prisonchaplain

We do know when the Last Days will occur. Now. Really, since the time Jesus went back to be with the Father, we have been in the last days. Jesus said to be ready, that his return is imminent. So, God's people should indeed be ready--always ready--"in season and out of season."

This is the short version of a lesson I recently offered on the topic. TWO VIEWS OF THE ANTICHRIST 1. He's an individual who will rule during the end times, and is mentioned in Daniel 7:8, 23-25, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, and in Revelation 13:1-10. 2. It (or they) are theological or doctrinal heresy (error) that has, does, and will continue to occur. See 1 John 2:18, 22; and 2 John 1:7. In particular, the Docetist heresy, that Jesus only apparently suffered--not in actuality, is considered an antichrist teaching (see 1 John 4:1-3). Personally, both of them seem possible. There will be a capital-A Antichrist during the end times, and there are teachings that are so heterodox as to be considered small-a antichrist in nature. Questions: Your views on the identity of the Antichrist? If he's a person, what should we look for to be ready? If it's false teaching, what would raise a doctrine to the level of being considered antichrist?

Of course it's true, and it's not going too far. There was an actual attempt to set off an explosion on an airplain--one that was implanted in a shoe. In keeping with this string--yes the evil is accelerating. Maybe it's my bias, but I would argue that political conflict is much worse than before (no longer any foundational belief that in "loyal opposition.") My political enemy is not a goodhearted fool, but an unpatriotic "red diaper doper baby" etc. ad nauseum. Religiously, it's a mixed bag. We read more about violence, but me thinks the level of cooperation between Christian denominations has increased, and that with the rise of nondenominational groups and independent works, there is much less emphasis on our difference. We've been in the "end times" since Jesus returned to the Father. However, it is increasingly looking like the generation in which he might return. The troubles are not really new, but they are increasing in frequency and intensity--like birthpains--like the Bible speaks about. No no...not farfetched at all to speak of the end times.

This clergyperson agrees that it is vital for the congregation to hear from members. In fact, we need to share life together. Fellowship, breaking bread together, and feeding spiritually from one another are so important. You accomplish this in the way you described, whereas these days most churches do so through good old-fashioned Sunday School (youth and adult classes tend to include a lot of conversation and interaction), as well as small groups. These often meet in members home, and give the opportunity for sharing stories and experiences, as well as praying on a personal level for one another. So, bottom line: You can have both--the freshness of hearing from different voices of "regular people"--and the challenge of having the one who is set aside for ministry to the congregation seek God's face week after week, and deliver what God gives him/her. The particular meetings I'm speeking of (Promise Keepers) are put together by a non-denominational non-church sponsored organization. Experienced showed them that it was more reliable to raise the funds needed to fly in the speakers, rent the stadium, and pay the other bills, by selling tickets, rather than taking up "free will offerings." Once again, dedicated Christians who knew and believed in the messages being offered would usually invite their non-Christian friends, "treating them" to the conference. I guess my key belief for this thread is that it is certainly fine and noble for pastors or leaders to volunteer their ministries without pay. I've done so myself. It is even acceptable for a denomination or movement to rely soley on volunteer leadership. On the other hand, it is untenable to suggest that those believers who are supported by congregations are somehow less spiritual, less righteous, or have, of necessity, been tainted by "mammon." Furthermore, the norm for religious meetings should be that they are offered free of charge, and nonmembers are not only tolerated, but encouraged to attend. On the other hand, there may be special events, programs, or meetings that are primarily for the already-converted, which may include fees.

Those who use religious positions, paid or not, for their own egos or desire for power, will be judged by God. Billy Graham preached to millions, yet lived a middle class life. David Koresh probably received little from his people, yet allowed his ego to drive him and his followers to destruction. In other words, a volunteer bishop can be just as power-prestige hungry as a paid clergyperson. Your query reminds me of the story behind the song, "The Heart of Worship." Matt Rudman is a Christian songwriter. There came a time in his church when the leadership decided to have a season of not singing during the main worship time. They wanted the people to learn that there was much more to worship than just singing. Rudman went through a real spiritual turmoil. "I'm a songwriter. This is my gift to the church--my gift to God. This is what I am. Now, I have nothing to bring." Out of this experience came the words to this song: When the music fades and all is torn away/I'll bring you more than a song, for a song in itself is not what you have required/I'm coming back to the heart of worship--It's all about you,... So, yes, like Rudman, like those ministers who, in embracing the Pentecostal message gave up their established ministries, if God showed me that I was to travel the road of an unpaid, untitled teacher, that is the way I would go. First, it is the model of the New Testament. Paul led the Corinthians, Timothy led his people--the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3) had their leaders. Second, leaders who are set aside for fulltime dedication to the work are able to focus their prayer life, their studies, their counseling time etc. to the care of the congregation, and to intense prayer, fasting, and other communication with God about his will and direction for the particular congregation.

Simony = buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges. Travelor, what are you thinking of, here? Churches selling ordination? I'm not clear here, but do not think any major religious movements do such. Indulgences? Traveler, that's so 14th century! Come on, churches do not sell forgivenesses for future sins, and have not done so for centuries. Then this precious gem, "and any OTHER pay for blessing or ecclesiastical position." Am I reading you right? Do you really think that when the Salvation Army pays its fulltime officers (their version of clergy) $25K a year for their full-time service it is the moral equivalent of the much despised practice of Tertullian--selling "blank check forgiveness" for FUTURE sins? Okay? This is an opinion site, and you've shared yours. Never mind that the Levitical priests were supported by the other tribes, never mind that Abraham, long before the Law was given on Sinai, paid his tithe directly to the priest, Melchizedek? Never mind that in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul goes to great lengths to explain how most Apostles are paid, how God has proclaimed that he has a right to be paid, but how they should appreciate that he chose not to, because of his own sense that the Corinthians would be better off if he didn't. Note that in another passage he points out that other churches are supporting him, so the Corinthians would not have to. Money is a tool. The want of money (greed) is sin. However, the biblical norm, is that the people of God support their teachers and leaders financially, so they can be set aside for the work. You draw a very fine, yet adamant line here, between full-time ministers receive gifts and assistance, but not receiving a salary or stipend. Why? The Levites were supported by the people. The early apostles were. It would seem right and good that the people of God would support their leaders sufficiently, that they might dedicate themselves completely to prayer, study of scripture, and offering spiritual counsel. Moses was a national leader, more akin to a president. Ditto for Abram, Isaac. Jacob and Joseph. None were prophets or priests. Jesus was a carpenter, but we know that his biblical knowledge was as great as the rabbis, based on the incident at the Temple, when he was 12. Furthermore, there is no record of his supporting his ministry through carpentry, as Paul did with tentmaking. BTW, the primary theologian of the New Testament, Paul, certainly was a professional clergy. He did make tents, but his primary training was theological, under Gamiel, I believe. I would argue that the people of God who sponsor their teachers and leaders, so that they might fully dedicate themselves to study, prayer, counseling and tending to God's people, do well. In some settings it is not possible, and in some movements, it is not the practice. However, Paul argues that supporting the leaders is the norm, and that his choice to forgo support was a special case--one they should appreciate.

Well, that's an odd rephrasing. Ironically, I can answer you. No. I've seen clergy change churches, even when doing so has meant "loss of job" as you rather materialistically put it. In fact, ministers who have come into Pentecost often give up established ministries, take on "store front" or "home missions" churches--usually requiring them to work on the side to support their "ministry habit." There are situations where volunteer clergy can be more effective (thus Paul's ministry, and my own experience in Korea). However, for a typical church setting, I would think having a leader who can dedicate his full efforts to the ministry--and one who has set aside a number of years of his/her life specifically for training in the ministry, is usually of greater advantage to the people. I suppose it depends on the purpose. Sometimes audiences are more attentive if the pay, because they've "invested" in the program. Best solution--encourage church members to "treat" those who might benefit from an evening out, but who might not come on their own. Live well, live wisely, and don't show off? :-) Amen

See...and now I am sorry too. I assumed that Shantress70 was NOT talk about LDS, and did not know the term was specific. I had heard of a single Lutheran church doing this (not a denominational practice!)--the story came from my parents.

Sorry if I'm breaking in on this lovely dance, but a brainstorm recently hit me on this issue (maybe it was an annuerism (sp?)): Forget the issue of who's Christian or not, for a moment. What rejection of the Nicene Creed tells me is that you are not: 1. Catholic 2. Mainline Protestant 3. Evangelical Ergo, when you discuss teachings such as the Trinity, The deity of Christ, the nature of godhood and monotheism, the meaning of eternity (especially backwards 'before time'), etc. you'll encounter denominational "culture shock" linguistic misunderstandings, etc. Non-LDS Christians ASSUME the creedal understandings when we discuss these things. It was a great "lifting of the veil" to read Prof. Robinson's denunciation of these creeds as Greek philosophical corruptions. Not so much because I agreed, but it did help me to understand where LDS thinkers are coming from. As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I knew where it would head, and wondered how quickly it would get there. B)

I'm not opposed to volunteer church leaders, but as a rule, the overseers in biblical times were supported by the church. The "tentmaker" model of the Apostle Paul seemed the exception, rather than the rule. I could be wrong, but I think the days of "paid pews" a long gone. I became a Christian in 1974, and have never seen one. The rule in most our churches is that the late comers usually get stuck in the front, because those who arrive early usually take the primo seats (in the back!). I've heard of this, but never have seen it. Yeah, such a practice almost seems "cultish."

Since clergy, as a rule, make less than schoolteachers, me thinks the "career mindset" would not be very prevalent. The better paying churches require seven years of college, and still only pay about what a schoolteacher makes. Even those who end up getting huge salaries, usually didn't start out that way. For example, the average salary of a first-time fulltime pastor in my movement is roughly $20K per year. There's no extra pay for weekend work, overtime, late nights, emergency calls, etc. And, most often, these are leaders with four years of college. Then you meet the fellow who has thirty years of ministry under his belt, now pastors a church of 1200, and makes $70K a year, and say, "Wow...not a bad gig." That solid middle-class income is something that he did not see the first 15-25 years of ministry, and still comes out quite low compared to many other positions requiring advanced education. Additionally, he probably represents only the top 20% of ministers. Usually church leadership positions go to the most loyal and consistent members. Also, are not the temple rituals reserved for those "recommended?" And, does not the criteria include faithful giving? IMHO such standards are acceptable for church leaders. I cannot comment too deeply on the LDS practice here, but it seems reasonable on the surface of it. I would not judge myself so generously. Realistically, there's usually no money, because giving came lower on the list than "essentials" like cable TV, cell phone, high-speed internet, eating out, etc. The biblical standard is 10% of the "first fruits"--not the leftovers. Like I said--this is how I judge myself, and it is the general counsel I offer to those who ask. Hey, I'd make some bishop, huh? Amen.

Okay, Pushka, excellent observations. My understanding of Scripture is that normally congregations would pay their full-time clergy. Ideally, in so doing, they free their leaders to pray, seek God's face, fast, study for homilies, and offer spiritual counsel. On the other hand, some ministry situations do call for ministers who are willing to be "tentmakers"--having outside employment. Paul did this for the Corinthian church, I did during my campus ministry years in Korea (I was an English Instructor). Both models are acceptable, but the norm was for churches to have fulltime clergy. While volunteers may be less prone to the "career mindset," they would be just as susceptible to pursuing religious titles for the power and prestige they carry. I agree. The sliding scale part is a neat idea, but most of these events are meant to be almost "Christian culture" events, as opposed to purely religious meetings. Also, interestingly enough, Promise Keepers (an interdenominational men's retreat program) did much better with paid admissions than with voluntary offerings and fundraising. Men who wanted to bring "investigators" simply paid their way--in essence 'treating them.' I think most churches reserve their volunteer leadership positions for the most dedicated members. It is unlikely that elders, presbyters, deacons, bishops, etc. would be picked from members who were inconsistent givers, had a poor reputation in the community, etc. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, for LDS, temple activities are primarily reserved for those who have proven reasonably dedicated, based on various objective factors. Different churches have different structures for handling finance. However, amongst conservative groups, including the LDS, the tithe (10% of gross income) is considered basic, and is generally understood to be targeted for the church, not other charities). Excellent--I fully agree! God wants success, but the best success is to raise up fellow disciples, first from one's own family, and secondly from acquaintences, friends, coworkers, etc. Money is nuetral. It can do great good or harm, depending on how one uses the "tool."

Why creeds? Why statements of belief (which you can find at lds.org, btw)? God has given some to be teachers. As a history major, I find it useful to see what church thinkers have come up with in the past. How did the church define right doctrine, correct teaching? Creeds, in particular, demonstrate the lines in the sand that churches were willing to draw--saying in essence "You're with us on these, or you're a heretic." Are they equivalent to Scripture? Well, if they were done well, they explicate Scriptural truths quite adequately. Furthermore, they a short synopsis of what church leadership believed was the essential core of scriptural truth. Are creeds redundant, since we have Scripture? No, of course not. Scripture is the collection of written works that God has given the church. Creeds are brief lists of teachings that churches have found essential unifying doctrines. Furthermore, Scripture is believed to be directly inspired by God, while creeds are prayerfully considered statements of belief that leaders prayerfully formulate. This statement of "The Bible is sufficient" is vague to me. Sufficient for what? Most Christians believe it is what God has given us in writing. But, is it sufficient of itself? Well, not if the reader is illiterate, or poorly equipped to understand it. That's why some are called to preach, teach, prophesy, etc. Does "suffiency of the Bible mean that there is nothing else to be learned from God, or that no teachers, scholars, theologians, etc. are needed? IMHO we get in trouble sometimes by formulating doctrines based upon questions the Bible does not ask or answer.

Guess not...but some prisons are. The Federal Detention Center in Miami, FL was actually hit by a tornado--the thing BOUNCED OFF! Go figure...

This issue of church and money has come up in different strings, with different issues raised. So, I'll throw out some questions to get this string going. 1. While the LDS church generally does not have paid clergy, is it wrong that most other churches do? Are there advantages and disadvantages to volunteer vs. paid congregational leaders? 2. Is it always wrong to charge money for religiously oriented programs? For example, Contemporary Christian Music concerts generally require paid admission. Some churches charge an entry fee for a high-quality special event, such as a concert or cantata. 3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)? 4. Some have said that one's religious sincerity could at least partially and signficantly be appraised by examining the ole checkbook. Is this crass and superficial, or is there some truth to the understanding that what you refuse to back with your bucks you're not really very serious about? 5. Should Christians necessarily try to live simply, humbly, and avoid any or most semblances of luxury? 6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful? That should be enough to get us started. I'll chime in, once this ball gets rolling!

So, it is pretty much the same (except that I get to choose my curriculum). If so, this thing of correcting misinformation or outright false doctrine would normally be handled through polite responses such as "Oh really...I seem to hear somewhere that..." Or, "Doesn't such and such a source have a slightly different take..." The problem would come if the instructor were somewhat thin-skinned, I suppose.

You might as well read the book by the head guy himself--"I Was Wrong!" by Jim Bakker. I found it interesting from a federal chaplain's vantage point (recall that he served 8 years in fed prison). He did come to some huge changes of view, but never gave up the notion that he was railroaded, and could have pulled PTL through it's bad stretch if the feds hadn't shut him down.

First, this is a wonderful set of questions. For Pentecostals/Charismatics who grow up in the church, we take this kind of talk for granted. "I felt led to go talk to so and so." "I just sensed I needed to reject the job transfer." "God was really drawing me to make a sacrificial gift to the missionary fund." The strangeness of this to those outside our tradition hit me full force a number of years ago. I was at an interfaith economics conference for seminarians, hosted by the Acton Institute (btw, yes a couple of BYU students were in part of the conference). During an evening conversation, one young lady was sharing how she was headed somewhere on campus, and just sensed she needed to go over to the Student Union Building. There she met a classmate, and had a real heart to heart type conversation. After finishing her account, one of the students, a Lutheran I believe, said, "That's the strangest thing I ever heard! Then, with lifted eyebrows, "I guess if it works for you." We believe that prayer, and "walking in the Spirit," is more than me telling God. I should hear from God. I actually expect God to guide--yes by Scripture, by teachings I sit under, but also by "that still small voice" of the Holy Spirit. Of course, when we sense something, we usually check it with Scripture, consult with spiritually mature mentors, and, if it's serious enough, "test the vision." I've had three fairly dramatic incidences in my life, of this nature. The first was three years into my stay in Korea. I was an English instructor, and taught Bible studies on a volunteer basis. The studies were well attended, and I had become comfortable. One day, the Holy Spirit clearly spoke to my heart: Tom, you are no longer a volunteer! I'm calling you to this. This is your ministry. You are a missionary, not just a helper or volunteer. I shared this with my leadership team, and on my return to Seattle, contacted an evangelical missions agency that specialized in "tentmaker missions"--those who use secular employment as a means to spreading the gospel. My home church held a commissioning service for me, and I continued my campus ministry with a much greater sense of confidence and calling. Three years later, during a retreat, God gave me a vision of going to seminary--specifically my own denominational seminary (many evangelicals prefer interdenominational seminaries, for the diversity and breadth they offer). This was nowhere on my radar screen! I had considered getting a masters, in either TESOL or History, but never theology. Again, I bounced this off my mentors and fellow laborers, and they supported my call. Two and a half years later, I'm in the middle of my studies, and am reading our ministers' newsletter. There is a short blurb about the need for federal prison chaplains, with a number to call. The Holy Spirit simply says, "Check it out!" "Who me? I've never been in trouble. I have no way to relate to such people." "Just check it out." Well, "it" fit like a glove. I've two years volunteer prison work and eight years fulltime chaplaincy behind me now. Some will find talk of being led by the Spirit, or God speaking to us, strange. Some may even think it dangerous. But, for us who experience it, all we can say is, we're honored that He is Creator of heaven and earth, is also the lover of my soul!

ROFLM (anchor) O! Seriously, SF, you promise to serve up some of that famous green jello caserol (the kind with carrots in it???), and I'll bring our church bus full of investigators over to your ward. Within 15 minutes all my people, plus half of yours will be on the bus. Why? I'll be handing out free TUMS with the Sunday School lessons I understood what you were intimating...just find it silly. As a rule, pastors make less money that school teachers. Local church leaders (deacons, elders, shepherds, teachers, etc.) are generally volunteers. The churches (outside the LDS) with the largest giving percentages are primarily congregational in nature (money does not go to a district or national headquarters). Despite the old canard that church is a business, it's not. It's not about the money--it's about souls: reaching souls, teaching disciples, releasing spiritual harvesters. Usually the church people who complain the most about money are the ones who give the least, imho.

Perhaps this is off-topic, but it seems related. I teach adult Sunday School, and have also attended a good many classes in my lifetime, and most are conversational in nature. In other words, there is certainly a lesson plan, and points to be covered, but plenty of time is given for questions, and for relating experiences and opinions related to the topic. The interaction is an invaluable learning tool. Are these classes in you are referring to primarily lecture based? (The education major in me is coming out).

Please reread what I said (with emphasis added to bring clarity): If you answered False, you are suited for any of the polytheistic religions, or for faith systems that do not rely heavily upon revering deity. Funny how one little conjunction can bring an ephiphany of understanding. I know this is totally off topic--but the answer to this very crucial theological riddle is now known: NONE--NO GOOD ANGEL WOULD BE CAUGHT DANCIN'--YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IT MIGHT LEAD TO!

First, the official LDS position is to affirm the Holy Trinity. The way Mormons understand it is different, but allegiance is there. Second, here's my KISS (keep it simple silly) explanation for the Trinity: 1. The Father is God. Note the first commandment, and that Jesus in the Lord's Prayer, addesses his Father in worship (something reserved only for God). "Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name..." On this point there is total agreement between Muslims, Jews and Christians. 2. Jesus is God. A. He claimed to be God. In John 8:58 he calls himself "I AM"--the same term the Father used when Moses asked God what his name was (Exodus 3:14, I believe). B. Doubting Thomas concurred, after the resurrection, declaring to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" C. The Father addressed his Son, in Hebrews 1:8 saying "Your throne, O God, will last forever ..." D. The Father orders the angels to worship Jesus in Hebrews 1:6 "Let all God's angels worship him." Recall the First of the 10 Commandments--worship God alone, no others. 3. The Holy Spirit is God. A. In Acts 5:3-4 the terms "Holy Spirit" and "God" are used interchangeably. B. The Holy Spirit is also a person (JWs believe it's just a term for the impersonal power of Jehovah). Annanias and Saphira lied to the Holy Spirit...lied to God. You can't lie to a power source--you can only lie to a person. Also, the Spirit can be grieved, he can offer comfort, he brings conviction, etc. 4. There is only one God. Again, Dt. 6:4--the schema--the verse all well trained Jewish children learn from childhood (much like John 3:16 to evangelicals). Conclusion: The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God. The three persons are the one God. Call it a paradox, and admit that God, who's nature is far greater than ours, cannot be fully grasped by us in our own stage of pre-exaltation. Hope this helps.

This is a difficult topic, because I'm not the one being taught about. On the other hand, to call all such efforts hate-mongering, bashing, etc. just seems to me to be ignoring all nuance. Also, even within the general Christian family, it is considered poor form to go about "sheep stealing." As a side note to any willing to consider other than malevalent motives for those who "teach against" other religions, remember our theological difference about salvation and the kingdom of God. Mormons believe most decent people will get into some type of reward, and that sincerely religious people will likely get to spend eternity with Jesus in the Terrestial Kingdom. Thus, once a missionary, or even a Mormon acquaintance hears that the perspective investigator is, in fact, a happy member of a traditional Christian church, there's not much pressure to pursue a conversion. "Take the blessings we have, or be satisfied with where you're at. It's all good." Many conservative Christians believe that JS was a false prophet, that Charles Taze Russell was also spiritually deceived, and that both LDS and JW are members of movements that are so heterodox that hell is a very real possiblity. Thus, to leave the poor soul on the wide road that leads to destruction would be an abominable neglect. Better to risk offense by offering an aggressive presentation of "the true way to salvation." Again, I know there are some who enjoy the argument, "the bashing," and the sensationalism of tearing others down. God will judge the reality of their faith. But at least some who would attempt to convert Mormons (to traditional Christianity) are sincere, whether you believe them misguided or not.

Easy to rebut: As a rule, denominational organizations do not raise up or sponsor "cult ministries." These are usually independent or non-denominational organizations. They tend to be rather small. On occasion a church may host a meeting, but's for most who do, it's a once in a decade or less event. BTW, exactly who is this mystery element called "the church," that wants this money? Is it the members? The leadership? The national leadership? Yes, most churches want to grow, to succeed, to be fruitful in the work of the gospel. But, if measuring is done, it's usually a measure of membership, not weekly donation receipts.

We've had some fun with these "which religion" or "which denomination" is right for you tests. Something is missing though--or wrongly implied. Is there a single true and living God? With this presumption, might I suggest the following: 1. Is God one? (Deuteronomy 6:4): Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. Score thus far: True indicates you are a monotheist. If the scripture reference was persuasive, you are likely suited for either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. If you answered False, you are suited for any of the polytheistic religions, or for faith systems that do not rely heavily upon revering deity. 2. Is Jesus the only pathway, if our spiritual journeys are to take us to this one God? 1 John 14:6 Jesus saieth unto them, I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Score thus far: If you answered true, you are only suited for Christianity. If you answered false, you are most likely suited for Judaism. However, if you answered false, but with reticient, due to your high regard for the prophet, Jesus (PBUH), then Islam best matches you. 3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God, whom God chose to deliver the restoration of Christianity in these latter days? (Somebody else might want to supply a key scripture in a followup post). Score as a final: If you answered true, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is for you. If you answered false, then an exploration of the other Christian movements is in order. Hey, I did this at 5:30 a.m., following a long journey back from Korea. However, it suddenly dawned on me that most that come to this site hold to the belief that their faith is not only "right for them," but "right for all." I thought this test might highlight some of that, and revive the "Which religion" topic a bit.