianism. Health issues are promoted by religions
around the world, while Jesus and other New Testament
writers tended to see this religious approach to health
issues as a bad thing.

I am not saying that vegetarianism is wrong, any more than
it is wrong to refrain from taking heroin. Things going into
your body may not destroy your soul, but they still can do
some pretty bad things to your health. So do look after your
health. There are legitimate health arguments with regard to
certain things that we eat or don’t eat. In particular, if there is
a lot of FAT on the meat that you eat, it is going to greatly
increase your cholesterol, and your risk of heart disease. So
do what you can to alter your diet in order to be HEALTHY,
as long as you don’t get RELIGIOUS about it.

There is a fairly simple way to pick up the difference
between seeing diet as a health issue and seeing it as a
religious issue. Religious vegetarians almost always have
a closed mind about any good that can come from eating
meat (e.g. the wonderful source of iron in red meat), and no
matter where you start from, they usually end up with the
same conclusion, i.e. that if you just stop eating meat, your
problems will be solved.

But there are two other reasons for being vegetarians which
are closer to the spirit of what Jesus taught. One is concern
about cruelty to animals.

It may sound a bit strange, but I personally don’t see that
killing animals is necessarily the same as being cruel to
animals. You can have animals as pets and still be cruel to
them; and, by the same token, you can raise animals for
food and still be sensitive to their needs. The reason I am
saying this is because I don’t think that life in itself is the
highest good. Was it Socrates who said “Not life, but a
GOOD life, is to be chiefly valued”? I think the same can
apply to animals. We are all going to die sometime, but
what matters is how we live life before that day comes.

We are told that God gives and God takes away’; but
unfortunately, when God “takes away” (i.e. when someone
dies) many people get angry with him and say that he is
unloving. But they forget that he was the one who gave us
life to begin with. My own personal feeling is that God has
given much that same power to us humans, i.e. that we can
give life to animals by breeding them, and by providing food,
shelter, etc. for them, but that we can also take that life away
when it is needed for food. Whether we are caring for the
animals or killing them for food (as a way to care for
humans) I think that we should be humane in how we do it.
This is consistent with the message of love in the gospels.

It has been argued that when Jesus told us to preach the
gospel to every creature, he was putting animals on a par
with humans. I don’t personally see that this passage is
talking about us preaching to animals. I think the word
“creature” in this context is limited to human beings… those
creatures who can comprehend the gospel. (After all, what
would you say to an ant about Christ dying for their sins, or
about living by faith?)

The final reason for being a vegetarian is based on
concerns about the wise use of Earth’s resources. I believe
that this is the best reason of all for being a vegetarian, and
it is a reason which did not exist in Christ’s day, which would
explain why he did not make specific mention of it.

The amount of land that it takes to provide meat for a
thousand people is many times more than the land that is
necessary to provide replacements for meat (e.g. soya
beans) for the same number of people. If the whole world
were to become vegetarians, we would find ourselves with
thousands (if not millions) of square miles of farmland to
spare, so that there would be crops enough to feed the
whole world a few times over.

In summary, there are four main reasons why people are
vegetarians. The worst reason is because of religious
teachings (which is why I get a bit nervous the moment
someone tries to quote scriptures to support
vegetarianism). Any of the other reasons for being a
vegetarian can turn sour if one becomes religious about it.
The second reason is because of health concerns. Then
there are concerns about cruelty to animals. And finally there
are concerns about wise use of the world’s resources. I
hope that we can all appreciate the significance of each of
these approaches to vegetarianism.

Dave McKay, and his wife Cherry, are co-founders of the
Jesus Christian communities, based in Australia, Kenya,
England, and the United States. Dave is a meat-eater, and
Cherry is a vegetarian. Visit the Jesus Christians website at
jesuschristians.com or write to Dave personally at fold@idl.net.au

The Bible is full of symbols that point to God’s redemptive plan for man. Today we are going to look at quite possibly the first such symbol in the Old Testament. In Genesis we are told what happens to Adam and Eve right after they sinned…

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” (Genesis 3:7) (NIV)

A few verses later…

“The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21) (NIV)

Adam and Eve tried to cover their bodies, and symbolically their sin, the best way they knew how by sewing some leaves together. However the Lord showed them, and us, that it would take more than the works of their own hands to cover sin. The Lord shed the innocent blood of an animal to make garments for Adam and Eve so that they may be covered both physically and spiritually.

The shedding of innocent blood remained the method of atonement for sin all the way up to the day that Jesus, the Lamb of God, became the ultimate sacrifice on the cross. The shedding of His innocent blood is sufficient to cover the sins of all who accept that gift and repent of their sins.

Christ and Culture Part 1

The conflict between Christ and culture is not new and neither is it rare. It is a daily occurrence as the boundaries are blurred and the culture develops. Christians have been viewed more often than not as subversive because of a belief that they are destined for more than just a human destiny. Many times they have paid a high price for it and continue to do so, from the early Christian martyrs of Rome to those who refuse to bend their beliefs to the desires of a communist state. In many nations of the modern world the underground church is still being persecuted.

Such cases are disturbing but expected. In many nations there are overt and covert attempts to silence religion, that is out of favour, from being expressed in public institutions. Religious views are being marginalised and reduced to impotent fairy tales better suited to children’s bedrooms before a good night kiss, or perhaps some trivial, private and quiet hobby like stamp collecting. Religion is seen as an activity not befitting an intelligent public-spirited adult. Religion is seen as a past-time not a lifestyle. The issue is very much current as well as historical. To tackle question of Christ and culture we should clearly define Christ and culture.

Christ as the Son of God points us away from the many values man tends to prioritise and to the one God who is truly good. Yet at the same time, Jesus is a mediator between God and man, in Jesus we see God’s love for man as well as man’s love for God. Christ in us is a joining of the two. This duality in Christ leads us to a corresponding duality of expression of Christ in us.

Our faith has both a vertical dimension (directed to God the Father through Christ in us) and a horizontal dimension (directed through Christ in us to our neighbour). Any adequate address of Christ and culture needs to emphasise both that we are seated with Christ in heavenly places, above and beyond the world and hate the world, in that we find no cause for identity in it, and at the same time God in fact gave His life for the world as a result of His love for mankind, and enjoins us to do the same.

We hate the sin but love the sinner. Culture comprises of language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organisation, inherited artefacts, technical processes, and values.

So what happens when Christ and culture collide? How are we to deal with Christ and culture in daily life. Here are a few ideas of how Christians have often dealt with this issue.

1. Christ is against culture The most radical answer is that Christ is against culture. God is the sole authority for the Christian, presenting Christ and culture as an either/or choice. If we follow Christ we must reject any loyalty to culture.

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).

Some would argue that the prince of this world is Satan therefore to choose culture is to choose loyalty to the devil.

All state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian – the oath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings and military service. Christians in this view are encouraged to separate themselves from the culture, either individually as Tolstoy did, or corporately as the Mennonites have done, as a monastic community.

The integrity of those adhering to this option is shown firstly, in their willingness to suffer martyrdom in some cases under evil governments, and secondly, in the social reforms they provoke.

The problem with this option is that it is impossible to separate oneself from culture as it permeates our thinking and language, in fact it is as much around us as it is in our heads. Though it may be possible to keep some evil aspects of culture out of our communities by separatism, we cannot rid ourselves of our own predisposition to sin.

If the Amish live apart from state institutions or from mainstream technology and consumerism, all they succeed in doing is creating sub-cultures that while they may be counterculture, never attain to acultural status. The fact that a monastic lifestyle often required many rules and forms of discipline is proof enough of the inherent tendency of man to fall into old patterns of sin. Because of this, separatist groups tend to adhere to grades of holiness that can only be maintained through works. Claiming that the monastic life lead to greater holiness is why Luther said that it was not only unnecessary but, if it was chosen for this reason, it would become an institution of the devil!

Separatism also only emphasises Christ’s role in drawing us away from culture (the vertical dimension) but ignores God’s role in our continued relationship with culture (the horizontal dimension). If Tolstoy was right, a Christian should pay no taxes, something that Jesus Christ said we should do. Jesus also tells us to love our neighbours, who are for the most, part found in mainstream culture where practical works of love have to be culturally relevant to the people who need God’s love to understand it as such.

Christ even seems to reject separatism in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan crossed cultural norms to help whereas the priest and Levite for the sake of holiness kept themselves apart from him. The Samaritan is held up as our moral guide in the story.

In order for culture to be rejected in favour of Christ, logic requires that God Himself is not a part of culture. This would make sense if we only knew God as solely spiritual, but we also know Him as incarnate. He shows His nature in creation, which expresses His attributes, in Jesus by incarnation as a specific and very cultural human being (Hebrews 2:14-18), as well as in believers today through the indwelling Spirit of Christ in every believer. Since we are to follow Christ in all things, we should follow him in the cultural dimension as well.

2. Christ is of Culture Cultural Christians claim that Christ is to be understood as the highest aspiration and fulfilment of culture. So it is possible to affirm both Christ and culture and to deny any necessary opposition between the two.

Culture can be interpreted through Christ, where the elements of culture that are most complimentary to Jesus’ work and person are the best; as are those things that can be understood of God through culture.

In this way they are most accommodating, reconciling Christianity with what appears to be the greatest achievements of culture. The early church had it’s share of Hellenizers, Judaizers and Gnostics who joined Christ to their mystical philosophy, and in the same way today there are many who attempt to reduce Christianity to practical morality and Jesus Christ to one of many great moral teachers.

The error of this option is equal to, but also in direct opposition to separatism in that it is so concentrated on the world that while focused on the horizontal dimension it ignores the vertical dimension. Thus putting very little emphasis on grace or eternity aand the afterlife, and producing a self-reliant form of humanism.

Ultimately this deifies man and humanises God, creating theology in man’s image through connecting Christ with some cultural movement one wishes to endorse. So we have Christianity AND homosexuality, Christianity AND new psychology, Christianity AND Veganism, Christianity AND political correctness or Christianity AND any other syncretism you could care to mention.

So we end up thinking that some aspect of God can be found in a same-sex relationship and the acceptance of homosexual rights. Political correctness in a culture takes preference over what the Bible may say about a subject. And we find that as the horizontal dimension gets distorted the vertical dimension gets ignored. We listen to the spirit of the age more than the Holy Spirit.

There is one aspect of accommodation that is relevant to us. When communicating the gospel we do need to adapt it to our audience, that is, while not compromising the message of the gospel we should present it incarnate so that it translates into the understanding of the people-group. We need to present a contextualised Christianity, not syncretism. Paul adapted his delivery dependant on whether his audience was Jewish, gentile, Roman or Greek in order to make it relevant to their way of thinking. Jesus did the same with His parables. By being cultural chameleons we can take the gospel message and find culturally relevant clothing to make it relevant. This is the incarnation of Christ in the prevailing culture.

3. Christ is above culture In this view Christ and culture are synthesised. This option says that culture has good in it since God created the world and though it was distorted by the fall it is not entirely evil, it still has attributes of God in it. So in this view we cannot say “either Christ or culture” because we are dealing with God in both cases and we also must not say “both Christ and culture” as if there was no distinction between them.

Thomas Aquinas believed that the church is simultaneously in and beyond the world, leading people to salvation in heaven, while affirming the best in this world’s culture. He believed that God has purposes in the temporal as well as the eternal realms. This option affirms a stable relationship between church and state as well as encouraging the conservation of values and authority. The church should back up the government’s authority to maintain order. So in the earthly as well as in the Heavenly realms there is a hierarchical organisation in church and state.

There is one King over the temporal and the eternal and we have practical solutions for living the Christian life within culture and gives incentive for government and education as well as encouraging academic principles. The danger is that the church will socially stagnate and fossilise with it’s emphasis on values and authority, it may perpetuate dictatorships and prevent legislative reform. If respect for temporal authority is too great, there is a danger that man made laws will undermine God’s law.

There is also no separation of church and state, leading to prohibition or the evil of forcing people to change their beliefs by relying on the sword rather than the word. The integration of church and state to make people believe things is evil and pretty impossible because changing someone’s behaviour produces a hypocrite, and even though you can change someone’s behaviour through force, it still does not mean you have changed their belief.

Please see the other parts of this article….. Christ and Culture

Easter is one of the most important festivals in the Christian liturgical year. Jesus was believed to be resurrected two days after his crucifixion. It is celebrated two days after the Good Friday. The date of Easter is not fixed, so it is often called the moveable feast. The celebrations of Easter are so widespread that it has moved beyond the church. For example, in India non-Christians also celebrate Easter and many organisations and institutions announce a holiday on Easter Day. Easter is usually celebrated in a traditional manner. A lot of it has to do with eggs like decorating eggs, pace egging, egg rolling etc. Another important aspect of Easter celebrations is gifts of flower and floral decorations.

Different type of celebrations takes place during the Easter. There are secular celebrations where the not-so-religious minded throw an exciting party. The religious people celebrate it in a traditional way; the school boys have an all together different party with decorated eggs, bunnies and butterflies. The Easter takes place when a variety of flowers bloom with brilliant colours and fragrances. The best way to celebrate Easter is to decorate your house with floral themes. A flower-based spring party theme would be a perfect way to celebrate Easter.

Within Christian circles is known the term ‘legalism’. We know it when we see it, couldn’t possibly be guilty of it, but know someone who is. When pressed to define it, the bottom line answer is, “Not what we’re doing.”

What makes this word so unthinkable? We can confess to lies, cheating, stealing, adultery, gossiping, and more. But, no way could ‘we’ ever fall prey to legalism.

Perhaps, we need to feel superior to each other. Though, surely we’re not claiming superiority over the great men of old!? The Apostle Paul had a terrible time overcoming legalism and was not too proud to admit it.

So, what is legalism? Any custom, routine, obligation, service, regulation, or deed performed to win God’s acceptance and favor fits into that category. The Pharisees were great at it. Paul gave a simple definition. He called it ‘confidence in the flesh’ and ‘having our own righteousness’ (Ph. 3:4, 9); as if there is anything we could possibly do to measure up to God.

Acceptance, by God (His unconditional love), cannot be earned. It was His gift to us from the moment we received Him into our heart (Ep. 1:6). It has already been given! Though, like any gift, it is not ours until received.

However, if we want God’s acceptance (approval) and divine favor (blessings) in and as a result of our service, our works must be our gift from the heart (II Co. 10:18, Ac. 10:35); as God can’t be impressed without the heart (I Sa. 16:7). © by Joyce C. Lock http://our.homewithgod.com/heavenlyinspirations/ This writing may be used in its entirety, with credits in tact, for non-profit ministering purposes.