Rapture/Dispensationalism

Rapture: The Problem of Dispensationalism

“It is granted by dispensationalists that as a system of theology dispensationalism is recent in origin.” This statement by Charles Ryrie would fly right into the face of contemporary dispensationalists; I have yet to meet dispensationalists that would agree with Ryrie. Dispensationalists would have us see dispensationalists as finding some sort of lost theological principle or recovering a once lost truth. For example, in an interview of a recent graduate of ‘Moody Bible Institute’ Reverend J W. S. says “Dispensationalism was lost somewhere along the lines when the apostate apostles fell away and became Roman Catholics.” While Rev. S did acknowledge even early reformers “as theologians contained errors in many teachings” he failed to explain how this “apostasy” happened.

I think what Rev. S. failed to examine was the role “progressive revelation” may have played in the foundation of such views of dispensationalists such as raptures. Dispensationalists rely on progressive revelation, literal interpretation of scripture, a distinction in Israel and the church, distinct dispensations in time such as “the church age” and eschatological views that deny the hope of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. Both armchair and professional theologians must understand that the dispensationalists are not going to hell; they simply are wrong. But more especially wrong in the eschatological view of plural raptures.

While most dispensationalists do agree that John Darby and Scofield are the pillars of today’s dispensationalism, most dispensationalists claim that their distinctive doctrines date from the ancient church. Charles Ryrie author of “Dispensationalism Today” makes this claim while still maintaining that many ancient church fathers were wrong in their theology. Ryrie then goes on further to say that just because a doctrine, practice or tradition is “historic” does not make it “scriptural”. Essentially according to Ryrie, if it is not in the bible then it should not be considered to be practiced or taught.

Ryrie does however quote ancient church theologians such as Irenaeus and Augustine to demonstrate the use of the term “dispensation”. I would argue however that these church fathers use the term “dispensation” as “an exemption from some rule or obligation, a share that has been dispensed or distributed, the act of dispensing.” Not as a description of periods of history such as the “Mosaic Age, Age of Law, Church Age” as Ryrie supports.

I have often wondered if dispensationalists take the order in which protestant bibles are currently ordered to be literal as well as the words in them. I know many adherents of dispensationalism believe the bible is ordered, Matthew, Mark, Luke etc. because the scriptures literally happened that way. Our bibles are arranged in a way that seems dispensational, for instance take an early form of dispensationalism schematic from Pierre Poiret. Poiret’s scheme is divided into 7 separate “dispensations” they are as follows:

1. Creation to the Deluge
2. Moses
3. Death of Moses to the time of Solomon
4. The coming of Christ
5. Sometime after Christ (Israel and the Church separated)
6. The time of humanitys decay (overthrow of corrupt Protestantism)
7. Renovation of all things, the reign of Christ

So we can see how if one used the bible only or solo scriptoria we could devise a theology from this arrangement or a kind of general history of salvation. But Poiret’s scheme does fit into today’s dispensationalist view as well as some theologians of the 1800’s. I will not delve into the area of early dispensational views in their entirety. My focus in the present work is more focused on the issue of the rapture and where the current theological position of the rapture originates.

Distinctives of Dispensationalism

Many dispensationalists took a view that the protestant church sometime in the future or possibly the past became corrupted as Poiret’s scheme shows. As I have written above they argue that even many of our church fathers did not teach correct doctrine and that Roman Catholicism is out by default. In reaction to the structured formal churches, John Nelson Darby an early dispensationalist was not fond of the notion of “church” or clergy as most understand them. Darby instead thought believers should be in loosely gathered associations. The Plymouth Brethren have their roots in the theological positions of Darby and still continue to follow along his theological concepts.

Poiret claims like most dispensationalists that what is for the Church is a spiritual claim while Israel gets a physical claim. Where scripture speaks of the nation of Israel in eschatology, is for the nation of Israel. Where scripture speaks of any spiritual or heavenly inheritance, is for the Church. This is a staple of dispensational eschatology. It is in the context of eschatology that we will find the rapture nestled into the picture. I will also note that without any of the marks common to dispensationalism noted above, we would not have the rapture. I will show that without the rapture, dispensationalism cannot exist and without dispensationalists, the rapture can’t exist. These two need each other because they are homoousios . I will of course need to touch base at times with those commonalities in dispensationalism like progressive revelation, aspects of eschatological texts in the New Testament.

Over time the term “rapture” has come to be defined not as a state of bliss like the dictionary definition, but rather several seemingly end time events wrapped up in one term for all those events. Under this encapsulation we will see that really there are at least two returns of Jesus Christ and effectively two “rapture” events. The first event happens without anyone really knowing it happened, the second rapture happens depending upon what flavor of “tribulation” you like. There are pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation and post tribulation rapture views.
The book of Revelation from the New Testament is often used as a primary text for rapture proponents. Throughout pews in any denomination most Christians would know something of the rapture and point to the book of Revelation as its place in scripture. Most Christians simply accept the idea of rapture as a concrete solid biblical fact! The problem is that the doctrine of the rapture doesn’t come from a solid biblical foundation but from a source that is reminiscent of early church martyrs visions.

The term rapture as it is used by dispensationalists would be defined as “transporting from one place to another” or “abduction”. For example those bumper stickers that say “In Case of Rapture This Car Will Be Unmanned”. Rapture is a term that is not in any New or Old Testament texts or in any ancient church documents. Dispensationalist Protestants who claim “scripture alone” in doctrinal matters now have reached outside scripture grasping at anything that upholds this dispensationalist doctrine of “the rapture”. This is a trait that is becoming more common among non-dispensationalists as well as dispensationalists as some would grasp onto church tradition for example.

“All this fear and fervor over the Rapture—a principle invented only 178 years ago—for a word that cannot even be found in the Bible” this quote from Barbara R. Rossing does hold truth. Proponent Dispensationalists will say the same thing is true about the word “trinity” which is not found in the Bible either. However with the “trinity” we see the struggle in the ancient church represented in early church fathers’ writings. The early church struggled with how to explain or unexplain the divinity of Jesus Christ especially in response to the Arian heresy. We find no struggle however with the term “rapture” from early church fathers.

There is only one mention of a word from a sentence that may interept to mean “abduction” or “transported” from Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. No one uses the term “rapture” until after 1830 in England. Why would this be? Dispensationalists would tell us that the term may have been lost at the end of the “apostolic age” only to be recovered at the dawn of a new age in Christianity. This new age would be an age where spiritual gifts such as tongues, visions and progressive revelations exist.

Progressive revelation is defined as "The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fullness." Of course this definition is concerning how the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments harmonize with God’s dealing with humanity in meeting our needs through Christ. Insert dispensationalism now we have a “church age” with newly progressive inspired theologians such as Cyrus Ingerson Scofield who picked up where Darby left off.

Scofield and his annotated bible have propelled futurism and dispensationalism along with a subtle suspicion for ecclesiastical churches, even among Protestants. Futurism is defined as a “Christian eschatological view that interprets the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse and the parable of the Sheep and the Goats as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.”
Certainly God is revealed by our reading of scripture through the Holy Spirit. If we must apply the name of “progressive revelation” to what happens when one is faithful to the scriptures, I suggest we follow Hendrickson’s use.

Hendrickson expresses the important principle of progressive revelation quite simply in Laymen's Guide to Interpreting the Bible: "God does progressively reveal himself in Jesus Christ as history unfolds. But this does not mean that God’s standards become progressively higher or that God changes along the way. Rather it is our understanding of God and His revelation that progresses. God never changes." I think this is a more responsible way of dealing with “progressive revelation”. Hendrickson allows for God to act or to reveal, yet Hendrickson isn’t giving readers of scripture license. There is a standard of sorts to be used, scripture along with God not beside or next to God.

I believe this is where dispensationalists fail and where problems begin especially in their eschatological views of scripture. It seems to be the case for dispensationalists that progressive revelation includes ecstatic visions. Again religious fervor is to be commended and does ignite interest in God in Christ. However in the case of the rapture, scripture wasn’t front and center but later used to legitimize the notion of “rapture”. Once we understand where the rapture comes from, which certainly is not “solo scriptoria”; we can understand the error of the rapture phenomenon.

Rapture: Origin

The rapture has its origin in 1830 Scotland, Port Glasglow with a young 15 year old girl named Margaret MacDonald. Margaret attended a lively healing service. She states she received a vision of a two staged return of Jesus Christ, not a return but returns of Christ. John Nelson Darby a traveling evangelist adopted her vision and amplified it in his preaching. Certainly a return of Jesus Christ is nothing new to historic Christianity. The early church proclaimed Jesus would return at some point, even since the original apostles.

In the ancient creeds of the church, which are grounded in scripture, we proclaim a single return of Jesus Christ. Even the early reformers such as Martin Luther at times had visions. Luther is said to have once threw his inkwell at the devil. Yet scripture was tested. Calvin, Luther, Wesley didn’t rely on visions or testimonies of children but relied on scripture. What do dispensationalists have over centuries of theologians, councils and even the original apostles? Divine revelation? What dispensationalists have is this; two returns of Jesus Christ while the scriptures along with the ancient church have a single return of Jesus Christ.

A Close Look At 1Thessalonians 4:15

Let us now read 1st Thessalonians 4:15 in the original Koine Greek “Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας• (1Th 4:15 BGT) Which transliterated would read “this- for – you -speak – in - the Word – the Lord – because – I – live – remain – into – the – presence, coming – the Lord – no – lest – to come before – those – fall asleep”. Notice the words περιλειπόμενοι (the remaining), παρουσίαν (parusian) which comes from a root word parusia, which means “coming” . Interestingly the word parusian, is not in the plural; it is describing a present event, not a past or future event or events. What this means is that the Lord Jesus is coming and we who are yet alive, will be with all those who have died.
Some would interept this event as a rapture. But this is overstating the matter. Dispensationalists are saying this indicates that the rapture is what Paul is speaking about here and later in the following verses. Furthermore the dispensationalist would say that this indicates a “snatching” . The text does not indicate this, the word “parousia”, in no way describes abduction. Rapture typically means; a state of bliss but it can also mean “abducted, taken away, transported” . It is this latter meaning that dispensationalists take in regards to texts like 1Thessalonians 4. When reading 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 you don’t at all read about some abduction, the return of Jesus Christ is rather a blissful moment, one that may take some time.

Matthew 24:39-42

Another text that dispensationalists use to affirm the left behind rapture theory is Matthew 24:39-42:
“and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.”

Dispensationalists read this text through a special dispensationalist lens. Only if we combine this text with 1 Thessalonians 4 can we complete the left behind, rapture puzzle. On a close reading of this text a dispensationalist must assume that one of the persons in the field is a born again Christian and the other a nonbeliever. The problem with this is of course that neither the text nor Jesus identifies either one as a believer or unbeliever. The problem for the dispensationalist is further exposed by the Greek text and the words “left” and “taken”. Paralambano means “taken” and “aphiemi” means left. But in Greek either “taken” or “left” could have a positive connotation. I have not found a commentary outside of dispensationalism that places a positive or negative connotation in the use of these words in the koine Greek.

In the preceding verses Jesus equates being “taken” in the same way the people were “swept away” at the time of the flood. If being taken by the flood in judgment is a bad thing, is being removed from the planet in the text from Matthew 24 a good thing? Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright comments on this:
“It should be noted that being “taken” in this context means being taken in Judgement. There is no hint here of a “rapture,” a sudden “supernatural” event that would remove individuals from terra firma… It is a matter, rather, of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can.” If Wright is correct about this, then being “taken” would be someone taken off to judgment! Dispensationalists must ignore what the Greek grammar seems to mean, thus ignoring scripture rather than taking it literally.

The problem with a dispensationalist view regarding the return of Jesus Christ is that it robs humanity so much of what Jesus represents; peace, love and a resetting of all things. The return of Jesus Christ does not bring hope to humanity in a dispensationalist view, rather Jesus brings wrath. The eschatological view of dispensationalists brings fear because some may be “left behind”. This fear is what Paul was writing to the Thessalonians; Paul was encouraging them to believe that we shall be with our loved ones in the resurrection life. Paul seems to indicate that no one will be left behind.

Meeting Christ In The Air

1st Thessalonians 4:17 “Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.” As I wrote earlier dispensationalists have a two staged return of Jesus Christ. The dispensationalists view this text from Thessalonians as stage one. However the reason why the living Christians “meet him in the air” is because this was an ancient custom. In the Greek text we read a word, apentesis, which refers to a practice by which people would go out and meet a coming dignitary. Certainly this would follow when Jesus comes back; his living Church most certainly should meet Christ outside the city gates, or in this case the earth. The same Greek verb is used in Acts chapter 28 when the Christians go out of the city gates to meet Paul. Why is this distinction important?

The focus on the word apentesis is necessary because in the dispensational eye, the event surrounding 1 Thessalonians 4 is a point at which Jesus, turns back and takes His church into heaven for seven years (Rossing Pg. 177). This view is required especially with a pre-tribulation rapture theory, according to which Jesus abducts the church before a tribulation on earth begins. This is the first stage return of Jesus Christ; is at this point the “church age” is discontinued and further harm comes to all left on the earth for seven years. Those left behind during this period include the nation of Israel.

Israel Is Not The Church

Israel is not the church, so it is not “Christian” in the eyes of the dispensationalist, therefore must remain for seven years. Dispensationalism as noted earlier does use a literal translation method to correlate the separation of Israel and Church. This separation is necessary in order to fulfill all the Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel during the reign of Christ on earth. The church, according to dispensationalism, has not inherited all the promises of Abraham and other important Jewish prophets. Those promises are meant for Israel, literally only for Israel.

Restoration Theology

Another popular view of dispensationalists whom have adopted the “rapture” theory is that of “restoration theology.” According to this doctrine at some point, the original teachings and practices of the Christian faith were “lost”. The “latter-rain” movement that begun in Great Brittan around the 1830’s is generally seen as the catalyst for the “restoration” movement. The Assemblies of God (AG) is a perfect example of a dispensational restoration denomination. The AG adopted Darby’s thought that larger ecclesiastical authority hinders the work of the Holy Spirit. The AG also claims progressive revelation alongside intereptation of the scriptures.
Again why would that view be dangerous? An early Assemblies of God minister believed he was Elijah in the last days. Of course he wasn’t. But had scripture been counseled dutifully and exegetically, he would not have come to that conclusion. For example the Assemblies of God doctrinal statement of faith says: “WE BELIEVE...in The Blessed Hope—When Jesus Raptures His Church Prior to His Return to Earth (the second coming). At this future moment in time all believers who have died will rise from their graves and will meet the Lord in the air, and Christians who are alive will be caught up with them, to be with the Lord forever. [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the AG] ” When I read that statement I do not see a “blessed hope”, I see an escapist unbiblical view of a rapture.

Incidentally dispensationalism will not go away soon; it has been around since 1830 and created such theologians as Charles Taze Russell. Russell is the founder of the ‘Watchtower Society’ an early precursor to the modern day Jehovah Witnesses. Although his book ‘Plan of the Ages’ does not mention a “rapture” Russell did separate history into “ages”. Like many early dispensationalists Charles Taze Russell had minimum theological education and was at one time a pastor in the Congregational Church. Russell concludes that ecclesiastical churches are a product of the “whore of Babylon”, a term used for the Roman Catholic Church.

Dealing With Heresy: The World Wide Church of God Example

I believe the doctrine of the rapture is no better than a heresy. In the past heretics ideas were met with excommunication and their lives taken. In order to confront this problem we should be in conversation with dispensationalists. Can conversation correct the problem? I think the answer is yes. Look at the World Wide Church of God founded by the late Herbert W. Armstrong. The World Wide Church of God about 15 years ago came to embrace orthodox Christianity, so much so it is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The WWCG didn’t embrace orthodox doctrines such as the trinity for instance overnight but it took time and conversation. I can assume the conversation continues with the Trinitarian God and the scriptures at the center of the table. Through conversation and study with well-educated seminary trained leaders the WWCG has come far from the teachings now admitted as heretical.

Conclusion

Clearly dispensational theology relies heavily on progressive revelation in order to supplement where the scripture does not speak of “rapture”. Barbra Rossing points out that the definition of “rapture”; as abduction, wasn’t used until Darby borrowed the testimony of that 15 year old girl. If that is true; and I with Rossing have not found the term “rapture” as dispensationalists currently use that term until around 1832. Therefore the rapture, is not historic, biblical Christianity.

The only one way to demonstrate the incorrect view of the “rapture” would be to demonstrate what the scriptures actually say. In addition to this show how much more we gain by dropping the term “rapture” from all Christian theology. For instance instead of teaching an escapist view of eschatological matters tell of the good news! Resurrection of the dead for instance. 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 clearly indicates through Paul’s encouraging words that we will one day see our believing dead loved ones again.





Notes:
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 3d ed. (Chicago: Moody Bible Publishing, 1967), 67.
2 Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 3d ed. (Chicago: Moody Bible Publishing, 1967), 66.
3http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/dispensation.htm
4 Fred Johnson Personal Interview November 4th, 2012
5Pierre Poiret, The Divine OEconomy: or An Universal System of the Works and Purposes of God Towards Men Demonstrated (London: 1713). Volume 6.
6 Systematic Theology. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1.Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers (2003), pg. 446
7 Charles G. Trumball, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920).
8 by J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, C. Marvin Pate
9 Hendrickson Laymen's Guide to Interpreting the Bible Pg. 77
10 MacPherson Dave, The Rapture Plot, 2d ed. (Simpsonville, S.C.: Millennium III Publishers, 2000).
11 Barclay Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, UBS1993 Pg. 163.
12 Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd. Edition. (P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg NJ 1987) pg73
13 Webster’s Dictionary
14 N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1996. Pg. 366
15 New Interpreters Study Bible: Commentary, Thessalonians.
16 Charles Ryrie Dispensationalism Today, Moody Bible Press Chicago 1965. Pages 156-163.
17 http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topic_index.cfm
18 http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm
19 Arnold D. Ehlert A Bibliographic History Of Dispensationalism, BAKER Grand Rapids 1965. Pg. 72
20 Charles Taze Russell A Plan of the Ages, Bible Students of America, Dallas 1965 Appendix.

Ash Wednesday is not just for Catholics

Well this week starts the season of Lent; for those of you who don't know what that is I will try to explain the best as I can. In Western Christianity, Ash Wednesday marks the first day, or the start of the season of Lent, which begins 40 days prior to Easter (Sundays are not included in the count).

Lent is a time when many Christians prepare for Easter by observing a period of fasting, repentance, moderation and spiritual discipline. During Ash Wednesday services, the minister will lightly rub the sign of the cross with ashes onto the foreheads of worshipers. Usually the ashes are burned from the previous years Palm Sunday leaves.

Lutherans, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians and the United Church of Christ among other mainline denominations practice the Ash Wednesday and Lenten discipline.

The Bible does not mention Ash Wednesday or the custom of Lent, however, the practice of repentance and mourning in ashes is found in 2 Samuel 13:19; Esther 4:1; Job 2:8; Daniel 9:3; and Matthew 11:21. And of course where in the bible does it say that every practice must come from the bible?

Around 960 we read early church liturgy regarding the sprinkling of ashes for those of penitent rites. Ashes in scripture are used for mourning especially and of course when I practice and administer ashes; I use this time to ponder what sacrifice I chose to NOT make for the gospel sake and repent of that.

Why other churches such as the "inter or non denoms" have not yet picked this up is a wonder to me. They seem to be picking up regular weekly communion, will this be the next fad for them? Who knows.

Until next time, stop and thank God for His grace. Amen and Amen.

Studying in and outside the bible!

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2Tim 2:15 KJV

I have read many Evangelical authors that refer to the peace symbol as a "anti-christian" symbol. Many Christians simply take this to be a fact and see the peace symbol not as a modern creation for the anti-nuke movement but as a "falling" cross.

I think 2 Timothy is right; we all should study more, not just the bible but when someone makes claims about something, like the peace symbol, we would be better for it to study the origins of such a symbol.

I will admit I really don't understand when or how this misunderstanding came about in the realm of Christianity, but I do think it is a wrong assumption to place a label on the peace symbol as "anti-christian", especially without taking some facts into consideration.

Facts such as the inventor of the symbol:

1a*"Rewind back to 1958 when London textile designer, Gerald Holtom, wanted to create a symbol for marchers to carry on banners and signs at a "Ban the Bomb" march planned by the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War (DAC."

Holtom created the symbol by combining flag signals, or an alphabet signalling system where flags are waved in a pattern to symbolize different letters. This system was used in the maritime world to convey information at a distance.

Holtom used the signals for the letters "N" for nuclear and "D" for disarmament and put them in a circle. The symbol is essentially a logo for the concept of nuclear disarmament and not some anti-christian hidden agenda (sorry folks).

Of course in the 60's it became more abundantly used by war protesters who sort of got the idea from the UK (Music was not the only thing we stole from the UK!).

2 Timothy of course is instructing Timothy to increase his knowledge of the scriptures and the traditions of the early church. However we can apply it to ourselves as students of not only the gospel but of knowledge in general; higher education for example. And of course to fact check claims about symbols, doctrines etc.

God gave you and I each a mind to think and reason, lets use them!

Go in peace (Insert peace symbol)!

1a http://shine.yahoo.com/event/green/where-did-the-peace-sign-come-from-2392559/

What’s the deal with communion?

What’s the deal with communion?

Every denomination in the world celebrates communion with few exceptions; so what’s the deal? Why do we place so much trust or faith or “regulations” on an act that happen thousands of years ago? Several churches lay claim to this celebration, err uh remembrance, err uh, memorial, err uh sacrament, err uh ordinance? Which is it? What is an ordinance?

An authoritative command or order. A custom or practice established by long usage. A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist. A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.[1]

What is a sacrament?

Augustine of Hippo defined a Christian sacrament as "a visible sign of an invisible reality." A sacrament is a religious symbol or often a rite which conveys divine grace, blessing, or sanctity upon the believer who participates in it, or a tangible symbol which represents an intangible reality; examples include baptism and communion.[2]

I see some similarities there don’t you? So, which is it?

Well obvisouly in the new testament, we see the church gathering for a special purpose, communion espeically in Acts and Paul’s instructions to the Corithinians. Of course throughout our Christian heritage many theologies exist more especially of who can or can’t “partake” of communion even in prostestant churches!

Prostestants? Regulations? Huh? Yep, in many baptist traditions only baptized members of that particular church may partake; including some Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches. Why? Well cuz God just might come down and kill you! Or give you cancer or some other illness.

Many prostestant churches have “open” communion, meaning anyone in the house can partake; although sometimes in some fellowships or denominations you may have a stern warning about being worthy(better meet the age requirement as well). Yes, we must be worthy of this “symbol” which generally is most of us prostestant folks consider communion; only a symbol.

If it’s only a symbol then why a warning? Why do I have to be a member of a particular church if it’s just a “symbol”. You ever wonder what we could be doing with communion rather than employing thoughts of how to exclude others for any reason from it?

In my faith, nothing is more meaningful, more Jesus, than Holy Communion. My congregation knows this especially when we celebrate it. I welcome, yes welcome the stranger to sit down with Jesus at His table and eat; I welcome the sinner to sit down with Jesus and drink. Just as Jesus welcomed me into His arms the first time I met Him and poured his grace over my soul; like the blood that poured on the altar in the hebrew scriptures. If Christ is truly present in our lives as Christians, as the body of Christ; how much more would Christ be present at His own table?

If Jesus is not present then it’s just bread and juice[3]; then there should be no “requirement”. If Jesus is truly present in the bread and juice, there is more there than simply some bread and juice; what we have is the real presence of God through Jesus Christ visible in the bread and juice, along with His mercy and grace, thus there should be no requirements.

A congregant once told me that “Communion is what you have right in front of you!”, how right he is!

---

[1] Answers.com

[2] Wikipedia.com

[3] Bread or Crackers or Wafer; Juice or Wine(with or without alcohol)

Change A Chance For Grace

Summer has arrived and all the gardeners are out doing their thing. Now for many United Methodists, this is of course a time of pastoral change. For those that may not know, United Methodist pastors are appointed by the Bishop and appointive cabinet. So, for many pastors like me and for congregations this is a time of change.

I think we as human beings detest change not for the "changes" it brings but because we fail to see the grace of God in that change. Grace does allow us to bend but it also allows us God to bend us as well; I know that for me that is a difficult thing to allow. I believe very much in the appointive system; that is to say, I believe in the theology behind it. In theory the appointive system is suppose to allow 1 church 1 pastor at least. However the theology behind it, the process of appointments is very much a God thing, very much a prayer thing, very much a chance for grace. And with that grace, allowing the Spirit to move us to new and better things, we get moved by God to do more with little in some instances.

About a year ago I started to collect my change. Each time I would get coffee or after any purchase I would always save my change, I put it into a coffee can. The goal was to fill that can however it never seem to get filled; so after it was about half full I would take the change into the bank and donate that money to the church as an offering. I used this idea as a stewardship illustration because we don't realize how much money we waste throwing out our change.

Yes, I think "change" is definitely a chance for GRACE!

Blessings,

Pastor Jeff Bixby

Born Again Mormons?

Shawn McCraney after 40 years of life in the LDS church had an experience; what John Wesley referred to as a "warming of the heart" and Shawn knew that he had finally met Jesus Christ for the first time in his life, thus becoming a Born Again Mormon.

Now for those of you that know me, I for years have often ministered among Mormons; LDS, Community of Christ, among other sects looking for those who have had a call from the spirit to come out of Mormonism.

Many have thought it crazy of me; "How could someone be born again and a Mormon?" My United Methodist self would refer to something called "convincing grace". Grace that God has certainly poured out on humanity in hopes that spirit would woo us to God through Christ on the cross. Pentecostals may refer to a similar act that when a missionary would go out into the field and meet a tribe, the tribe had some prophecy of a messenger. In reality the tribe was convinced that it's sin needed something more than the tribes current "God". It's the same with Shawn, he knew within his soul that Mormonism could not meet his souls need for the sin in his life.

Shawn's book "I was a born-again Mormon" is a great example of God's grace to humanity; that grace in action to restore an individual to righteousness through Jesus Christ. Many folks ask me to explain what John Wesley meant when he said this or that; and truth be told I am not a scholar on John Wesley but I suggest this book to them. I suspect not many of them read it especially with our fast food Christianity we have today. We want an answer and we don't care if it's even close to the right one, a sad aspect.

Are there more Mormons like Shawn? I would think so, just like there are more Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and general plain ol sinners.

The question is this; Is the church ready to receive them?

Colossians 3:14-15 "Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful"

For those of US who WORK on Sundays

I tried to look up a percentage of Americans who must work on Sunday's however there were no numbers to work with, the only thing that came close was a LDS article on members of their denomination working on Sundays. Although the article did not say an exact number, I'm certain that today in America many families miss out on the "traditional" trek to Sunday worship services.

In fact about 3 or 4 church members on the roll of the congregation I pastor can't attend worship on Sundays because of work. Many churches even pastors see this becoming more and more of an issue and I wonder if it's for all the right reasons.

Prior to my pastoral appointment I use to work a secular job on Sundays; not every Sunday but every other Sunday. Our church we attended at that time had a Saturday evening service which would supplement my Sundays I would have to work. I was just as blessed to be apart of that service in worship and was still able to fellowship like it was Sunday. We grew our circle of friends by at least 50% because we had two services to draw from.

I think the body of Christ must ask itself if the "Sunday only" theology is what God would really have us to do as His Church. Does God only work on Sundays? Certainly not and believe it or not the King James Bible IS NOT THE ONLY BIBLE. Now I know that the scripture say's that we should keep the sabbath but which one? Who is it for? As a pastor I work on Sunday's; I know that is not what we pastors want to think of it as but that is really what it is. Due to that fact we MUST take a sabbath day other than Sunday. Jesus in Matthew 15:39 sends the crowd away after feeding them and even goes so far as to take a boat to Magdala.

What is one to do that works on Sunday and can't attend worship?

Gather others like yourself into the church on a day that nothing is going on and start opening, reading and praying the scriptures. If there is no one to lead it approach the the pastoral staff or a experienced lay person. The truth is churches will not simply start another service unless the needs of the community demand it.

I will leave you with this from Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."

Pastor Jeff