spiphywarfare

Tag: church

  • Navigating Division: Thoughts on New Saint Andrews Ad

    Anybody on đť•Ź, well, “Christian” đť•Ź anyway, is probably aware of the brouhaha going on due to the New Saint Andrews ad featuring Johnny Cash’s tertiary digit (see below). I generally stay out of the turmoil there because I rarely see any edifying or encouraging words offered to differing views. I’ll try to offer something worthwhile now, though. Why? Because I’ve never been more disappointed by so many people, across the entire gamut, who are generally edifying and uplifting.

    The Ad

    New Saint Andrews Ad

    It seems to be directed towards attracting young men looking to make a stand against the massive cultural rot in society. The uproar comes from the fact that these men must be, among other things, “willing to hoist the Jolly Roger and Johnny Cash’s favorite finger whenever faced with idolatry.”

    I’ll offer my own thoughts on the ad before continuing. That ad would never have seen the light of day if I were someone whose approval was needed before going live with it. That is not how we should present as Christians.

    The Audience

    Now, đť•Ź has all sorts of people claiming the name of Christ. There are blaspheming women who claim to be pastors preaching that Jesus was transgender and KJV only folks who deride any make-up/jewelry, women wearing pants, or using any other translation. There are racist anonymous (and non-anons) accounts constantly using racial slurs against minorities and racist black preachers who can’t answer when asked if white people can get to heaven.

    I’m not writing about any of them here. I’m writing here about brothers and sisters that I see who usually have good insights.

    The Issue

    I think đť•Ź is designed to be divisive, and when we are immersed in it too long, being divisive may become our goal without us being aware of it. I think we tend to want all the people we agree with to know that we agree with them, and not those “other” people.

    I think we may not count the cost of that. The cost is division. If, and it may be a big if, if in prayer they believed it to be within God’s will for them to do that ad, and they were correct, where does that leave you and your condemnation of them?

    Some of the poorest takes that I’ve seen on this controversy have been to a man who literally asked for guidance on how to be a strong, Christian man with a backbone. He’s been ridiculed for being whiny and LARPing about being a man while “real” men are at work and not on đť•Ź. This, from his alleged sisters. Is that really how you want to respond to someone asking for guidance?

    The other disappointing thing was that of people assuming motives. They’re doing this so they can feel good. They just want to (insert motivr here). That’s assuming an attribute specifically relegated to God in scripture. You don’t know anyone else’s heart to speak it factually. Just append, “I think” or “it seems” to the front of those statements, unless you really can see their heart. Otherwise, stop pronouncing judgment. Yes, we’re not to speak harshly, but the exceptions to that prove it is not a hard, fast rule. David ate show bread. Jesus told his brothers he wasn’t going to the feast and went. Things we see as violative may not be. Who are you to judge another man’s slave.

    Do you really believe there is a time to kill (Ecc3:3)? If you don’t, your opinion is probably as valuable as Andy Stanley’s. If you do think God actually meant that there are times when intentionally ending a life is appropriate, then I don’t see it as a stretch that there may be a time to “give the bird to idols.” At the same time, I understand Ecclesiastes doesn’t say there is a time for obscene gestures. Just a time for everything.

    None of that changes the fact that a good name is better than a good ointment or that a good reputation is better than great wealth. Saying that it could be appropriate doesn’t require throwing out being humble in spirit, placing ourselves last, or loving our neighbor. Saying it is never appropriate is putting yourself as the judge of your brother.

    A response

    It really wouldn’t be hard to make a post that says, “I don’t think that’s appropriate” and move down the road. Or would it? It doesn’t seem to me that it should be.

  • We Need to Stop S. 3589 

    We Need to Stop S. 3589 

    An interesting bill has been filed in the Senate, S. 3589, also known as the “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024” aims to prohibit unauthorized private paramilitary activity in the United States. Sounds good right? We don’t necessarily want or need Wagner Group-style armies running around in the U.S. Or do we? 🤔 That’s another discussion for another time. What caught my eye while reading this was that Section 9 of this legislation includes an interesting definition, it incorporates a “security services unit” within the broader category of a “private paramilitary organization” (PMO). 

    The bill provides the following as the definition of a PMO: 

    This term encompasses any group of three or more persons who associate under a command structure. Their purpose is to function publicly or train to function publicly as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit. 

    link to section

    Why That Matters 

    As a retired peace officer, I remember at times seeing how broadly written laws can be broadly and selectively enforced. That, combined with the need for churches, or any other organization for that matter, to be able to protect themselves in this society where violence is on the rise, caused me some concern. 

    Is Your Church Security Team a PMO? 

    Do you know if your church has a security team that trains to protect the congregation during services? Does it have a team lead or person considered “in charge” of it? Under the bill’s definition, this security team could be classified as a “private paramilitary organization” due to their structure and focus on security services. 

    Effects 

    Now, what could be the impact of this bill if this team acts during a service to neutralize a potential threat (such as an armed intruder)? If the bill becomes law, their actions might be considered “unauthorized private paramilitary activity” unless their activity has been sanctioned by federal or state authorities. 

    Despite their good intentions, and rightly honorable actions, the security team could face legal consequences. As written, this bill leaves open the possibility that they could be held liable for engaging in paramilitary activity without “proper authorization.” 

    Their training and commitment to protecting the congregation could lead to imprisonment if the law is strictly enforced as written now. A violation of the law that results in death carries this penalty, “the person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” Imagine the hero in the opening photo being sent to prison for his actions.

    Now, under exceptions we find the law does not apply to the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard, state militias, military re-enactment organizations, veterans in a parade, and:

    “members of an organization that is authorized under Federal or State law to provide paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services training or to engage in paramilitary activity, law enforcement, or security services when performing the functions authorized by law and, in the case of paramilitary activity and law enforcement functions, when under the direction and control of a governmental authority [emphasis added].”

    I included this section because there has to be a specific reason for that emphasized language to be in there. Why would it specify that law enforcement members can only do that when under the “direction and control” of a governmental authority? Would the feds consider an off-duty officer providing security for a church, movie theater, a Quinceañera, etc. as being under the direction and control of a governmental authority? I “know” that they are, but this language making it explicit makes me wonder.

    The only halfway good thing about this bill is that it recognizes it’s limited by the Commerce Clause so if one can manage to outfit their team with all in-state equipment, including ammunition, it is of no effect at all. But I would urge people to contact the people in D.C. that are supposed to represent them and ask them to oppose this bill.

  • The Sin of Achan

    The Sin of Achan

    I’ve been reading through the book of Joshua recently. Normally when I read Old Testament events regarding Israel, I don’t necessarily feel like they have a direct application today. Am I wrong? Maybe.

    I do think they are insightful into God’s character and valuable to understanding our faith. Chapter 7 of Joshua hit me differently. Maybe it’s because of events going on in our country and in the “church” in America. Maybe it’s because so many groups seem to have co-opted the word “church” without really belonging to the body of Christian believers. Whatever the reason, when I read it, as I thought about God’s character and his disposition towards his people, I couldn’t help but think of how that applied today.

    In Joshua 7:1 we find, depending on translation, that the Lord’s anger burned against Israel, that it was kindled against Israel, or that the Lord was furious with Israel. Why? Achan had taken things into the camp that were described as devoted, devoted to destruction, forbidden, or he is described as acting unfaithfully in regards to things under the ban.

    The rest of the chapter deals with the adverse effects of bringing the forbidden into the camp. It deals with searching out the offenders and removing them, in a most permanent way, and restoring God’s people to a right relationship. To be clear, I am not calling for burning anyone and their household in what follows.

    I am wondering if the church, God’s people today, have brought in things that are forbidden. Perhaps strongholds that should be demolished (2 Corinthians 10:4) have instead been looked at with greedy hearts and brought into our camp. Are we accepting banned things into our teachings in the church? I think we are. I implore you, if you’re claiming the name of Christ… READ. YOUR. BIBLE. Don’t just assume that what someone is telling you it says is truth, read it yourself.

    If we have done this thing, we should search it out and repent of it. Jesus is quite clear that he will come against the church in Pergamum with a sword (Revelation 2:16) for holding to teachings they ought not. In Thyatira, the church tolerated “Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess” and those who practiced adultery with her are promised great tribulation (Revelation 2:20-23).

    In his own words, our Lord did not come to bring a worldly peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34). The Rider on the White Horse comes in a robe dipped in blood, making war on the nations, treading out the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God, and rules the nations with an iron scepter (Revelation 19:11-16). It is not hard to imagine that same God having his anger burn against the church when it has gone astray or brought in things that are forbidden and devoted to destruction.

    I pray that all believers would have peace. Not a false peace of being comfortable around everybody and never being offended or offensive. Not a peace with the world, but a peace with The Creator. I pray God’s people will be bold and protect the truth by removing the forbidden, and those bringing it in, from within the church.

  • Tozer on Watered-down Religion

    I’ve really taken a liking to A. W. Tozer over the past two years. He would likely be stunned even more in some of today’s “church” services.