Thoughts from a Dumb Bloke

Genders?

2021-04-14T10:02:00.001+08:00

I am getting sick and tired of all this "Gender" and "Pronouns" stuff.

I am a bloke - that's what it says on the Blog.

The really funny thing for me, is that when I was growing up, we were taught that there were boys and there were girls.

That's it.

And Gender and "sex" (in this meaning) were just different terms for the same thing.

So whether it was gender or sex, the answer was boy or girl, male or female, bloke or sheila.

When you talk about your dog, it is either a boy or a girl dog.

When you talk about your cat it is either a boy cat or a girl cat.

With cattle, there are cows or bulls.

With Goats there are either billy goats or nanny goats, and guess what - they are either boy goats or girl goats.

Even bunnies are either boy bunnies or girl bunnies.

Kangaroos are either boy kangas or girl kangas.

Now, I know that there are technical terms (Buck and does, etc) for each of these, but the point I am making is that every living thing (almost) has boy and girl variants.

A few don't, but they are unusual. I think snails don't need one of each.

But the "normal" way in this creation is that mammals have male and female. And yes I did just use the word "Normal"..... get over it - it is a good word.

Most creatures also have male and female - that is why it is "normal".

Most fish have male and female.

Most reptiles have male and female.

Most birds have male and female.

I would like to say that in EVERY case this is true, but I don't know that for certain, so I will stop just short of it. But if you look in each class of creatures, the overwhelming majority of these creatures are either male or female, if not all of them.

The thing is, when an archaeologist digs up a skeleton, they look at the structure of the bones they find, and they decide based on that whether the skeleton was male of female.

When detectives come across a murder scene, they look at the remains and they come to a conclusion: the person was a male or a female.

In years to come, there are going be cases where a person is not properly identified, because they had a change operation, and everyone knows them as a female, but the remains are clearly male. So the Police will be looking for a male victim, but nobody knows of a male missing in that situation.

This will happen, because the biology does not change.

And this is the point - the biology is true.

The biology is science.

The "identification society" is not true, and it is not science.

Let me put it this way - If I identify as a truck, does that make me a truck?

What if someone genuinely believes they are a truck? Not just me proposing it, but someone out there genuinely believes they are a truck. Are they a truck?

You might say "Well that's stupid. Of course they are not a truck!"

Prove to me they are not a truck. How would you do that?

Would you tell them they don't have wheels like a truck?

Would you tell them they don't have a motor like a truck?

Would you tell them they don't have an 18 speed transmission like a truck?

They could answer you "No, but I feel like a truck!"

How would you answer them?

What if they went and got a set of wheels and attached them to their legs? Would you then concede that they are a truck?

What if they then went and tied a transmission to their back, and carried around a motor? Would you then concede that they are a truck?

If they stood up and yelled loudly and proclaimed that they are a truck because they feel like a truck, and they have added all these different bits to make them look like a truck, would you then concede that they are a truck?

If you did, you would be a fool, because they are not a truck no matter how much they feel like a truck, and no matter what they do to try to make themselves look like a truck.

They are not truck. It is physically impossible for them to be a truck, no matter how much they want to be, and no matter how much they feel like they are a truck, and no matter how much they change their physical appearance to look like a truck, they are a person, not a truck.

And one day, when that person dies, if years later their remains are dug up for some reason, the archaeologists will not say "Look we have found a truck", they will say "we have found a person".

I know it is a silly example, but the facts remain: there are only two genders, and there are only two sexes.

It doesn't matter what the person feels, their biology is fixed.

They might dress a certain way, but their biology remains as it was since their conception.

They might have surgeries, or take drugs to change the way they look, but their biology remains as it was from the moment of their conception.

What you feel like does not change your biology, and bolting on wheels, a transmission, and carrying around a motor won't change your biology.

The feelings and thoughts are there, but this current societal way of dealing with those feelings and thoughts is not the solution, any more than allowing this mythical truck-man to add trucks bits on. His problem is that the feelings, whilst strong and convincing to him, will never be solved by accepting them as true and changing his appearance. He has to accept the truth that he is not a truck, and change his thoughts and feelings about it.

Ultimately, science agrees with God: there are only two genders. Anything else is not true.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

How do I identify?

2021-04-14T09:16:00.000+08:00

I am getting sick and tired of all this "Pronouns" and "Gender" stuff.

First up, if people can now force their preferred pronouns on other people, I want to state clearly here that, aside from my personal name, I do not want to be called anyone's "Partner" - if you are referring to my relationship status with my WIFE, I want to be called her HUSBAND. That is my preferred annotation for that instance.

If you are referring to my relationship status with my children, whether you are referring to my boys or my girls, I want to be called their FATHER.

If you are referring to my relationship status with my parents, whether that be my mother or my father, I want to be referred to as their SON.

If you are referring to my "Gender", I do not want to be known as some strange thing, I want to be known as a MAN, or a MALE, or even a BOY if the situation is appropriate.

If certain people can choose their preferred pronouns, then so can I.

This is how I want to be known: As a Husband, a Father, a Son, a Man, a Biological Male.

These are not offensive terms, they are correctly descriptive of my gender, my position, my relationships, and my biology.

When it is apparently OK to totally misrepresent someone.

2019-06-25T15:17:00.002+08:00

I am getting pretty sick and tired of the way the Media is treating Israel Folau over this whole trumped up event.

In a story in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Tom Decent titled "$1000 a minute: Folau gets back more than $600,000", the writer included the following sentence: "Folau posted a photo on Instagram on April 10 that said homosexuals were destined for hell unless they repented their sins."

In a daily Mail article titled "'What exactly has been achieved?' The Project host Waleed Aly reveals why he thinks Israel Folau's GoFundMe page SHOULDN'T have been removed" written by Zoe Zaczek and Charlie Moore, they included the line "Folau was sacked by Rugby Australia last month for beaching his contract with an Instagram post that said gay people are sinners and will go to hell.'

(Note: it should be "breaching" but it was spelt this way in the article).

The other day the ABC radio news report included a similar claim about what Israel Folau said, and used terms very much in the same vein - that Mr Folau said that Homosexuals would burn in Hell. (Note: this is not a direct quote, but from my memory as best I can recall.)

This is simply a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

In my recent post I included the exact wording of the post that is at the heart of all this fuss, and I will do so again here.

Here are the words that Israel Folau himself wrote and posted:

Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.

Now if you read carefully, you will note that Israel Folau does not even write the word "Homosexual(s)". At all. Not even a sideways reference to homosexuals.

It is wholly and totally untrue what the media are saying that Israel Folau has posted.

Now with that single line of text that Mr Folau posted of his own words, he also posted direct and complete quotations from the Holy Bible, King James Version.
The verses he posted are as follows:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

_______________

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

_______________

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV

Any unbiased reader will note that passages quoted by Mr Folau ALSO DO NOT MENTION homosexuals.

In fact it is only the graphic that Mr Folau posted that even uses the word Homosexuals:

And even in that, the graphic does not single out homosexuals, but simply includes them amongst a list of 8 different terms.

And the thrust of the words, the verses, and the graphic is NOT that people will burn in Hell, but that in fact there is a way for people to avoid that fate.

To represent Mr Folau in the way that the Media has and continues to do is first of all deceitful, wording the accusation in such way as to force a reader into a negative mindset, but it is also misrepresenting the truth.

It would be far more accurate for the media to represent the truth, and say that Mr Folau has used Scripture to point out that any sinner is bound for Hell UNLESS they repent.

For this is truthfully what Mr Folau has done.
He has not singled out any group, and not named any group other than "Those that are living in sin".
He certainly has not singled out "Homosexuals" as it is constantly reported that he has done.

I am not normally one that claims that the media is biased, but in this case it appears to be almost universal that the Media is intent on focussing this matter on the FALSE claim that Mr Folau has singled out Homosexuals.
That is how they have reported it since the start of this mockery of a trial by media, and it is certainly the way that Rugby Australia has presented it, and it is also the way that the Qantas chairman has presented it.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth for the purpose of stifling freedom of speech.

I find it interesting that the Qantas chairman can publicly promote the opposing view and do so with his Qantas chairman's hat on, blatantly and proudly saying that he represents the Qantas organisation, and he has the apparent right to promote the gay agenda without any repercussions; the chairwoman of Rugby Australia can promote and support the gay agenda without repercussions; the media can present and represent the gay agenda without repercussions, but a man who has NOT EVEN SINGLED OUT THE GAY COMMUNITY can suffer the kind of attacks and repercussions that we see of Mr Folau for a MISREPRESENTED comment against the Gay community that HE DID NOT EVEN MAKE.

This is not tolerance of any kind - this is an unwarranted attack, based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of the matter, in order to justify NOT TOLERATING a point of view that opposes what the Media wants to promote.

And it is shameful.

Israel Folau, what did he really post?

2019-05-09T12:44:00.000+08:00

Trying to find the original post that has started all of this fuss with Israel Folau has been difficult. I wanted to see FOR MYSELF what he actually posted that has now been deemed to be a “High level breach” by Rugby Australia.

Well, here it is:

“

Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.
_______________

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

_______________

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

_______________

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV
_______________”

Note that I am no Techno-head, so putting the actual post itself into this was beyond my skill level.

What I have done is find the image that he posted and pasted it into this, and then I have copied the text that he wrote, and the verse quotes that he included. To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what he posted, correct image and word for word.

I think it would be worthwhile examining exactly what Mr Folau DID say, rather than everyone getting up in arms about what he didn’t actually say.

So, I am sorry Mr Folau, but I am going to examine your post, and more particularly your words in greater detail than anyone really deserves, but I think it is necessary to find out the truth.

· First of all the image posted.

Keep in mind that I don’t think Mr Folau made this image. I assume (and I am sorry but it is an assumption) that Mr Folau saw this image on line and reposted it, but he obviously agreed with the basics of it.

The Image states that for a variety of people listed – 8 different groups are listed overall – that Hell awaits them. The image then calls for those people included in the list to repent, and notes that only Jesus saves.

A few things to note about this image itself.

It does not single out any particular group listed over any other group.

The image is not specifically attacking homosexuals, as is the focus of the claims against My Folau. In fact, if one were to take a step back you would find that not many people are left out of that list. I don’t think I have ever met a person who has not lied at some time, and most of us have stolen something somewhere along the way – not a car, but maybe a pen or something like that.

Where is there any indication in the image itself that Mr Folau is attacking any particular group? There is no such indication. In fact the image has a list that actually includes every person ever – including Mr Folau himself (Which I am sure he would openly acknowledge).

Now then, is the image attacking anyone?

No, it is not. There is no attack. There is a statement of what Mr Folau and many others believe is a fact: that any sinner is bound for Hell.

This is not an attack. It is a statement. If I was to state “You are going to die”, it doesn’t mean that I want it to be so, or that I intend to cause it to be so. It doesn’t necessitate any feeling toward you of any sort – either hatred or love. It is information that I believe to be true.

And it is in fact true – every person will die one day. You might be offended at my pointing that out, but it will not stop you from dying. And it makes no difference whether I like you, hate you, or am ambivalent to you, the fact is that one day you will die. There is no attack, just a statement of information.

If however, I knew you were going to die of some particular disease, and I recognised it, and knew the cure, then told you about that cure, that is not attacking, nor is it hateful. In fact it is loving.

This image does nothing more than that.

The originator of the image believes that all the people listed are destined for Hell, but he (or she) does not want the people listed to end up in Hell, and so they state the cure, salvation through Jesus.

There is nothing hateful nor accusatory in the image.

· What about the statement that Mr Folau makes after the image?

“Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

So, Mr Folau doesn’t single out any particular group in this statement either. He says “Those that are living in sin”. There is only one conclusion to take from the reaction to this part of the statement – those who are offended know that they are living in sin. If they didn’t know that, they would have simply considered that Mr Folau was referring to others. Their outrage actually shows that they consider themselves among “those that are living in sin”. Mr Folau didn’t designate them as such. He simply gave a warning that “those who are living in sin will end up in hell unless you repent. Again, Mr Folau is not attacking anyone. He is simply stating what he believes is the destiny of those “who are living in sin”.

And again, his purpose is to show that they have a way to avoid Hell.

It is not an accusation, but a warning. He is not accusing people of living in sin, but pointing out that those WHO ARE living in sin have a destiny that ends in Hell. Those who are fussing about this are the ones who are designating themselves as “living in sin”.

The simple conclusion to come to about this statement is that if you are not living in sin then Mr Folau doesn’t believe that you will end up in Hell. (Note that the Bible has a lot to say about this beyond this simplistic conclusion)

Far from accusing, Mr Folau points out what he believes of “Those that are living in sin”. He doesn’t designate any groups at all in his own words.

He also points out the solution for “Those that are living in sin”.

His statement only and clearly applies to “those who are living in sin”.

Apparently, the drunkards, the adulterers, the liars etc don’t consider themselves to be living in sin, because they haven’t kicked up a fuss. It is only the Homosexuals that have designated themselves to be included in the statement “those that are living in sin”, not Mr Folau.

And even so, all Mr Folau has done is show that there is a solution to the sin and Hell problem that he points out: Salvation through Jesus Christ.

· After this, Mr Folau quoted three Bible passages. Mr Folau cannot be held responsible for the words of the Bible, for he didn’t write it. He did of course choose which passages to quote, but as far as I can tell, it is still legal to quote the Bible in Australia. (It apparently is not allowed if you are employed by the ARU. That would seem to be discriminatory against religious persons, but the ARU is supposed to be non-discriminatory…)

o Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

In examining this passage, we note a few things: this passage does not even mention homosexuality specifically. It would of course be encompassed under adultery, fornication, and possibly uncleanness, but it is not specifically noted. In fact what we have here is a wide ranging list of people who the Bible says will not inherit the kingdom of God. But Homosexuals are not even specified here.

______________

o
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

Again, there is no mention of any specific group in this list apart from “every one of you”. It speaks only of remission of sins through Jesus Christ. This verse doesn’t even talk about the consequences if someone doesn’t repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ.

_______________

o
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV

And again, there is no mention of any consequences for anyone, just that God calls all men everywhere to repent.

So then, having looked at the post that has caused all the fuss and trouble, I am astounded at the way that this has been handled by the LBGT etc and also by the Media.

To the LBGT etc (I am sorry but I can’t keep up with the current letters included in this group as it seems to change every couple of weeks), I have to ask why you are so offended at this post? Where did Mr Folau specify your group in particular?

In his own words he doesn’t even mention “Homosexuals” or any other designation of your group. The name is one of 8 in the original image list, and it is not even the first on the list.

Nowhere else in the entire post of Mr Folau is the LBGT etc group even referred to.

Secondly, Mr Folau nowhere states that he is sending them to Hell, nor does he state that he wants them to go to Hell, nor does he state that he is rejoicing at the thought of them going to Hell. In fact, it is implicit in his statements that Mr Folau doesn’t want them to go to Hell, because he includes statements and Bible references that show how they can avoid that destiny.

There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from the resultant media coverage: The LBGT etc have launched a totally unjustified attack, misrepresenting what Mr Folau posted for the purpose of destroying this man and attacking the current religious freedoms in Australia, and secondly, the Australian Media are either allowing themselves to be deceived by the LBGT etc or are inherently involved the attack against Mr Folau and against Australian religious freedom. If they were not involved (deliberately or naively) they would show the post in its entirety and show clearly that the Homosexual groups are not in fact targeted.

As to Rugby Australia and their panel that have now found Mr Folau guilty of a High level breach, we must ask “Where in the post that Mr Folau made is there any breach of any code of conduct? How is it in any way hateful to warn someone of what you believe to be impending danger? Indeed, Mr Folau has not even designated any particular group as sinners, but included all men – ALL MEN as sinners.

The only conclusion we can come to with regard to Rugby Australia is that they are allowing themselves to be influenced by their major sponsor, who apparently doesn’t think Australia should have free speech. At least not free speech that disagrees with the thoughts of their current boss.

I for one am disgusted at the treatment of Mr Folau by the Australian press, by Rugby Australia, and by many commentators who apparently feel that looking at the actual statements of Mr Folau are not necessary. The ARU have sold Mr Folau out for sponsorship money.

I am not in the least surprised by the LGBT etc groups who are attacking Mr Folau without mercy, not for what he has said, but for the fact that he is a Christian who is willing to quote the Bible.

Mr Folau has said nothing offensive to homosexuals in particular – in fact, nothing AT ALL to homosexuals in particular. Mr Folau addressed “Those who are living in sin” without further definition. Who is it that has designated homosexuals as sinners? Not Mr Folau. It is actually those who are accusing him who have designated themselves as sinners.

The actual roots of this whole affair are based in those who wish to silence the Bible and remove any reference to God and the Word of God from our society.

Alan Jones has said that the Australian people won’t stand for it. I hope he is right, but I fear he is wrong.

My fear is that not enough regular Australians care enough to stand with Mr Folau in his battle for the right to express his own opinion.

Today it is the right of one man to express an opinion that is being restricted. Tomorrow it may be the right of others to express their opinion that is taken away. When and where will it stop?

They call men like Mr Folau intolerant, but he is not the one who stopping others from having an opinion.

I will fight for the right of every man to be free to express his opinion, whether I agree with him or not. The way our nation is going, I am falling into a minority.

My opinion will soon be illegal if things continue the way they appear to be going.

Only opinions that “fit with the acceptable” will be allowed to be expressed. Who then decides what is acceptable? And what stops your opinion – whatever that may be – from becoming unacceptable?

No one should be able to call others to physical violence. No one should be able to promote attacks on other people. No one should be able to take away another person’s rights without just cause and due process.

But every man should be able to express an opinion.

I will fight for your right to oppose me and present an opposing opinion.

Because stopping talk doesn’t solve problems. Just because I can silence you, doesn’t mean the problem is solved. Just because you can silence me, doesn’t mean that your problems are now solved.

In context of Mr Folau’s post, you can stop it from being posted around, you can take away his career, you can silence him by deleting or covering his opinion wherever you can, but it will not change for one moment that fact that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that the Wages of sin is death, and that Hell is final destiny of everyone who has not trusted in Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Whether it is stated, read, proclaimed, or even tweeted OR NOT – it is still true.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but the question has to be asked: If you don't believe what Mr Folau has posted is true, why does it concern you? He hasn't named any particular person or even a particular group. He has not called for any group of people to be persecuted or banned. He has not in any way promoted violence against any particular group (or even general violence for that matter).
He has spoken of a destiny that he believes is as stated in the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible is true, why do you care what this man says about what you believe is fanciful?

It is not hateful to warn about that problem.

It is loving to warn someone of impending danger and then tell them of the way of avoiding that danger.

Mr Folau, I know it is easy for me to say this because it is not my wage, not my reputation, not my future that is on trial and at stake, but good on you for making your original post, and for standing your ground. On my examination (which counts for nothing) you have done nothing wrong, nothing hateful, nothing for which you need to apologise.
Rest in the Lord and trust in Him.

1Pe 4:
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Abortion in Australia

2019-03-12T12:43:00.002+08:00

I rarely post anything about politics, preferring instead to leave the subject of politics up to the individuals.
It is not my right to tell people which way they should vote.
At the outside, I encourage people to vote according to Biblical values, but with many politicians in Australia it is almost impossible to find their views on ethical and Biblical matters.

However, in Australia recently the Labor Party has come out and said if they win the next election they will bring in fully publicly funded abortions.
In one news article about this political line there was a photo of a woman holding a placard that said "Legal abortions save lives".
LEGAL ABORTIONS DO NOT SAVE LIVES. Any abortion OF NECESSITY takes the life of the child - that is what an abortion is.
What the placard was suggesting is that illegal abortions are dangerous, and that is true, but many illegal things are dangerous, and those who do those illegal things take their chances.
EVERY ABORTION takes a life, but an illegal abortion only endangers the woman's life if she chooses to go down that path. No one is forcing her to get an illegal abortion - it is her choice.
Think about that placard in these terms: say that abortion for any reason is legal and as a result we have 100000 abortions each year. That is 100000 children whose lives are ended.
But if abortion is illegal, the number of abortions drops to 50000 (most likely it would be a far greater difference), and of those 50000 illegal abortions, half of them ended with the mother dying because of poor practices (the ratio would no doubt be far lower). This means that a total of 75000 lives are lost because of illegal abortion.
This is a net gain or 25000 - legal abortion DOES NOT save lives in any way shape or form. I don't know what the actual numbers are, and it doesn't really matter what the actual numbers are - the net difference is in favour of making abortion illegal.
In fact, the numbers that I have used here would most likely be extremely heavily swayed towards even greater lives saved by making abortion illegal.
If the total was 100000 abortions, and the practice was made illegal, the number would most likely be way less than half who would still seek abortion. A great number of women would not seek it as an illegal option.
And of those illegal abortions performed, the rate at which the mother would also be lost would be way less than 50% - how could even an illegal operator continue with anything approaching that kind of failure rate? In fact the number would most likely be a single figure percentage of failure, even as an illegal act.
So the claim that legal abortions save lives is absolutely false, and it is an emotive claim rather than a scientifically factual argument.

The murder of unborn children is a tragedy of mammoth proportions in today's world.

ANY POLITICAL PARTY that runs on a platform of financing abortions from the public purse is actually promoting government sanctioned and financed infanticide.
No one with any sort of conscience can vote for a party that not only condones, but in fact promotes the murder of unborn children.

And when people say that using terms such as "murder of unborn children" is emotive, so also is the use of terms such as "termination of pregnancy", and referring to an unborn child as "a foetus"- they are designed to take the attention away from the truth that it is the killing of a person - it is ending the life of a person. The fact that person is at that point in its mothers womb in no way detracts from that fact - that unborn child is a person.

I still think one of the greatest comparisons ever pointed out is that if they found a single celled organism on Mars, they would proclaim that they had found life, but a small cluster of cells that has every single piece of DNA information required to continue dividing and form into a complete person by today's standards "is not life".

What a joke - double standard to the extreme.

Abortion is murder, and no government should sanction, let alone fund murder of the most innocent of people.

Australia will vote on whether or not to broaden the definition of marriage.

2017-08-24T17:57:00.003+08:00

Australia will next month have a postal vote on whether or not we would like our government to change the definition of marriage.
Currently, in Australia, the definition of marriage is very specifically between a man and a woman.

There is a hugely vocal homosexual and alternative lifestyle grouping that has for a long time sought to squash any sort of debate on the acceptability of their lifestyle choice in mainstream Australian culture.
I have been subjected to this myself on fora that has nothing to do with lifestyle choices.
In the general discussion section of one forum I was a member of, everyone could have an opinion but me.
And even when I did not express an opinion, I was attacked for my "bigoted views".
I will also say that often times those people misrepresented my views so that they could attack me, but in many cases I did not actually express a view at all, and still was attacked - because I am openly a Christian, and all views are acceptable in this matter EXCEPT those that come from the Bible.

I personally will be voting "No" to the postal plebiscite regarding the change in the definition of marriage. That will not surprise anyone who has read my position and statements of my faith elsewhere on this blog.

But I want to explain why, and here I can do so without being shouted down.

I have several reasons for my position.

First, those who choose these alternative lifestyles have full legal and political recognition under our civil unions legislation.
In every legal respect they already have the same rights as a married couple.
The only thing they lack is the right to call it a "Marriage".
And in fact, they can already use the name, just not in an official capacity. (Who is going to stop them calling it a marriage in everyday life?)

Some will then say "Well if there is no difference, then why bother to argue about semantics?"

But it is not semantics. And I will tell you why in a moment.

Before we get there though, I do want to point out that taking the marriage name IS semantics for those of alternative lifestyles. They think that by changing the name alone - for that is the only thing that will change - that their lifestyle choices will suddenly become legitimate in the eyes of the community.
They are wrong.
It is not the lack of the name marriage that is offputting for many mainstream Australians.
It is the lifestyle itself that the majority of Australians find unusual, even those who are accepting of it, but not part of it.
When a man talks of his husband, people's attitudes will not change regardless of them being allowed to say that they are legally married. And it won't change whether those people find it abhorrent, or just mildly unusual, or totally acceptable, or anywhere between. The change of name will not change anybody's attitude.
Do they really think that that who are vehemently opposed will all of a sudden become accepting because now the government has said they can call it marriage?
And will it change the attitudes of those who are wholly for alternative lifestyles? Will they wake up the next day and feel that their relatioships are stronger JUST because now they can call it a marriage?
The alternative lifestyle people will find that not one thing in reality has changed if they win this vote.
Not anything legally, and not any attitudes.
Neither their own attitudes, nor their opponents attitudes, nor the indifferent attitudes will have changed.

Now then, to the arguments that people put forth to oppose this vote:

There are those who have tried to argue about children being the product of marriage, but they are rightly pointed to heterosexual couples who either by choice or medical issues do not have children. Are these not legitimate marriages then?
This is a legitimate counter.
Children do not make a marriage.

When I got married to my wife, we were immediately married - we did not have to wait the five years that it took for us to finally have children - our marriage was a complete marriage immediately we said "I do".
And when our children leave home, as the oldest will shortly do, we will not cease to be married.

Another argument that is often put is that it is unnatural.
That was thought to be true in the past, but the alternative lifestyle mobs have produced "evidence" that it is entirely natural.
Whether their evidence is legitimate is still up for debate - for instance dogs "mating" with dogs is not legitimate evidence, because a dog with a mind to, will mate with anything that moves, and some things that don't. A dog "mating" with a person's leg does not denote a natural behaviour of dogs wanting to mate with men - it denotes a natural behaviour of dogs to satisfy themselves wherever they see the opportunity.

But regardless of the veracity of this evidence, just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it acceptable for people to do.
Many creatures eat their young, but I do not know of ANY MAN of any persuasion who would suggest that such a thing is acceptable simply because we see it in nature.
(And no, I am not saying that alternative lifestylers are to be compared to such animals. It is the argument from nature that I am discussing.)
And some female creatures, after mating eat the male, but I do not see anyone suggesting that because we see it in nature it should be acceptable for men.

The argument that it is natural is not the same as arguing that something is right or wrong.
In nature we see what we would consider "right" actions, and we see what we consider "wrong" actions. The "right" actions are not more right because we see them in nature, and the "wrong" actions are not more wrong because we see them in nature.
The point is, nature is not our standard for right or wrong, for if it was our society would be very different to what it is today, and in fact our society would be full of argument about what is the right model from nature to follow.
Do we follow the lion's model, where the men do nothing but get first dibs on the meals, and lunge around, while the women do all the work of providing?
Or do we follow the be model, where there is one ruling woman, a number of male bees whose sole role is to mate with the queen and the whole place is run by the females who do all the work?

Neither of these models would be considered fair and equitable for human society.

So nature is not, and never has been our standard.
Therefore, whether or not we see these alternative lifestyles in nature is irrelevant - Nature is not the model upon which our society is built.

In fact, there is only one argument that holds any true weight in this matter:
Mark 10:6-9
(6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God designed marriage.

I have looked, and found no real theories on how marriage "developed" from a secular point of view.

It is simply accepted that marriage started in the lost history of time, and it is common among all cultures.

The details of it vary of course, but the basics that a man and a woman leave their families and join together to start a new family is the universal basic.

And the Bible tells us that this was God's design from the time of creation.

The fact that marriage is universal indicates a common link somewhere in the so called "lost history" of the past. It is not lost: the Bible explains it clearly.

But the important part of this, is that God designed and instituted marriage.

As the designer and maker of marriage, God therefore has the authority and right to define what he has designed.

And God said that it was between a man and a woman, a male and female, a man and his wife.

Why am I voting against the redefinition of marriage in Australia?

Because, whilst it will not gain the supporters of the change anything legally, politically, or attitudinally, it denies God's right to define His institution of Marriage.

Unfortunately, I think this is the real agenda - the removal of God from our society.

Men have removed God from our schools.

Men are trying to remove God from our courts.

Men are trying to remove God from our parliament.

Men are trying to remove God from our holidays and celebrations.

Men are trying to remove every trace of God from our society.

This is yet another step on this path.

In Australia they have the "Safe schools" program, which ironically masquerades under the banner of "Anti-bullying", but which as is becoming more obvious all the time, is really just a platform to promote alternative lifestyles.

The irony of this, is that if anyone speaks out against the alternative lifestyles agenda that is Safe Schools promotes, they are BULLIED into submission and silence.

The biggest bullies, the most intolerant group, the most violently opposing group in Australia today, are the alternative lifestyles groups.

For proof, just see the kind of reaction this post gets, if it actually gets noticed and not deleted by some sort of big brother.

I would urge anyone who reads this, to read it carefully and point out clearly where I have said anything hateful.

Fact is, that I do not hate anyone of alternative lifestyles. I do not approve of their lifestyle, but it is not my right to dictate to them how they should live. That is their choice.

I DO know what the Bible says about it, but it is still their choice, as it is every man's choice to either accept the Bible or reject it, and on that basis to accept or reject the gift of salvation that Jesus made available to all men, if they would believe on His name and confess (to God) their sins.

Romans 10:9-10
(9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Bible says that ....all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

All - not just murderers and thieves, but all men. And that even includes me, although I have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and so my sins have been paid for.

But back to the point - I am voting against this change because it will not do anything positive for anyone, and because God has already defined marriage in His Word.

God made it - God defined it.

I will vote "No" and I would urge every God fearing, Bible believing Christian to also vote for God's definition of marriage, which the current Australian definition agrees with.

Worship????

2017-08-19T20:25:00.000+08:00

There is a lot of talk about right now regarding worship.
Styles of worship and importance of worship, and how we should go about worship, and how important worship is for a church and for Christians.

Well the other day in my daily reading I came across Mark chapter 5 and I noticed something in that passage that had escaped me previously.

Mark 5:1-13
(1) And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
(2) And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
(3) Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
(4) Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
(5) And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
(6) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
(7) And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
(8) For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
(9) And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
(10) And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
(11) Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
(12) And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
(13) And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Jesus and the Disciples had just cross the sea overnight with the storm and Jesus calming that storm, and they came to Gadarea. When they got out of the ship and walked onto the land, a man came running up to them. This man was possessed with devils.

But the interesting thing I find about this passage is that it says in vs 6;

(6) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

When he saw Jesus he ran and worshipped him. Now I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran and worshipped the Lord, as I read it the other day I noticed something about this account.
The "he" spoken of in vs 6 is the same "he"spoken of in vs 7 through to vs 10.

You see, I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran to Jesus for help, but it was not the man that confronted Jesus and worshipped Him, it was the devil in him.

The devil is the one talking, the devil is the one begging (I adjure thee...), the devil is the one WORSHIPPING the Lord.
Let's look at this a moment: the devil calls Jesus "...the son of the most high God..." recognising exactly who the Lord is, and ascribing that honour to the Lord.
The devil recognises also the authority of Jesus, when he "Adjures" Him, or begs Him - this devil certainly knows that Jesus has the authority and the power.

The thing about all of this is that these devils - there were many for their name was legion (A Roman legion by the way was normally 5000 men plus support staff, and they affected 2000 pigs when cast into the herd), these devils are said in vs 6 to have worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ.

In that, they ascribed to Him the proper attributes, the proper authority, the proper power, and His proper position.
They cried out loud about who He is and what He can do.
No-one standing there that day could have missed that these devils recognised Jesus as the son of the most high God, or that He was stronger in power, and of greater authority than these devils - that at least 2000 of them too.

The Bible clearly says that they "worshipped" Him.

Now back to our present day emphasis on worship and the importance of it in our churches.
It occurred to me that not only Christians can worship - if these devils can worship the Lord, then there is no inherent need for the one worshipping the Lord to actually love the Lord.
These devils did not love the Lord, but they did worship Him.

James 2:19
(19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

There is no requirement of saving faith for worship to happen.

In fact there will be a load of people who think they are doing various things for the Lord who will find out one day that their service was in vain:

Matthew 7:20-24
(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(24) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Many will say to Him "Have we not done all these great things in your name?", but Jesus will say "I never knew you".

I wonder how many people are caught up in this current flow of "worship focussed" ministry who actually have never trusted Jesus Christ as their Saviour?

They think they are serving and honouring the Lord because they "Worship" the Lord, but these devils also worshipped the Lord.

No, worship does not make a person saved.

Romans 10:9-13
(9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
(13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That is what makes a person saved - believing in thine heart and confessing (to God) that Jesus raised from the dead.

Those people who think they are honouring God by what is often called "good worship" (a subjective view anyway), may very possibly be wrong. You don't have to love the Lord to worship Him.

Also, recently I have been looking again at the Great Commission and strangely enough I don't find anywhere in the various statements of the Great Commission a call to worship the Lord in that work.

We are told to teach all nations, to baptise, and teach them what Jesus taught - but there is no mention of worshipping the Lord in those calls - it is SERVING HIM, in the way that He calls or commissions us to that He wants.

Should we forgive and restore, or just bash them to death?

2017-01-22T09:27:00.001+08:00

It has on occasion been an issue that I have seen that someone wanders astray from the Lord, and then church discipline is invoked.

I, thankfully, have never had to deal with this matter directly in any church I have been in. The only people I have had to deal with have been those who are not members but trying to cause trouble or influence doctrine, and the Bible has a different way of dealing with them as it does with church members.

I have however been involved on occasion with the restoration of a wayward saint.

Let's look then at the relevant passages:

Matthew 18:15-17
(15) Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
(16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
(17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

It is interesting that if there is an issue between two Christians, it should be resolved within the church. And also there is an order to this Bible directed way of dealing with a problem between Christians.

The first step is between the parties directly involved in the matter; but look at the end of the verse - the goal for this process is TO GAIN YOUR BROTHER, or to restore the fellowship between you.

The next step is to take two or three witnesses - this is still not public, but only dealt with by a close group of members of that church.

And note that there is no mention of what happens if he hears and the problem is resolved - it is implied in the passage that the result mentioned in vs 15 is also what is relevant here - to gain your brother.

Then, after these two procedures have been followed, the third step is to make it public WITHIN THE CHURCH - this is not a free for all public accusation and humiliation.

And the final result IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, is to consider him as a Heathen man.

The interesting thing about this is that we are not told to treat the person as persona non grata. We are to treat them as an unsaved man.

How do we treat an unsaved man?

Well, if we look at the way that some have been treated under what is sometimes claimed to be church discipline, then we would not talk to them, not acknowledge them in any way, not answer the phone if we know it is them, not walk down the same street at them, and not return a "hello" in the street if they say hello to us.

I just have to ask at this point..... Is that really how we treat unsaved men?

Of course it isn't. We are friendly and try to lead them to meet the Saviour.

This then is the real way that we should treat the person subject to these verses - in such a way that we might lead them to be restored to proper fellowship with the Lord and with us.

We DO NOT ACCEPT their sin. But then we don't accept the sin of an unsaved man either.

We do not join with their sin. But again, we do not with an unsaved man either.

The point of church discipline is not to punish but to restore. We want to bring this person back into proper fellowship with the Lord.

How does that happen if we won't even talk to them?

The kind of action that is often called "church discipline" only really serves to enhance bitterness in the person, and drive them further away from the Lord.

The first part of this process is designed to "Gain thy brother" not damage him or drive him away. The rest of it carries the same implied purpose.

There is another passage which is a bit wider in scope than just an issue between Christians:

Galatians 6:1
(1) Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

This is talking about a Christian who falls into sin - I say fall, because that is the way we commonly refer to it, but in truth many times we don't fall, we jump into sin headfirst.

But if we see a brother who is in sin, we have a duty to try to help.

I actually love this passage because it is very simple and very plain about the matter of a sinning brother.

First of all, it is up to "ye which are spiritual" to deal with the matter. If you are not spiritually mature and in good fellowship with the Lord, then you should not be applying for this job.

Secondly, the very next word tells the purpose of this "RESTORE".

The purpose is not to beat them into submission, nor is it to punish them for their wrongdoing. Sin always has a price and the Lord will make sure they pay their price - it is not our job to do that.

Our job in this is to RESTORE them - or to bring them back into fellowship with the Lord.

Thirdly, this is to be done in a spirit of meekness, not out of anger or pride or self righteousness, but in meekness.

And finally it is to be done "considering thine own self, lest thou also be tempted".

Really, this is meekness explained - it is keeping in mind that I also am less than perfect, and that I also could fall (or jump) into sin at any time.

So many times I have seen church discipline used as a weapon to beat up on someone. So many times I have seen someone "dealing with a sinning brother (or sister) with the intent to hurt or punish, not to restore. These people, by their very actions are showing that they are not spiritual, and their actions also display no meekness or humility that comes with understanding that I too am a sinner.

I have gotten into trouble at times for trying to restore a fallen christian.

People who may or may not be involved have accused me of helping them to sin, or of encouraging them in their sin.

The reality of the matter is that I will not help any unrepentant sinning Christian. The first step in that case is to bring that person to repentance for their sin.

But when a person comes to our church in humility, and genuinely wants to get back on track for the Lord, I will do everything I can, and I will lead our church to everything we can, to help such a person get back into right fellowship with the Lord.

I am not told to deal with their sin - that is up to God. Once they come willing to "hear the matter", then my job, and the job of our church, and in fact the job of every Christian, is to restore them, not to beat them up.

I will never apologise for trying to restore a fallen Christian to right fellowship with God.

I will always try my best to help them see their sin and to deal with their sin in a godly fashion.

There may be people who lie to me about their heart and intent, but so far I have been pretty good at picking that up. I will no doubt make mistakes in this matter, but I do so KNOWING that I am trying to honour the Lord in this matter.

And I don't care about those who pass judgement on me for it.

I know what the Bible says about it.

I know what I have to do in these matters.

And I will ALWAYS try to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.

Final note: I am talking about restoring a Christian to fellowship with the Lord, not about him "getting saved again". The Bible is plain that eternal life is... well.... eternal - and that means you can neither lose it, have it taken away, or even give it back. The RELATIONSHIP of a saved man can never change, but the FELLOWSHIP of a saved man with God changes all the time.

Losing sight of the best whilst looking at the good.

2016-12-02T20:30:00.002+08:00

Let me set out before anything else that our church sings hymns accompanied by piano and violin, and I am in now way endorsing the movement to "modern music" in churches simply for the sake of being "relevant".
I do think that there can be songs written in recent times that are absolutely acceptable for Godly worship. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but the "Olden days writers" did not have a monopoly on true spirituality. And of course there is a lot of rubbish which is passed off as "Christian worship music".

With that laid out at the start, I want to address something that I have noticed in recent times: a heavy focus on Church music, making sure it is "right", and warning at every point of the way that "bad music choices lead to forsaking right Doctrine".
I agree with the general premise of that, but I wonder if some of the problem is that people are making up complex and technical standards for "right music" which quite frankly just baffle the average person, and at the same time NOT warning these people to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God".

There are two basic issues that I see with this approach:

With the complexity of the musical standards, there is no genuine way for the "layman" to check if the standard is biblical, so the argument basically falls to "You may not understand it but I have done the study so you should just trust me". Forgive me for this, but that is exactly why the Catholics wanted to keep the Bible in Latin all those years ago - so that the poor old regular man would have to trust the "experts".

I for one believe that God has made His Word understandable for the average man, and if something like this is so complex that only a musical expert can understand it, then I seriously doubt it is biblical. It drives many to just say, "if it is so hard to understand, then I just won't even bother to try, and I will just listen to whatever I want". The "technical boundaries" that some put up are incomprehensible to many, and so they just give up on the whole matter. It is basically saying to these people that they are not smart enough to understand God's Word, so they just give up trying.

What you end up with are people who simply listen to whatever they want OR whatever they are told, but they don't bother to study the Word of God about it.

This argument is in fact teaching people to either accept whatever they are told by the "experts" or to ignore whatever they are told by the "experts" but NOT TO STUDY THE WORD OF GOD for themselves.

In my mind I think we should set out what we perceive as Biblical standards for any issue, but we should teach people to study for themselves.

The second issue is that some appear to spend so much time warning about the "slippery slope" effect etc, that they forget to teach strong doctrine, and they forget to warn others about having strong doctrine. It is sort like they are yelling so loud about "Right music" that nobody notices the wolves sneaking quietly in while everyone is distracted by the "Music issue".

I think it is entirely possible for a church to accept much of this music AND STILL retain a strong doctrinal position. I think it is incredibly difficult, and most probably very unlikely, but I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it states plainly that right music leads to right doctrine and wrong music leads to wrong doctrine.

I DO think we see it happen often, but I wonder if it is partly because the warnings are about wrong music, and while everyone is concentrating on the music the false teachers sneak the bad doctrine in the side door.

Don't ignore the warnings, and the encouragement on doctrine. Doctrines are after all fairly well defined in the Bible.

I have been studying through the seven churches of Revelation lately, and I don't recall any warnings about music to any of these seven churches,but almost all of them are warned on doctrine in some way, or encouraged to stay strong on doctrine.

If music was itself inherently important in such matters, then I would expect it make the list of warnings to these seven churches.

There absolutely is instruction on music - I am not a denier. I just wonder if ALONG WITH the warnings about right music, we ought to also be making AT LEAST as much noise warning these people to jealously guard their doctrine while they consider their music.

I think maybe some are putting too much emphasis on the wrong focus point.

Blackmailing Missionaries for the percieved faults of their sending church?

2016-04-07T10:34:00.001+08:00

(I wrote this some months ago, and never posted it because I felt I maybe overstepped the mark a little, but I have recently heard of another missionary who has been affected by this phenomenon, and so I am posting it now.)

Missionaries: how dare you treat them like that!

An exclamation mark, not a question mark.

I don’t want you to answer – I want you to feel rebuked.

For many Pastors and churches out there you will not feel any sting in what I have to say, for you are not the cause of my anger. Unfortunately those who should feel the sting will most likely put my name in their box marked “Do not touch with a barge pole”.

Yes, I am angry, and unfortunately while I think my anger is justified, I don’t feel my anger is in line with the Paul’s words in:

Eph_4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

I am angry you see, and whilst it is justified in my mind, I am sure that my anger also has some sin in it. I will try to keep that sin away from this article, but what I have to say, I must say.

Missionaries are the ones who are actively living out the great commission in their daily lives. Yes, Pastors should be too. In fact every Christian should. Most of us don’t, at least not as well as we should, and I am sure there are some missionaries that also do not work for the Lord as well as they should.

But most missionaries have put everything on the line and given up their comfy lives back at home to take the Gospel to lost souls who need to know that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them, so that they might have a way of salvation.

Many of them rely on the financial support that is promised from “home churches”, but they would rather not have to go begging for that support, and in fact, most of them would rather not have to even care about it. But it is necessary. To live in this life costs money.

I can honestly say that I do not remember having a missionary ask me anything about how much we could support them or how much we would give them as a gift if they came to speak for us. The ones I know would be embarrassed if they heard of a missionary doing so.

But we all know these things. What has any of this got to do with me being angry?

Because I have spoken to several missionaries of late who have been threatened by churches. Yes, threatened by churches and Pastors.

And it has been associated not with doctrinal matters to do with the missionary themselves, but with matters to do with their sending churches.

And to make it worse, these “Matters” are not doctrinal matters at all.

But the final straw is that in neither case of my personal experience, nor of those that I have been told about, has the matter had anything to do with the missionary themselves. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the “matters” have not been discussed with the sending church in any way, but simply accused and passed around.

Now don’t misunderstand me about this – I am not saying the “matters” are unimportant, or that they should not be discussed. But this is NOT doctrine we are talking about, and it is NOT THE MISSIONARY we are talking about.

Make no mistake, if there is a serious doctrinal issue with a sending church then no good missionary would continue involvement with that church, and would of course find another sending church.

But what we are talking about is not doctrinal – it is stylistic and it is preference. And I will also say that in certain cases it is not a style that I would care to follow. But it is NOT DOCTRINAL matters that are at issue. And we are independent – let these guys answer to God for their choices, and get on with your own choices.

I know now of several missionaries from different sending churches – good, strong, faithful, doctrinal, missionaries, who have been threatened with removed support unless they separate from their sending church.

Whoever you are – and I don’t know because the missionaries are far too gracious to tell tales about you – you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

How dare you attempt to blackmail a servant of the Lord into complying with your preferences?

Do you honestly think these men are your hirelings?

Joh 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

Joh 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

That is not an apt description of any missionary I know.

These men (and their wives and families) care about the flock that God has given them the oversight of.

But you think that because someone else has offended your preferences, that you have the right to control these servants of the Lord.

How dare you treat a man who is surrendered to the service of the living God, whose life goal is to see souls saved for the glory of the Lord, as though he were a hireling to be bought and sold, to be commanded and controlled?

You already know that they will not be so, for they have refused to heed your calls of extortion, and have sacrificed the monetary support of such as you, for the integrity of faithfulness and serving the Lord.

If you have a beef with a supporting church, then be man enough to contact the Pastor directly and talk it out with him.

How about this for some direction on the matter?

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Be spiritual and go to him – if you have a strong BIBLICAL argument then you may have a chance to bring that man back on the right track.

But how dare you try to punish a Pastor who disagrees with your preferences by attacking a missionary who most likely does not even follow the preference of his sending church – if indeed there is anything wrong with that church.

One final reminder – I am not talking about Doctrinal issues, but matters of preference, method, and style.

I am probably amongst the more conservative among us in fact – not right at the outside edge, but I certainly lean heavily that way. I have heard certain things about certain churches, but they are nowhere near me, and they do not directly affect me, and they are NOT DOCTRINAL issues, so I leave them to themselves. If they were to ask me, I would advise them to tread carefully on the path they seem to be going, for I see danger nearby. But they haven’t asked me (probably because I am pretty much a nobody), and in any case they will have to answer to the Lord for their choice, not me.

Heb_13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Leave the missionaries alone to serve the Lord. If a missionary falls into Doctrinal error, then revise his support by all means. None of us wants to be paying for a man to lead the lost into a ditch. But if you have an issue with his sending church, then take it up with that church: don’t you dare threaten the missionary.

It is probably a misapplication of the Scripture, but I can’t help thinking of:

2Ki 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

These kids were torn to pieces because they made fun of the man of God: I wonder what sort of punishment awaits the man who blackmails and threatens a man of God?

And you will note that I have not mentioned any names at all. This is partly because the missionaries would not divulge those names (not that I asked), and I do not care to divulge the names of sending churches involved either. I can’t see that naming names like that is any way to restore such an one in a spirit of meekness.

But then again, I am well aware that this has not been very meek either. At least I have not set out to personally embarrass or attack anyone. If you feel attacked or embarrassed, maybe you should ask yourself why? I haven’t mentioned any names at all.

And to end, I in no way endorse any church that might be straying from the "traditional ways" of Independent Baptist Churches - I am just angry at those who would punish an innocent missionary for the faults (real or perceived) of their sending church.

Meetings with church people.....

2016-03-15T09:34:00.003+08:00

I have recently been reminded of some experiences that my wife and I have had over the years when meeting with church people.

It is a funny thing (not funny ha ha, but funny strange!) that people seem to think that they can talk to a pastor however they like, and even more out of place is that they think they can talk to his wife about issues they are having with him.
Can I point out that in a godly church, the wife is not on staff - she is simply a lady who loves the Lord and supports her husband.
A Pastor's wife ends up doing all sorts of things that people expect "from a Pastor's Wife" but it is not actually her job.
I probably need to have a post here on Pastor's wives that discuss these things more fully, but for now, just know that a Pastor's wife does what she does because she loves the Lord and loves her husband, not because she is paid staff. Leave her alone, and if you have an issue with the way her husband is Pastoring, then TALK TO HIM about it.

Anyway, back to the actual issue.
I have had a few times when I have been approached by a member of our church wanting to have a fairly heavy discussion about something with me and my wife(!), and so we have made an appointment and set up the meeting. In two cases it has actually been about my leadership ability and style, and so I have no idea why they wanted my wife there as well - she hates these sorts of things, and will do just about anything to avoid them.
The funniest part of all this to me is that I have to brief and remind my wife to stay calm and to be meek no matter what is said, because she hates - absolutely hates it - when I am criticised. It takes all her strength to sit quietly while the discussion proceeds.

I have found that in these situations there is one verse that is absolutely vital to keep in mind:

Proverbs 15:1
(1) A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

It is amazing how well a meeting goes if you determine beforehand not to react to accusations and not to make ANY counter-accusations.

It simply takes the wind entirely out of the sails of the "assailant" (because that is what the person feels like when you are sitting there!)

Can I tell you a phrase that needs to be memorised and repeated by anyone who is likely to find themselves in this situation?

Repeat after me:

Thank-you for your information. I will think on it and see how I can improve in that area.

Saying something like that even in response to outlandish accusations causes the accuser to pause and think about what is going on here.

You see, most of the time they expect that they are going to have a fight on their hands, and they actually WANT you to react quickly and harshly to their accusations - most of the time they even phrase their questions and accusations in the worst way to exaggerate their grievance.
They want a fight, but if you don't give them that, but instead take on board their criticism and let them know you will consider it, they simply don't know where to go and what to do.

We had one particular meeting where my wife and I both had notebooks in front of us at the table.
This meeting was organised at a neutral location and with a moderator there to step in if things got nasty - it really was that intense.
When our accuser came in and sat at the table she asked us "What are the notebooks for? Are you going to write down everything I say to keep it as ammunition?" I answered, "No, we are going to write down the things that you think we need to change or that you think we are not doing well so that we can look at them alter and consider them properly, and so we don't forget something that we need to look at."
She was shocked, and it immediately put her down a notch.
It still wasn't a nice meeting, but it had lost the aggressive edge.
There were times during that meeting when the pressure cooker in my head was close to blowing but we both managed to keep it inside and not let of the steam during the meeting.

The car ride home was another matter - full of steam and also a bit of laughter at some of the ridiculous charges that were brought.
The accuser left our church soon after, but in my experience these people are looking for a reason to leave anyway, and having a big fight with the Pastor and his wife is a great excuse to leave a church - then you can go around and tell everybody that they yelled at you and how uncharitable they were. (Just conveniently forget to mention that you badgered them until they exploded!)
This person however could not do that because it didn't happen - they ended up leaving with the excuse that "I have outgrown this church and need to find somewhere where I can grow."
Oh yeah, and the person who was moderator for this meeting gained a whole new level of respect for us, and the relationship between him and me was vastly improved because of this meeting.

The thing is, to say that you will consider the accusation should not be just words.
I have found that people rarely just make up outright lies about others. People will definitely blow something right out of proportion and the saying "to make a mountain out of a molehill" survives for exactly that reason, but it is rare that an accusation has absolutely no foundation. Sometimes that foundation is irrelevant, and sometimes it is minuscule, but it is rare that there is nothing at all there.

So genuinely consider every accusation made against you. Most of them will be small things, some of them will be silly things, and sometimes you will find something that really does need attention, and possibly even more than that person even realised.
And of course every now and then there will be not even the smallest grain of truth in it.

For an extreme example, an accusation of immorality might be entirely untrue, but it might reveal to you that you are allowing situations where the accusation can be made, and you then change that habit to a "safer" one where even the possibility of accusation cannot happen.

But always keep in mind with things like this that the problem in most cases is not actually with the Pastor, nor with his wife, but it is with the person making the accusations. Most of the time they want to leave the church for some reason, but they don't want anyone to know that reason, so they have to find some sort of "cover reason" so that no one knows it is their own heart that is the problem.
And someone in leadership - the Pastor, the youth Pastor, the Sunday School leader - it doesn't actually matter who - becomes the target. They start compiling a list of troubles and faults, and then they talk to others about that list, and they get more worked up about it, until they "Just have to do something about it".

Why don't they do the godly thing and go to that person in private without talking to others first. Then if they won't listen to that one on one, find a spiritually mature person and ask them to come along for another talk. Then...... well the Bible tells us the rest of that situation, but in my experience these people would never get past the second part without the "spiritually mature" witness dealing with it in a godly fashion.

Now don't get me wrong here - it is not always the accuser who is wrong - Pastors make mistakes and sin as well, but that is why we always need to listen to criticism, even that which we feel is unjustified. It may just reveal something that we do need to address.

But I think we all know the kind of accuser I am talking about.

Missionaries II

2016-03-10T17:04:00.002+08:00

Well, I have now asked and heard back from many of our missionaries, and also had the opportunity to talk a few people who have been associated with missions work in the past.

And I have to report that every one of the missionaries that our church financially supports, and the others that I have spoken to, are singing the same tune: They hear very little from a very few people on a regular basis.

In fact most of them said that they have not one person who keeps in regular touch with them, and the only one who said otherwise, has one single pastor who has been keeping in touch on a fairly regular basis, but that has only been the last year or so - this missionary has been on that field for around 25 years.
And the biggest tragedy of that is that this includes even the sending church and the Pastor who is their authority.
One mentioned that he knew of another missionary who basically never heard from his sending church Pastor, and that Sending Pastor simply had no idea what the missionary was doing in the field, and how the support was being used nor even whether or not the missionary was actually serving the Lord.

I have not had the privilege of sending a missionary to the field - I hope to one day - but I would like to think that I would care for at least "our own" missionary enough to keep in touch and keep him encouraged. But that is probably a bit like the person who said that they knew all about being a parent until they had kids......

What this shows me is that there is even more need and even more importance to keeping in touch with our missionaries regularly. We simply don't know how many and how often people are keeping in touch with them, and one thing we should all realise is that out there on the forefront of the battle, away from family and friends, these soldiers need to know that they have people "back at home" who really do care for them - and care enough to give them a call on occasion, to send them emails, even to send letters the old fashioned way.

As I read response after response, my heart was breaking with pain for these hardworking servants who never murmur about all of this, and my heart was filling with shame at my own lack of care and my own selfishness.

But I need to acknowledge one thing - I am likely to slip in this at times. I actually wrote back and told the missionaries to give me a kick if I start to get slack. Or maybe that should be when I start to get slack - I know me. Please pray for me on this.

But also I need to ask anyone reading this to get in touch with your own missionaries.
I cannot believe that the missionaries that we support are the ONLY ones who are experiencing this. Sorry folks, just not possible.

So get in touch with your missionaries, and let them know what is going on in your church and your life, and ask them how you can pray for them, and say hi, and chat a while...........

And I think that we need to start calling them "My Missionary".
We know they are God's missionaries, but when I think of my kids I think differently to the way I think of other kids.
Maybe if we start to call them "My Missionary" we might start to think of them as "My missionary", and then we might just care for them more.

Am I rambling about this? I feel like I am, but this is my thoughts blog and if it wasn't already obvious, these last two posts and what they relate to in my life just prove that I have named it right - these are the thoughts of a dumb bloke.......

Missionaries.

2016-02-29T14:38:00.001+08:00

Our church supports a number of missionaries financially - not for huge amounts but what we can afford, and I hope it makes a difference to them.

But I have in the past sort of made some assumptions about missionaries.
Things such as "Missionaries are always popular when they visit churches, so they must have plenty of friends." Another goes something like - "I went to a local small Bible college (between 3 and 8 students while I was there) in a fairly remote city, so that is why I don't know or talk to many other pastors, Most missionaries went to bigger Bible colleges in bigger places, so they obviously have far more ministry friends than I have."

Another assumption I have made is that missionaries are always so busy that if I email them too often they will get annoyed at the interruptions and having to answer my petty little conversations.

Over the past few months I have found that maybe my assumptions are a little inaccurate.

If there is a missionary out there that is reading this then you are probably simultaneously laughing, crying, and choking on your breakfast cereal at the thought of this being "a little inaccurate".
Actually I am coming to the realisation that it is entirely inaccurate.

Missionaries appreciate and very much need the financial support. I am coming to understand that missionaries in general don't have enough financial support to get by, but somehow the Lord keeps them fed. I had built up this idea that the average missionary has loads of churches which support them for little bits and a few that support them with big bits, but I think the truth is that most missionaries have a few churches that support them for little bits and even fewer that support them for medium bits, and then they just manage somehow.......

But this is not actually about the financial support.
Missionaries DO need and appreciate the financial support, but they also need to have friends that they can talk to and who talk to them.
And missionary wives need to have friends that they can talk to and who will talk to them.

And these friends need to be someone outside their place of ministry.
Something that only a Pastor or pastor's wife can understand is that everyone in your church - even those you count as friends - are ministry. There is no such thing as a "pure friendship" within your church for the Pastor and his wife.
The same goes for the missionary - they no doubt have friends in their field, but not the same way that other people have friends - everyone in your mission field is part of your ministry, and you are by the very definition, ministering to them, even if they are your friends.
But it is exacerbated even further by the distance and isolation of the missionary. I can if I really need to, go and talk to a Pastor/friend nearby. But where does a missionary go if there are no other missionaries in his field?
And this goes for the missionary's wife as well, but in some ways even moreso, for women in general are more reliant on that sort of talk and interaction.

And although none have mentioned it to me, in thinking about it, I would want my kids to know also the culture that I came from, and for them to have friends from among that group.

What I am saying is that Pastors in particular need to do more than send cheques to missionaries.
We need to be friends to them. We need to send emails just to say "Hi, how are you going?" or to let them know what is happening in your own life - I am sure they want to hear from time to time what life "back home" is like now.
And Pastor's wives need to make friends of missionary wives, and just chat from time to time.
And Pastors need to encourage their kids to get in touch with the missionary kids and just make friends of them.

We need to not be so worried about "interrupting" or "bothering" the missionary and his family, and I think we need to DETERMINE to bother and interrupt the missionary and their families.

Let THEM tell us when we are overdoing it, rather than being too timid about it.
They will find a few "friends" in all this that they will make closer friends with, and those that they don't will still be appreciated I am sure.

Am I totally off track with this?
I don't know - I haven't actually asked any of our missionaries about this.
This is just what I think, and it has come from observing some of the goings on with missionaries of late.

I am pretty sure about one thing though - they want people to do more than just send them a cheque very month.
They want people to remember them.
And they NEED people to be praying for them.

I am going to try harder.........

Where does the blame belong?

2015-12-01T08:39:00.000+08:00

I have known people who have been abused by priests.
Almost to the man, these people blame "the church" for the attacks, and project that blame onto all who use the name Christian.
AND almost to a man, these people are supporters of the current movement for tolerance of homosexuality.

This, I find a confusing pair of positions to take.

Let me explain why.

First of all, in general these atrocious crimes are committed by Catholic church Priests. This is an important point, in that it is actually very easy to show that the Catholic church does not follow the Bible, and is therefore not actually Christian. To then use this as the basis for rejecting the Bible and Christ, is not only unjust, it is also stupid.
Catholicism has very little to do with Christianity and even less to do with the Bible.
The Bible clearly condemns such practices, and anyone who commits such crimes does so not because they area Christian, but because they reject Christian teaching.

So the perpetrators of these horrible crimes are not even Christians, and do not follow Biblical teaching.
To therefore blame Christianity and Christ for these crimes is wrong and unfair.

Add to this that the Catholic church as a group does not follow Biblical teaching, and you can not even apply the blame which rightly belongs to that organisation, to Christians in general or to Christ in particular.

Make no mistake - I am not in any way trying to minimise the crimes committed by such people, or the continued crimes of the organisation in covering up and protecting such evil men. The men and the organisation should be held 100% accountable for their crimes.

I also recognise that while the majority of such crimes are involved in the Catholic church mechanism, they are not the exclusive holders of such men or such cover ups.
But it does not change the fact that such crimes are done by men (primarily) who are not following the commands of Christ, but are in fact going against specific directives in God's Word.

So to blame all of Christianity for the crimes of some who call themselves Christian, but who by their actions clearly prove they are not, is both irrational, and unfair.

But it gets even more confusing when these same victims who blame all of Christianity for these crimes, then turn and support homosexuality and the tolerance of it as an alternative lifestyle.

I find this amazing because, by the very definition of the actions, the perpetrators are homosexuals.
And they are participating in homosexual actions.

Why then, do these victims not blame "the homosexual community" in the same way that they blame "the Christian community"?
After all, I can easily display for you how the perpetrators are not following Christian principles and are in most cases not even Christians according to the Bible.
But it is plainly clear by their actions that these men ARE part of the homosexual community - by the very definition of the acts.

I am not suggesting for one minute that ALL homosexuals are paedophile predators - not in any way shape or form. But it is clear that these particular perpetrators ARE homosexual.

On the other hand, almost to a man, the victims of these clearly homosexual predators DO in fact apportion blame to ALL Christians.
They say that it is Christianity that is to blame for their trouble.

But in fact, these predators are not Christian at all - but they are homosexual - as proven by their acts.

I am not suggesting that the whole homosexual community is to blame for this, but I am suggesting that it appears to be acceptable to place that blame on the whole Christian community.

I would simply like to see some equity.

If these men were actually Christians, they would not perform such crimes.

Crimes, I will note, that are committed by homosexuals, but not by real Christians.

Put the blame where it actually belongs - with the individual homosexual men who commit the crimes, and with the false "Christian" organisations that unjustly protect such men.

But not with Christ.
Not with the Bible.
And not with real followers of Christ.

Missions offerings

2015-07-22T10:37:00.001+08:00

2Co 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
2Co 8:2 How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
2Co 8:3 For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
2Co 8:4 Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
2Co 8:5 And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.

We are going through a series right now about Missions giving.
In this passage we see a group of people from the churches in Macedonia, who gave gifts of money to Paul for the work of the ministry. Now understanding that Paul was doing the work of a missionary, that makes this a missionary offering.
And it is interesting to note a few short points about this giving for missions.

It was a grace that God had bestowed upon them. God allowed and provided for them to give in this way - not the money, but intent.
They were in a "...great trial of affliction..." and also in"...deep poverty..." when they exercised this grace.
They had an abundance of joy when they exercised this grace.
They were very liberal - or generous - in this offering.
They gave not only "to their power", but also "beyond their power". They gave not only what they had, but they even gave that which they didn't have to give.
They insisted that this gift be given to the missionary Paul - they would not be refused.

This is really interesting to me, because in this we see that these people gave what they could, and then gave what they (in the world's eyes) shouldn't have given. They were already in great trial of affliction and deep poverty, but they gave what little they had - everything they could afford to give, and even more that they couldn't really afford to give.

And they did this because of what is written in vs 5 - they gave their own selves to the Lord.
The series we are going trough, the preacher says "If you say you love God and don't give to missions, I don't believe it". "If you say you love God and don't come to services, I don't believe it". "If you say you love God and don't witness and share the Gospel, I don't believe it".
Their love for God was shown out by them first giving their own selves, and the actions followed - actions where they gave money they couldn't afford to, so that the Gospel could be preached. I wonder where that money came from? I wonder if that money meant that they had to do without lunch for a week so that the missionary could eat?
Love is not some mushy emotion - it is seen in action, and these people first gave their own selves, and that meant that they gave to their power and beyond their power, even though they were in affliction and deep poverty.
I shake my head at myself when I think of this - at how little I love the Lord when I look at what of my life I give to Him and I allow Him to direct.
I wonder what would happen if Christians today truly "..first gave their own selves to the Lord."?

My problem...... well, one of the many anyway.

2015-07-21T10:21:00.000+08:00

I have this way about me that makes people think I am not working hard.

I don't quite know what it is - maybe it's because I don't seem to panic or get flustered very much, but just get on and do what needs to be done?
Maybe it is because I don't fuss too much about the small details, just do them?
Maybe it is because I tend to ignore the unimportant even if other people think it is important?

I have always had this problem, as long as I can remember.

I apparently make things look effortless, and therefore people think I am not putting any effort in.

Many years ago, when I was working a labouring job, I got into trouble for being slack with a shovel, even though I had moved more of the clay dust than any one else in my group. One guy in our group I don't think actually used his shovel at all, and we got the job done in time, but I was the one singled out as being slack while the other guys laughed about it. They made fun of me for it later - they all thought it was a great joke.

Later, when I moved into an office situation, I was sacked after 8 months with the company for not putting in enough effort. That news was given to me an hour and half after closing time, when I finally got back from delivering a project to a client that a job manager had me deliver in peak hour traffic on a Friday night, after having worked till 2am that morning on this project that the project manager had not started until Thursday morning. That guy went home after sending me on the delivery by the way. And when I finally got back after battling the traffic there and back for 60km each way, one of the bosses called me into his office and let me know that they didn't think I was putting in enough effort. That was 6:30pm on a Friday night after having started at 7am that morning, and having done a 17 hour day the day before.

I have always been amongst the best producers in any office I have worked at in my field of work, sometimes producing nearly twice the volume of work of others in the various offices I have worked at.
The only time that was recognised was when I was poached by an old workmate who was then in charge of an office. He needed someone to show his junior workers how to work, and he thought I would be a good candidate.
I accepted the job, and the young guys in the office were a bit put out of joint with them bringing in an "old school" guy who had never even used digital methods in that line before.
They got a huge shock when, in less than a week I had picked up the basics of the digital software, and was producing three times as much as any of them were.
Shook up the office alright, and within the next month the production of the section improved dramatically as they tried to keep up with me.
Within six months one of them was outproducing me, and the rest were not far off - so my job was done.
After about 4 years there was an industry downturn, and I volunteered to move to another section and learn a different process.
I admit I struggled to grasp all the intricacies of the process, but I was as good as most - never fantastic, but passable, which I personally found frustrating. I like to be able to do really well at my work, and that only happened in certain aspects or particular projects.
But my boss in that section called me in for a talk one day to discuss why I was so sloppy and careless in my work. He totally got it wrong. I was not careless in my work, just average, and I messed a few projects up in a row. What I needed was better instruction and possibly not to be given jobs from certain people. Instead of making sure that proper and clear instructions were given to me, he accused me of being lazy and careless - which was not the problem at all.
In fact, there were a few project managers who gave very vague instructions and expected the operator to know how to fill in the gaps, and I just didn't know how to fill in those gaps - more experience for me, and better instructions from them, and it might have been different. But it is always the operator's fault. It did seem funny that I never got any complaints from the managers who gave clear and complete instructions. I left there voluntarily when Redundancies were offered, and my first boss there said that if things ever lift again he will have me back.

Now I find the situation still abides.

I still have people who think that I am lazy, in spite of the fact that in 20 years of this I have never missed a deadline, and always been there when I was needed.
I have people who expect me to do the impossible, and when I fail them I am a waste of space.
I have people who are disappointed when I don't have fresh milk on hand for their coffee.
I have people who are disappointed when I don't do for them that which they could easily do for themselves.

The problem is that there is no "statement of duties" for my current position.
There is no outline of what is reasonable expectation and what is not.
And I am apparently expected to be able to do every kind of maintenance job, every kind of administrative job, every kind of counseling job, every kind of teaching job, as well as keeping track of what everyone is up to and needs without spying on or intruding into anyone's life, and all this while I am the best husband and father in the world.

And people think that this is a breeze for me.

I don't know how, but I apparently make this all look so easy that the reason I can't do all these things is because I am just not trying and working hard enough.

I put a fair bit of effort in - I know there is more I can do, and I keep trying to do better and more, but in the end I am only human, and I can only do so much, and I only have so many skills and talents with which to work. And some who read this will just think to themselves that I am just making excuses. And maybe I am. Maybe I should just shut up and take a spoonful of concrete, toughen up and work harder and longer.

I could go and find a red cape and some blue tights, but I can't seem to find that big "S" to put on the chest, and without it, people just laugh at me in tights.

Movie: Let The Lion Roar

2015-07-07T09:44:00.000+08:00

There is all this hype going on in my area right now about the movie "Let the Lion Roar".

Now, let me state at the outset that I have not seen the movie.
You may think it a little presumptuous to form opinions before seeing the movie, but let me explain: The information that is being pushed around to promote the movie is fairly general and bland - there is little detail in the promotional material, and even the "preview clip" does not reveal the nature or premise of the movie.

So, in order that I might decide whether it was even worth seeing to check on it, I went searching for information.

Let me further say that the information I found was on the official website, so it is information that they approve of.

And again, on investigating the information, their stated purpose is a good one:

However, the focus of our particular message is that God's covenant love was for the entire Jewish people, as much for the unfaithful as for the faithful. Clearly He deals with the unfaithful very differently from the faithful, but the key point we make is that they have never ceased to be His chosen people despite their unfaithfulness.

(Second paragraph, FAQ "Why don't you say more about the remnant of Israel".

However, I have some very serious concerns about this movie, probably the greatest of which is:

Let the Lion Roar did indeed begin with a repeated prophetic vision and a word of knowledge to 'Complete The Reformation'. But it was tested for over 20 years, so that its interpretation and application fitted with the 150 verses which Escaping The Great Deception quotes.

(Fourth paragraph, FAQ "How sound is it to base Let the Lion Roar on a prophetic vision?)

The Bible is plain about one thing:

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There is to be no words of prophecy added to this book. Whether you want this to be only the book of Revelation, or the whole Bible makes no difference to the fact that there was to be no further revelation once the Bible was completed.

This passage aligns perfectly with:

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Now it for another time to discuss this thoroughly, but that which is perfect is the Word of God - the whole subject of this passage is knowledge, and the Bible says that "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away". And then it tells us what is "in part" - knowledge and prophecy. The last words of the book of Revelation tell us that the Bible is completed, and therefore extra knwoledge and prophecy is done away.
We don't need any more special knowledge and new revelation, for we have all that we need in the Word of God.

Even Peter put little store in visions:

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

He says in this passage that we have a more sure word of prophecy, but note what it is more sure than: "....this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."
Peter said that they saw the Lord transfigured on the mount (See Matt 17), but that the Word of God was more sure than even that vision - which was a real physical thing they saw with their own eyes, not even something in a dream.

So to base this movie on some sort of prophetic vision is simply not biblical.

The second concern I have about this movie is the claim with regard to "completing the Reformation".

Only God can complete the Reformation. However He will do it through His body, so that no one usurps His glory.

(First sentence of FAQ "Isn't it pretentious to claim that you could complete the Reformation?")

I have an issue with this because God's goal has NEVER BEEN to complete the Reformation.

The very idea of the reformation was to "return the church to the truth", but that church - the Catholic church - never had the truth. They were based on a faulty and unbiblical premise from the first, and have never held to the way that Jesus taught and bled and died for.

Likewise the Reformation, started by men who saw the false doctrine and wrong teaching that was rampant in the catholic "church", was about bringing truth to the Catholic church. When they would not accept that truth, these men started their own "break away" churches from the Catholic "Church", but they based their new "churches" on the old one, just with the little bits of truth that they had found from the Bible.

But they did not forsake all the false teaching of the Catholics, and they also invented some of their own.

We agree that there has always been a remnant, but it was never found in the Catholic "Church", nor was it found in the Reformation or protestant churches.

There has always existed a number of people who have followed the Word of God alone, and whilst among these there has been variation of belief in the lesser points of doctrine, there has always been those who have taught salvation by grace through faith and not of works. (Eph 2:8,9)

The Reformation and the protestant movement was not against a "church that had lost it's way", but in fact a false "church" which was not a church at all, and who preached another gospel which is not another." (Gal 1:6,7)

How can "completing the Reformation" be condoned of God when the purpose of it was never to return to the Bible, but simply to add some more Bible to a false system?

And let's not forget that the reformers were just as hard on the true Christians of their day as the Catholics were. Both Luther and Calvin hated the "anabaptists" or "rebaptisers" or whatever other name they chose to call them by, and persecuted them by direct order, often with death.
And plenty of others joined them in their persecution of true Christians.

Personally, I don't want that work finished. I don't want the Catholic "church" reformed - I want the people in it to be saved by the precious blood of Christ, and to .."come out from among them" (2 Cor 6:17).
And I don't want the reformation work of the persecution of true Christians completed either.

I won't be seeing this movie, and I won't be recommending anyone else does either.
It is based on an unbiblical vision, and it has an unbiblical purpose.

There can be no value for any true Christian in this movie.

Discouragement

2015-07-02T09:02:00.001+08:00

I have been thinking about discouragement lately, and thought it would be a worthwhile subject for a short study.

In reading I came across this passage and it occurred to me that whilst we wouldn't normally associate this passage with discouragement, I think the marks are there.

Luk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Luk 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

Luk 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Luk 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

Luk 17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

Luk 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

The Lord is talking about offences, and his primary words to them are about forgiveness.

The interesting thing about this passage is that their response to the Lord is to ask Him to give them more faith.

I think they knew what the Lord said was right, but they also knew it is a very hard thing to be offended and then forgive that person – we are so quick to hold offences.

I am so glad that God does not hold our offences against Him, against us once we are saved.

In fact God says that if you are saved by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, that He has cast your sins as far as the east from the west.

But the apostles here asked the Lord for more faith so that they might be able to do what He has just told them to do.

I see in this the marks of discouragement.

I see in this an attitude of resignation, in that they know what they need to do, but they just don't think they can do it. They think it is too hard for them, and they want to honour the Lord, but they just don't think they can do it.

This is discouragement – when you know what you should do, but you simply can not find the wherewithal to it – it seems impossible, but it is necessary, and that is when discouragement rears its ugly head.

So at this point in the passage I am all ears, because discouragement is no stranger to me – in fact it is close neighbour at times.

So I want this advice and instruction.

I need more faith.

I need stronger faith.

Then the Lord answers his apostles.

Luk 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

It is not the amount of faith that matters – even a small amount of faith is enough to do miraculous things.

No, the answer to discouragement and the ability to do as the Lord commands us is in the verses that follow vs 6.

And it will not be a popular answer.

I don't like to hear it myself, so I don't expect that too many reading this will like what the Lord ahs to say.

When I am discouraged I want someone to come up beside me and say “You poor baby. Life is really tough for you right now isn't it?”

But what does the Lord say?

Luk 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

Luk 17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

Luk 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

This is a really strange answer to give to someone who is discouraged, especially at their own inability to do what the Lord commands.

Basically the Lord here reminds the apostles that they are servants, and that their job is to serve their master.

It actually doesn't matter if they are discouraged about their task, and it certainly has nothing to do with faith.

They didn't need more faith.

They needed do what they were told.

And at the end of it, they needed to realise that they are only doing what a servant should do – what he is commanded to by his master.

So the Lord told them to set aside their offences and forgive the people who offended them, and simply to get on with the forgiving that they had been told to.

In other words – discouragement is neither here nor there – just get about the master's business.

And then He emphasises the point by saying that when the servant has done what he should do, he is not to be looking for any special reward – it is simply the servant's duty.

This is probably the hardest part of this to swallow – and this is the real answer to their request for increased faith.

They wanted more faith so that they could do this forgiving that the Lord had commanded them, but the Lord replies to them that this command is no special thing – it is simply what needs to be done, simply their duty.

In other words, discouragement is not a lack of faith, it is simply a lack of obedience.........

THAT, my friends, is a bitter pill if ever there was one.

When I am discouraged, I want to put the blame of it onto the people around me, but the Lord simply says “Get over it and get on with it”.

As I have been looking at this passage, I dearly wanted to find a different message in it than this one, but this is what the Lord is teaching me through it.

Discouragement is a lack of obedience.

Not due to the people around me.

Not due to the things that happen to me.

Not due to the troubles of this life.

Simply an unwillingness on my part to do “that which is my duty to do”.

And if I want victory over this discouragement, I simply have to be about the Master's work.

Across the World, Across the Street

2015-06-24T09:54:00.003+08:00

I know it is hardly an original theme, nor is it particularly a very inventive theme, but this is what I have chosen for our Missions month.

Missions is to ALL the World.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It says teach ALL NATIONS.
Also:

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Here it mentions four different aspects to be witnesses in: Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth.

Well looking at what each of these things are, we see that Jerusalem is the city they were in, Judea was the "State" they were in, and Samaria was the nearest neighbour - leaving only "the uttermost part of the earth", which pretty obviously means everything else aside from those three first mentioned. In other words, the statement covers everything from where you live, to where you will never get to, and everything in between.

As a generalisation though, Christians seem to have forgotten about the first three mentioned areas.
"The uttermost parts" is (relatively speaking) the popular part, while the "our city" part is just too hard.

Then you have some who ignore the "uttermost part" and concentrate only their own little area.

This is just as bad, because there are four areas mentioned in Acts 1:8 and all four are considered by the Lord to be part of the Great Commission.

That is why our theme is "Across the World, Across the Street" - because it is vital that we are each and every one involved in sharing the Gospel with the people that we meet, the people that we work with, the people that we live near, the people near that good church on the other side of our city, or the one in the next city, or the one on the other side of our country, or the one on the other side of the world.

The Gospel isn't fulfilled because I speak to one person.
The Gospel isn't fulfilled because I give money so that a missionary can speak to one person.
The Gospel isn't fulfilled because the Pastor preaches in our church.

The Gospel is not about any one of these things alone - it is ALL OF THEM - teach ALL NATIONS, including our own.

As we have this month at our church where we consider the missions and missionaries that we know about, we have some decisions to make:

Will add another missionary for financial support? (I think we should)
Who would be the best to add for financial support? (There are so many who could use it!)
What can our church do "Across our Street"?
What can you do personally across your own street?

The Great Commission is to all nations - in our city, in our region, in our state, in our nation, AND to the uttermost part of the earth.
And it needs the help, the prayers, the effort, the commitment, and yes - the money - of each and every one of us.
But it must come from hearts that love the Lord.

2Co_9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

God does want you to give, but He wants you to give because you love Him and because you love His service.
If you don't want to give your time to go across the street, then that is your choice.
If you don't want to give your energy to doing things that honour the Lord and spread His Gospel, then that is your choice.
If you don't want to give any money to help to finance missionaries to do the Lord's work, then that is your choice.
And you are free to make that choice.

God only really wants people serving Him who actually love Him, not people who are serving Him because they feel like they have to.

Willing hearts, Cheerfully giving.

So that the Gospel may be heard "Across the World, and Across the Street"

Pastor's working conditions?????

2015-06-18T13:04:00.003+08:00

I know not many people read this so I should be relatively safe having a little vent - I think.......

Now, I do not treat being a Pastor as a job. It is nothing so trivial as that.

However, I recently spoke to a few people at church about sorting out some sort of "employment agreement" for the position.

There are reasons why I think this is a good idea:

It protects the church from a future Pastor who is doing something wrong by giving them some solid guidelines for dismissal.
It protects a future Pastor from being dismissed for "personality clashes" or trivial matters.
It lets everyone know exactly where they stand in relation to the Pastor in a business sense.

To be honest, my concern is largely for the next man who comes here, if the Lord tarries. If things are set in place, then he will be fully aware of what his position is and how the church is going to look after him.

After all, even if I stay here for the rest of my life - which is my intention unless the Lord clearly directs me otherwise - I will eventually die and someone else will take over. Assuming of course that the Lord doesn't return for His saints before that time - which He may well do.

So I want to prepare for the next guy. I have already had to put up with full time work, part time work, living on almost nothing, pressure from people who have decided not to like me, a church that couldn't help my family, and some people who don't want to help my family.

So I proposed to a few that we need to work up some sort of document to cover the "business" part of the position.

And the response I got from a few was surprising to me.

There was one comment that a Pastor doesn't need holidays, and after all if he wants to go to the fellowship meetings he just takes the time off anyway, so that is his holidays.

This surprised me because I wonder if people would consider going to a business conference and taking their family along constituted a "family holiday". And that is aside from the fact that when I go to the fellowship meetings I usually end up preaching at a church or two over there, and often a message at the meetings themselves, and I still have to prepare fro the Sunday that I return for - so if anything a week at the fellowship meetings is MORE WORK for me, not less.

That got me to thinking: Why shouldn't a Pastor have annual leave and long service leave just like any other worker?

Now don't get me wrong - no Christian should take off being a Christian.
But the work of the ministry is a full time plus job.
And it is a constant "on the horizon" job.
Aside from the Pastoral care that arises without notice at any time of the day or night, there is the constant, ever approaching Sunday pressure.
Sunday doesn't stop just because I have a family crisis to deal with or a hospital visit comes up, or some administrative issue arises.
Sunday is always coming.
And for each and every Sunday I have Adult Sunday School and two messages to prepare for.
And if go to the fellowship meetings, I still have to get them ready for when I return.
If I take my family away for an overnight trip (but who has the money for that?) I still have to prepare for Sunday.
I went into hospital for an operation and I missed one Sunday - but after being in bed recovering for a full week, I got up the next Sunday and led the singing and preached twice - one week off. And of course I still had to prepare while I was flat on my back recovering.
Even Jesus went apart at times to rest:
Mat_14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

I wonder why it is that people think that a Pastor doesn't need a rest from all the pressure?

Or why it is that people don't think his family doesn't need a family holiday?

Or if they think it would be of benefit for him to take three months off after 15 years of solid preaching and Pastoring to simply sit under the preaching of the Word for himself for a short while.

Don't they think it would benefit them to have him refreshed?

I don't know if I could stand to be away from my church and my people and my pulpit for three months. I don't know if I could even do that.

But it might be nice if people considered that I might need a rest or that my family could do with a proper holiday once in a while.

I don't want to be lazy, and I don't want to appear to be lazy or selfish, but this is something that I have been thinking about.

I may very well find some trouble out of this if it is seen and talked about - maybe I need the protection of some sort of employment agreement so that I don't get into too much trouble.....

:lol:

I did Ok-ish last year.....

2015-06-14T07:09:00.002+08:00

Hi all - back again.

But to be honest, probably not to do very much.

I just don't seem to be able to settle into this on a regular basis.
Life gets in the way, and I am simply not dedicated enough to this to put the effort in.

You know what it is like: work, kids sport, getting kids to and from work, trying to fit in time for family things, youth group, kids club, church, study.......

Lately I seem to do nothing but drive and do admin stuff. I study in there too, but even that seems like I have other stuff to study for - booklets and pamphlets, reading things that people want me to review.

And I end up trying to fit in study for the actual preaching where I can squeeze it in.
It is not my intention to do it, but it is so hard to keep things in their place - they just always seem to wiggle their way into my prep time.

Life doesn't always follow my daily plan.
How inconsiderate of life that is too........

How much do we need our phones!!!!!

2014-05-27T00:20:00.001+08:00

No, that's not a question. It is a statement.

My phone went in for repairs recently and I was given a loan phone for the duration.

This caused me problems..... no, it caused me inconvenience, for a couple of reasons.
First, it was a different brand, so it did things different. It scrolled up and down instead of across. It has "people" instead of "contacts".
It answers differently.
It even unlocks differently.

The biggest problem though is that it didn't recognize the contacts on my sim, nor anything on the sd card at all - and the internal memory was pitiful. I could only load one - yes one - app; so I had to choose carefully.

But I have my phone back now, and everything is back and the world is wonderful.

And that got me thinking - what did we do before we had such phones?

And how petty has life become when a changed phone can affect your life so much?

What is really important?

Certainly not whether you have the right phone. .......

Says me posting this from my newly repaired, and like new phone........

I was trying to see what this blogging stuff was all about....

2014-05-21T23:16:00.001+08:00

Many, Many, MANY moons ago I decided to see what this blogging thing was all about, what was involved, and whether or not money could be earned from these things.

I personally was not interested, but someone I knew was looking for additional income, and a traditional job was not really acceptable.

So I said I would check it out.

At first I found it quite fun.

Then, I found it to be a little inconvenient.

Then I found it to be very inconvenient - time constraints, pooter problems, other things that were more important.

And to be perfectly honest, I was getting no following.
And no response was a little bit discouraging.

Not one person on the internet was finding what I had to say in the least bit interesting.

Now, that is not really a big deal until you realise that there are people who host photos of bunnies with pancakes on their head who have a HUGE following.
There was a guy who video'd a double rainbow who became world famous.
There are any number of silly, stupid, and insignificant things that people do or collect and display in the internet...... and my thoughts rank below them.......

How am I supposed to feel about that?

Good thing then that most of the time I don't take myself very seriously.......

Anyway, I am blogging again - a bit here, and a bit there, but doing it.

I will say though, that as far earning some extra cash goes, this has been a huge flop - my friend lost interest almost as soon as I put up my first post, so........

But I just remembered that I can check my "earnings" (giggle - earnings: Yeah Right..... ;) )

Well over the whole time, I have had really low view rates - because I am not as interesting as a bunny wearing a pancake hat - and in fact my total earnings have been 1c.
Yep one singular solitary cent.

I think what we can learn from that is that even with this sort of thing, one has to work a lot harder than I have bothered to if you want to make a living out of it.

Well, there's another 3 - 7 views over the next 12 days or until whenever I get to put something else up here.

Later folks....

Skelli.

Not feeling great, not feeling bad......

2014-05-18T19:10:00.003+08:00

Well, I've been not really well for about two weeks now - just a bit of a cold-flu thing, and nothing bad enough to make me feel sick.
But enough to make me feel not really well.
Low on energy, slightly gluggy feeling in the back of my throat which causes a bit of a cough, but when I cough it doesn't clear.
It is not enough to make me feel unwell, but I am just not on top of things.
Everything is an effort, everything asks for more energy than I seem to have.

And it is not enough to justify staying home from work, but it is hard to concentrate and keep my mind on the job.

The annoying thing about it is that I wish I would just get sick, or get better - but this half and half thing is just frustrating.

And I now realise that I am using this word "Frustrating" an awful lot lately.
And I have only just added two and two together and come up with four on this.
I am feeling frustrated with this silly half sick feeling, and that means that I am getting frustrated with all sorts of side issues - after all, you can't get angry at being unwell. And that means that I am taking out that frustration on other things.
I try not to, but......

Well at least I am glad I have a wife who loves me, and kids who put up with me.

I thank God for them.

Just 'cause I'm a dumb bloke, doesn't mean I don't see what people are up to......

2014-05-13T22:25:00.000+08:00

Being a Pastor is hard sometimes.

You have to bite your tongue quite often, because you see people doing things that are not right, but if you step in too early, people won't understand why you have acted.
But then there are people who think that you should have acted sooner.

There are times when I have watched someone come in as a visitor, and then as they stay a while they wheedle their way into the friendship of some people, and then just quietly work away at them - dropping a word here, a hint there, questioning something that was preached, or something that was done.

Over the years I have both acted too swiftly and also too slowly.

One man came along for some weeks, and was friendly, but I was aware of something - not quite sure what at the time - but something that made me keep my eye on him.
After a couple of weeks, I saw him talking to people quietly in the corner, but only ever one on one.
It came to the point that he wanted me to baptise someone I had never met. We talked, and I said I would not.
The private talks with people increased. I was approached by one of the ladies in that church and told he was saying that I was preaching wrong stuff.
Eventually I told him that if he was not happy with my preaching, he should find another place to go.
He didn't want to find another place.
I told him that I wanted him to find another place.
He yelled at me, called me a few names, and left, never to be seen again.
This all happened over a few weeks - maybe 8 or 9.
Some people wondered why I had asked him to leave, but I acted with reasonable speed there, and when he blew up at me, everyone realised what he was.

Another time we had a lady coming along - when they started coming, everyone was really excited - we had not had any visitors for a long time, and they were desperate for anything.
But I was again wary.
She was enthusiastic, and happy - an effervescent type - and she seemed to be OK.
In spite of my concerns, she made her way into the friendships of many at church.
She was a visitor - but not a member - fr over 12 months, during which time she questioned a few things, but never really caused any trouble.
Until it came to the time when we do the Lord's supper. She was not invited to participate, and this offended her.
She became more an more belligerent, until one afternoon, before the evening service, she began questioning my wife. The questioning turned to attacking.
My wife handled herself well, but I did not step in quickly enough.
I should have stepped in way earlier that afternoon.
But it was suggested that she may be happier somewhere else.

There was another lady, a long time member of one church we were at, who was a continual root of bitterness in that church. Nothing was ever good enough, there was always something to complain about - and her favourite phrase was "Speaking the truth in love" - which she never did.
She thought that by saying that phrase, that meant that she could be as mean as she liked and people had to accept it "because she was only speaking the truth in love".
She even accused one of my kids of having a "holier than thou" attitude because he always tried to do the right thing.
She ended up accusing me, my wife, and my kids, of all sorts of things, which were just plainly untrue.
She said I was a poor leader - which by the way I agree with, just not for the reasons she put forth.

She eventually left because I wouldn't lose my temper at her - I spent much time with my wife, and in prayer, so that we would be able to humble ourselves and not get angry at her. This frustrated her so much that she left.

I guess the thing is that there always seems to be people who want to criticise the Pastor and his wife and children. The Pastor and his wife and kids always seem to be under attack.

But people think I don't see this happening because I rarely let it show.

I do a lot of watching and listening, and very little reacting.

I have to be this way - if I reacted every time I heard someone - or about someone - talking critically of me or my family, I would do nothing but react.

But I see people talking and looking sideways at me to see where I am and if I might be close enough to hear.
I get reports - often innocently - from others who casually mention something either unthinkingly, or simply unaware of what is going on - but I pick up on what this person says, and what that person says, and what the other person says, and when you add them together you get a picture.
I see the looks on people's faces when I am preaching - sometimes it is all I can do not to laugh.

There are so many clues to what people are up to that they don't want me to know about.
And then there are those who keep stuff top secret and then get offended when I don't know about it.....

I seem to get things wrong more than right, that's for sure, but I do see a lot, and I weigh up the pros and cons of action, and when to and when not to.

But one thing I have learned - no matter what I do, there will be someone who thinks I did it wrong, and they tend to be more vocal than those who think I got it right.