INTRODUCTION
In Scarlet Threads, I traced the origins of the world's religious system from the ancient days of Babel through the Roman Empire that still is with us today in the form of the religio political system that operates out of Vatican City. At least 20% of mankind is controlled directly by this force, much more indirectly.
It should be obvious to seekers of truth that one cannot stop at Rome when decrying Babylonian ways in today's church and world. Though the Reformation gave birth to a mammoth pull away from Rome, it is obvious that a unity with her was reclaimed through the years and is expressed in many ways through "Protestant" groups today.
I will touch on only a few of the similarities, and, as is my custom, encourage readers to continue the search on their own. I am becoming especially sensitive to the church government issue, and the similarities between Rome and her daughters in this area. Most of the booklet is devoted to this subject.
Other things I touch on are merely reminders that, like it or not, regardless of the nametag we wear, we are subjected to the traditions of men, and need to keep returning to God's pattern.
TITHING
The tithing tradition is an excellent example of that of which I speak. Neither Jesus or the apostles gave a clear command to first century Christians, Jew or Gentile, about the ten per cent payment exacted by God of Jews under the Old Covenant. Yet today, Christian leaders teach tithing to their people as though the New Testament abounded with this concept.
The argument goes something like this: Tithing was in effect long before the law of Moses (valid). Tithing is an "eternal" principle(possibly). So, we too must pay our tithes into the storehouse (using Malachi's terminology). Now, the storehouse is the local church to which you belong. ( sorry, no longer valid, totally indefensible by Scripture)
Monies thus collected then go to pay for an assorted variety of expenses, most of which have to do with local concerns of that fellowship, and most of those concerns center around the building in which the group meets. Justification for this is found in the great amount of material wealth spent on the temple etc.
Oh, we've drifted a long way from the path trod for us by the original church.
1) Cash collected in the early church was given to (a) the man of God who was
unable to gain regular employment because of his itinerant ways (although Paul
often refused it anyway!), (b) elders worthy of "double honor" because of their
extra labors in the church, (c) the needy in their fellowship and other fellowships.
The collections were given to apostles to carry to other places. Churches did not
consider money their own, and individuals were taught to have this attitude also.
2)No mention of a percentage is given in the New Testament because people in
love with Jesus give everything. The concept of tithing is an insult to one whose
entire fortune has been given to God's use. The early Christians sold what they
absolutely did not need, gave the entire proceeds to the church, and allowed the
church to distribute to the needy.
No one was or should be forced into this way of life. Forced sharing is communism. But voluntary sharing, Christianity at its best, there was. And the storehouse? Simply the People of God, whatever their location, whenever a need existed. And the needs had nothing to do with those money draining edifices called "church buildings", since they were not introduced until the days of Constantine.
So why is tithing practically the universal way among us? Slowly the church drifted back to Judaism, encouraged later by a priesthood which also resembled the Jewish way. The first love left, and rules remained. What better rule, thought the church, than God's rule to His Old Covenant people? Oh, it's logical enough. But it is a tradition, nonetheless, with not one ounce of support by apostolic writings!
This is not, in any way, to condemn tithing or tither. Some need to grow enough to give even that much. My point is that Jesus wants it all from His true love slaves, and that, even though the tithe is of Jewish origin, its implementation by the church makes it a Babylonian device. Whenever ritual, rite, or habit, replace the moving of the Holy Ghost, there is religion.Whenever a man feels good because he performed a religious act "for God," he misses out on the greater "feeling" of the acts of grace that his God wishes to put in him. Whenever one ignores the New Testament picture of joyful giving and substitutes joyless paying, he has entered Babylonian ground, has become religious, and is in grave danger.
THE SABBATH
Advocates of the Old Testament based tithe totally reverse themselves when discussing the Jewish sabbath. Though the Sabbath pre dates even tithing, it is considered Mosaic and thus not
to be observed. Others spiritualize the idea of sabbath by saying we have a "Christian sabbath" (interesting hybrid!), Sunday.
No one can deny it. We do have a day that looks like the sabbath, but is in fact the first day of the week. But, like church buildings, the all day rest on "Sun" day originated with Constantine, not Jesus. Constantine, Emperor of the Romans in the early fourth century , believed he had beenchosen of God to fight the Christian's battles. He brought them out of their prisons, helped put them in church buildings, and, partly to help the slaves of the day, partly to honor the Sun God he worshipped, partly to help the church, he declared the day of the sun as a time of weekly rest.
Now, Scripture indicates that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. Further, it says that certain brothers met on the first day of the week. Then Paul directed one congregation during one crisis situation, to collect an offering on the first day of the week. But Scripture also mentions several 7th day meetings. Also, it declares that the Christians were meeting daily! But gradually the first day tradition set in. With Constantine's push, it became not only the meeting day, with its scant Scriptural support, but the rest day, with NO Scriptural support. In later generations of the church it became such a holy day that severe punishments could be had for daring to work on that day. Those calling themselves Christians outdid their Jewish counterparts in the area of day honoring legalism.
As is true with the tithe, so with the sabbath. One who observes comfortably a particular day as holy, then despises all others who do not observe such a day, has religion but not God.One who "observes" Sun day, but lifts not a hand to heaven the rest of the week, is religious but lost.
Kingdom people, the true Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, have entered into a seven day a week Sabbath Rest with the Rest giver, Jesus. Not only so, they desire constant fellowship with God and His people, without which they feel slighted, hungry, cheated.
As I mentioned, the first Christians met daily, were added to daily. Away with the notion that "church" is a once or twice a week event. Away with the Pharisaical pride that boasts in a Sunday night service on the high HOLY day (Constantine's day of the Sun), but can't see its way clear to fellowship the rest of the week!
Yes,my Protestant friends and brothers, Babylon has moved into your midst, too. Any system which promotes partial giving of time or money as a religious habit is Babylonian in nature. Jesus' way is crucifixion. Total abandonment of self, property, and power. To settle for anything less is to be comfortably religious, but not to be gloriously saved.
FOOD
Let's face it. The church has entered the restaurant business. Warnings of Paul about not being able to concentrate on the Lord's supper because of the suppers of man are totally ignored today, explained away as a cultural "extra".
Worse than that. Men and women delivered from drugs and drink are being encouraged by their peers and even elders, to be re captured by other body destroyers, such as excessive sugar and salt. Gluttony is silently approved as persons with obvious eating problems hear not a word from the pulpit about self control in this area. Then, "after church" they see otherwise godly men caving in to fleshly appetites, in the name of "fellowship."
The kitchen opens at Sunday School, then Junior Church, then the aforementioned "fellowships", plus an endless array of breakfasts, luncheons, and suppers. Persons who try to exercise self control in this area are often pointed out by guilt ridden eaters who feel uncomfortable around such restraint. Jokes are exchanged about how the diet will begin tomorrow, how fat is beautiful, and so on.
Those who have a problem with overeating, especially with junk food, either give in , to be sociable of course, or finally stay at home and have private devotions in place of the public feast.
These things ought not to be! Let's agree with God's apostle who reminded the people of his day to eat at home! Courageous leaders in our day will simply say, "The kitchen is closed!"and turn that room into a prayer area. Then turn that time into feeding on the Word and prayer,if the people will come to such things.
It is especially distressing to see the effect of this open refrigerator policy on the children.There is, perhaps, a need for a small(nutritional!) snack during a 9 12 time period or more on Sunday morning. Some children are not being fed properly at home.
But here, in the church's opportunity to speak to the world about how Christians care for the
body God gave them, the church fills those children's faces with chocolates, soft drinks, pretzels,
potato chips, cakes, candies, gum...
Those who live by the "candy draws kids" philosophy seem to be unaware of the fact that God has made some very good and tasty foods all by Himself, without the help of human processing. I know for a fact that good food, lovingly prepared, will be enjoyed by children.Parents tend to appreciate churches that care enough to take proper care of their children.
But we were speaking of adult "children", who need to keep the food at home, and come together to feed on Christ!
WOMEN,etc.
Let's imagine. Paul the apostle, happily with Jesus these past 1900 years, has not seen (we will say) the building of the church he helped Jesus begin in the first century. And, in the 1990's,our own day, let us suppose the Lord says to Paul,"Put on your old body, return to earth, just for a few weeks. Don't identify yourself. See if you feel what I feel about what's going on in My church, as you visit the congregations I show you."
Not without some pain of memory, Paul obeys. There are many scenes we could paint as we imagine the confrontation of first and twentieth century saints. I offer this one.
Paul, walking through the downtown area of a major city, is led to a church with a female pastor. As he walks in, he is greeted by friendly ushers who show him to a seat. A nice touch, Paul muses, "but hardly necessary."
There is placed in his hand a program that tells him how the Spirit of God is going to move today. (we will assume here that Paul is being given the gift of English, as the church I describe is so very American.) As he looks it over he wonders how they already know that the Spirit is going to have a particular teaching, and what will be the content of the praises. He begins to feel he is in one of the theaters he has passed on the way here, where signs and programs clearly spell
out what will happen.
If the Spirit has already moved, what is the point of the meeting? No time to think of that,for someone has climbed up on the platform that divides a certain group of people from the other group, seated in chairs facing the platform. (But why do I want to watch them?Paul asks himself.)
Somehow he sits through the announcements, the "preliminaries," the strange sounding music,
the half hearted worship. The one leading the meeting thus far interjects a joke to help "warm" the audience, but the humor of it is lost on Paul, who begins deeply to grieve at the flippant ways of these people calling themselves followers of his Jesus. Something very familiar begins to rise within Paul, and he hopes he will be able to control an almost certain outburst.
Then she stands, opens the pages of a Bible, and begins to teach the men and women assembled some of Paul's own words to the Corinthian church, about love. Since she has been introduced as the pastor, Paul knows that she has violated his specific apostolic teaching about allowing women to teach, and take authority over, men.
His standing and speaking is something he did as a matter of course in old Jewish synagogues. Here it seems out of place, but he reminds himself that it is this "church" that is doing the interrupting, for they have interrupted the plan of God for local assemblies. Boldly he rises to his feet.
"Men and brothers!" Oh no. The same sexist phrase recorded in Scripture. Definitely won't please this crowd. "Don't you recall the warnings given you about women teaching men in the public assembly?"
The sleepy congregation is suddenly quickened. Of course, the first impulse after awakening is to throw out the one who has intruded upon your sleep. But the learned pastor decides to use this interruption as a teaching event. She has had to study this issue intently , since so many men
have come against her through the years. She is prepared.
"And sir, don't you recall that 2000 years have passed since then? Don't you know that the one who spoke those words was culturally biased, and probably hated women himself?"
Paul confesses that he didn't know that, and questions "pastor" as to why she would use the words of a woman hater to preach love to her congregation this morning. After all, he points out, the teaching concerning love and the teaching concerning women are only inches apart in his letter. He counters her argument by pointing out that "culture" or even a man's personality does not change the Word of the living God, which had been given to Paul. "When God speaks, He means what He says, " Paul concludes.
Sensing trouble, at this point she terminates the discussion and asks Paul to leave. I will veil the rest of the proceedings. But if Paul is still Paul, a riot probably follows...
Denomination after denomination and congregation after congregation is succumbing to the pressure of the day to exalt females to leadership.
Now if indeed God has called a woman to pastor, I will step aside, and say with Paul, "Nevertheless Christ is preached." But God would have to give me a vision greater than He gave Peter to shake me loose from the clearly written words of the apostle, and attend such a church!
I've read the pro female leadership literature, and found it to be nothing more than "explaining away" the Scriptures. I've read similar works explaining away the first chapters of Genesis, the book of Jonah, the resurrection. It's the old, "Did God really say that?" echo of Satan
in the Garden.
And, as I say, short of that vision, I'm not buying. For when we add to or take from the Scriptures, we enter Satan's ground, the ground known as Babylon the Great.
