There is power in a name, and enormous amounts of power can be exercised by the one who bestows a name. The very act of naming is in and of itself a performance of authority.

We give names in order to give recognition and even to prove ownership, such as when we name a boat or a child, or even give a pet name to our loved ones. And we also give names in order to protect ourselves from having to understand a person, a people, or a thing. Giving a name, in this way, is actually giving the one who names the ability to control what appears to be uncontrollable, and offers a pardon from having to know more about that which he or she has named. It is a way to dismiss someone or something without having to grow or learn. This kind of naming is the fodder that empowers racism, homophobia, and grudges.

We have all used this naming power many times. When we disagree with someone, the temptation to put a name on them is immediate. If I can give this person a name, I can box them in without having to listen. I might give them a political title or refer to their generation, nationality, or hometown.

Jesus was called a glutton and a drunk, when the authorities wanted to box him in (s. Mat 11:19 NIV).

There are Christians who assume the power to brand other Christians with titles like “Emergent”, so that those who don’t assume the “orthodox” beliefs can all be rolled into a convenient ball and targeted as one, neat group to be discussed by those who wield the naming power.

Sometimes names are given as a reminder of who someone claims to be, but isn’t exemplifying. Jesus used this when reminding those who knew how to live like God, but weren’t. “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’” (Mat 15:7-9).

Christians! Christianity is about Christ; it’s not about Bible translations, doctrines, or buildings. When we make Christianity about something other than Jesus, we assume the power to give it the name that we want it to have. And anyone who doesn’t believe that it’s about what we believe it is about also is given a name, such as “heretic”.

Keeping Christianity safely in our box keeps us from having to know what being like Jesus really is. Instead, we can simply learn what our denomination or personal belief system is about, and then we only have to know what that is.

Learning to really be like Jesus is a lot messier. And we have learned that messes must be contained, whether they are what we see as messy people, messy things, or messy beliefs.

In His dust,

Johnny

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Different generations express their loyalties in different ways and to different entities. Generations of the past were loyal to organizations and corporate entities. It is more common today to see people more loyal to people than to corporate structures. For example, decades ago, people were more likely to lift up the organization and insist that others do the same for the good of the organizations survival, which, in turn, will benefit the individuals. Today people are more likely to encourage an individual to leave an organization, if leaving will be more beneficial for the individual, even if the organization will lose a great employee or member.

For example, John Maxwell said that when he goes to many dying companies to help them grow, one of the focuses of his research is on how much the company invests in the education of its employees. Many who do not place an emphasis on education will respond, “We don’t want to invest in their education only to have them leave after they are educated.” To which John responds, “Would you prefer your employees not get educated and stay?”

Organizational loyalty also happens within denominations, where the members of a denomination prefer to lift up the denomination and preserve its traditions rather than place an emphasis on the benefits of people and their effective walk with Christ, even at the expense of denominational traditions and values. This is one reason why denominations are on a rapid decline all over the Western world.

Paul urged the believers in Philippi to stand firm together for their faith. They lived in a Roman city with citizens who were fiercely loyal to their citizenship and their emperor. In a city whose patriotism considered Jesus to be a traitor and Paul to be a threat worthy of imprisonment, the Philippian Christians were finding themselves in the midst of a horrifying reality—they may also be beaten, imprisoned, and even killed for their loyalty to another Lord, and another nation (see Philippians 3:20).

And what does Paul call them to do? Does he call them to stand up for their denomination? No. He calls them to stand together as citizens of heaven and for Christ.

It is not the “churches” that Paul left as a legacy to his faithfulness, but his devotion to building strong disciples. Whether they remained in Philippi or went off to become powerful teachers in Rome or Corinth, and whether they joined an existing congregation or began a brand new movement of faithful Christians, was not an interest of Paul. Paul was concerned with their faithfulness to Christ and to one another as believers, not as a denomination.

In order for believers to build strong and lasting Christian communities, the first order must be to invest in strong, lasting believers. If the organization is valued above the organizers, then the temptation will be to honor the structures and traditions above the believers. This will always end in confused loyalties and weakened values.

“Your exclusive concern should be to live as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ” (Phi 1:27 MIT)

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

 

The Conversation begins.

(HER)
January 29, 2010

John,

I want to thank you for having this website, [if] I interpreted your writings on homosexuals as genuine. I have long felt hated and abused by Christians and have grown to resent them in some ways because of their constant admonitions, however through your words and seeming willingness to allow me to own my orientation while you own your valid opinion, both of us without judgment, I am feeling some healing and connection in regards to Jesus and Christians. Thank you again!

(HER)
February 15, 2010

Hi Johnny,

My name is _______ and several weeks ago I found and responded to your post on the above topic and have been checking almost daily for your comment. I can hold my breath no more! I am so interested in your feedback.
Thanks

(ME)
Feb 15, 2010

Hello,

I am so glad that you wrote me.

The subject of homosexuality is such a sensitive one that it is difficult to talk about without someone becoming too impassioned. I had the unique situation of spending lots of time with homosexual males when I was a child, because my mother had to take my brothers and me to work with her during the summer, where a lot of gay men worked.

I believe that experience caused me to be much less homophobic than I may have been otherwise.

The fact that I struggle with my own sinful propensities makes me no less a sinner than a racist or a rapist, and I try to remain humble in my opinion of the sins of others. With that said, I also believe that propensities make us subject to specific sins, but they are sins none-the-less.

Some of us deal with more debilitating sins, some with more socially repulsive sins, and others with somewhat acceptable sins. It is up to the individual to discover God’s view of how we handle our unique sinful desires. But I don’t believe that it is my role to right the wrongs, only to help those (who want help) to recognize their sins and how God views them, according to my best understanding [of the Bible’s teachings] (with the help of scholars) of what a sin actually is.

Do I believe homosexual acts are sin? Yes, I do. But I don’t believe that my belief means that those who suffer or enjoy that sin should be ostracized by the Church. I believe that we all deal with our own sinfulness and must come to a place of repentance at some point, no matter how painful it is to give up [that which we discover to be] acceptable, enjoyable, and normal to ourselves, but sinful to God.

Some from all sides will argue with me, I’m sure, because as much as we know of God’s opinion of sin, we will only know according to our very limited view of His will.

Please don’t think I am judging you. That is God’s role, just as it is His role to judge me.

May God richly bless you as you continue to search and discover the grace of God.

In His dust,
Johnny

(HER)
February 16, 2010

Quite to the contrary to feeling judged by you, I feel like a child of God and accepted by you because you view me as a child of God, someone worthy of building my own relationship with Him and able to exercise my rights as a human being to free choice, while at the same time rowing in this boat of life with another brother. Live and let live…

Thank you for that.

(HER)
February 16, 2010

Hi again, John,

I am curious to know if you had a chance to read my response to the dialogue that was occurring last June or July?

(ME)
February 16, 2010

I’m not sure which article you responded to. Could you tell me the title, and I will be able to go right to it?

Thanks.

Johnny

(HER)
February 16, 2010

The article was ‘Acting Like Animals.’ Let me know what you think.

The comment:

January 29th, 2010 at 11:31 am e
I am in Sociology 101, and at the time of this writing, I have told 2 friends that next week’s assignment is to come dressed to give an oral presentation on a subculture that I am a part of. The 1st said (paraphrasing). “Be a lesbian, wear your rainbow earrings and necklace.” The 2nd said (paraphrasing) “Wow, that’s a hard one.” I told her no, I’m going as a lesbian. She said “No, that’s too easy for you. Maybe you can go as a football mom?” My mouth dropped (she may not agree with homosexuality, but she loves me regardless (live and let live). I was momentarily taken aback at her suggestion that presenting the subculture of football mom was somehow more challenging or less valid than presenting the LGBT subculture, because just as I am a lesbian (making the presentation too easy, in her opinion), I am also a football mom, a great football mom. In fact (unintended and personally unperceived homophobia?), I feed my boys, all 37 of them (the entire frosh f-ball team). My friend and I cheer for them when they are running down the field with the ball or when we hear the ‘thinking’ sound their helmets and pads make as the players slam against each other in a tackle.

At the end of a winning game we take pictures, provide a tailgate party and a lot of ‘you rock!’ ‘Great job!’ comments. At the end of a losing game, we offered comfort with just a “Hey man, you looked good out there, you played hard”, then quietly and without words, we feed them. I have carpooled these boys to weights at 6:30 in the morning-rain, shine, now and dense fog-3 days a week for the entire calendar year including summer vacation and all the breaks. I have driven hundreds of miles (through Phoenix (a place I go to get lost and confused) so as to offer support for these boys. I also get to experience the ‘joy’ of intense fundraising, enabling the program to be free to the players.

As a football mom, I am well taken care of by the boys and their parents (who all know I am gay and most are Christian) in the form of trust, appreciation and acceptance. I am RESPECTED because of what I do for the boys and the parents who can’t be there for their boys. I do what I do as a football mom because of who I intrinsically am, and non of who I am changes when someone (even myself) becomes aware of my orientation. In other words, my value and content remain the same. My second friend was wrong, as it would be far easier (and socially acceptable) to present the subculture of football mom -v- LGBT. However, it is the members of the LGBT community that desperately need a voice and exposure, so as to encourage desensitization of those who somehow find it socially and religously acceptable to engage in bigotry and abuse of homosexuals, resulting in the destruction not of their beliefs, but of the (generalizing) unjust sense of entitlement they have to judge, then condemn LGBT to reduced civil and human rights.

Homophobia, to whatever degree a person suffers, is born of religion and passed down from religious leaders and their followers without always being fully thought through (ignorance). That ignorance perpetuates homophobia and the resulting indignant, arrogant, social, civil and human injustices imposed upon other human beings (LGBT), and they feel justified and entitled to do so based mostly on religion. I am specifically addressing Christians here, because although there are a few references in the old and new (through Paul, not Jesus) that can be interpreted as admonishing homosexuality, what is FAR TOO often ignored is the 2 greatest commandments of Jesus (paraphrasing) Love God above all else, and your neighbors as yourself. I interpret that as live and let live.

Own your Christianity and live it to the best of your ability, and allow everyone else to do the same. Nowhere does Jesus encourage abuse, judgment or punishment. He preached love and social justice for all. He wanted his disciples to spread the Word, and if they came upon those who did not want to hear it or abide by it to shake the dust off their shoes and go to the next village (paraphrasing), he never said to impose judgment. How someone feels about me being with another woman is of no personal relevance to me, just as it is none of my business and of no personal relevance to another how I feel about their significant other or how they live (unless harm and abuse is occurring). It is sadly, however, of legal and civil relevance to me.

It is incredulous that my fellow Americans would allow, insist even, my civil rights to ever find their way onto a ballot. I as in what other instance would the general American public ever support legislation to block the civil liberties of any person or group, something they would never do against themselves? It is inconceivable and unjust that the religious have any power to force me to abide by the rules born of their religion, a religion whose practices of entitlement and bigotry I personally don’t believe in, especially when we in the LGBT community don’t demand that you own and live by our beliefs. Neither should Christians, Jews, and Muslims DEMAND that we own theirs.

We can both own our own beliefs, and really in the end, it is God who will judge and punish. Do the Christians who do condemn others really have such little faith in God that they won’t allow him to perform his function? Where is their compassion? I have decided to do my presentation on the subculture of LGBT, not because it is easier, but to encourage the desensitization process through exposure resulting in, hopefully, compassion through Christ. Thank you for letting me state my position. This website is now on my favorites list.

(ME)
February 16, 2010

I absolutely remember your words from that article. I hear your heart and empathize with you.

I don’t believe the problem is really bigotry, but insecurity. The struggle is about “what if” more than anything. “What if” homosexuals start coming to worship? How will we deal with this? We don’t want our children exposed to their behavior, and we will not allow such an overt sin to permeate our place of faith expression.

It may be that both sides have very little understanding of the other. Both want God to be pleased, and both have a different idea of how to accomplish that aim, so they simply ostracize the other. Those who live contrary to the Way of the Kingdom are expected to correct their erroneous ways, and if they don’t, then the congregation who accepts the prostitutes, the racists, the drug addicts, and the homosexuals fears that they will be left to witness the failure of their ministry.

Christianity is the Kingdom of the righteous whose lives have changed, no matter how powerful the sin that gripped them before meeting Christ. In some ways it’s like a military training camp where the recruits are expected to be marksman, but they are all apposed to firing a weapon. If the recruits refuse to learn to shoot, but continue to wear the uniform, the real purpose of the training has been voided, and the military branch has failed its goal.

If homosexuals, racists, and alcoholics come to meet Christ while continuing in their sin, then the true power of the Gospel has not been experienced. Also, unless a people can recognize what sin is and agree upon whether or not a particular behavior is sinful, then there will never be unity within that people as far as the Church is concerned.

The subject that we are discussing is not as simple as deciding whether murder or stealing is wrong, because homosexuality is not a matter of hurting another to gain one’s own desires. Instead, not to oversimplify, it is more like whether or not we should drink soda. Soda is destructive in many ways, yet it is acceptable in almost all cultures, even the Church. But should we drink it? If destroying the body is sinful, then the answer is [no], it is sinful. But homosexuality does not destroy; instead it allows people to love one another. [And] then there is the issue of the biblical stance on homosexuality, which tells us that we should not indulge. Until the Church begins to view homosexuality like soda, “It’s not the best thing for us, but drinking it is not like killing someone, so let’s just let people drink if they want”, there will continue to be the unfriendly debate.

In the end, I believe that we will find that drinking soda and homosexuality are both not what God planned for us to please ourselves with, but that will be God’s role to judge. With that said, it should also be our role to search the Scriptures to understand what God expects, no matter where it takes us.

We must be open to the idea that our behavior may not be pleasing to God, and then we must decide whether we want to please Him or not. If we do, then we must be willing to give up whatever we are asked, no matter how much we love whatever that is. Here lies the situation with the rich man who went away sad, because Jesus told him that he would have to sell all he had and give it to the poor in order to follow him (see Matthew 19:16-22).

Many of us will learn that we were unable to give up our treasure, and we will go away sad. And some of us will gladly put down our nets and follow him.

But that is up to each of us to decide, without judgment or prejudice [from each other].

Please know that you are loved.

May God richly bless you.

Johnny

(HER)
February 17, 2010

Hi Johnny,
 
I am not trying to offend, that is why I am so grateful to be able to have this open dialogue with you.
 
I think I told you that I am in college to obtain a Master’s degree with a major in Psychology and a minor in law. In doing research for the seemingly countless essays and reports I must write, I come across a lot of different theories. What follows is one or two I have come across, and I am just passing on. It gives me food for thought that’s all. In fact, that is how I came upon the Flocks Diner. There is the first time I’ve ever come across the theory that homosexual could be natures way of controlling the population. What I can add to that is, if true, I would assume that God is Nature, and what a gift to control the population using love, not abortion, hatred, murder or some sort of honor or otherwise justified killing, not through famine and disease, but through LOVE! Perhaps seemingly unnatural because it is so uncommon, but a totally Natural Gift from God! How creative. Yes, these theories give me much to think about, and I would hope it does the same for all.
 
I agree with you that the problem is insecurity and that bigotry is the symptom. The psychological perspective of Carl Jung was the first with a humanistic approach. He started as a student of Freud’s, but came to opposing conclusions; such as we are all born bi-sexual and are taught to choose heterosexuality; we are intrinsically good; aggression and sex are not his primary focus. Let’s for a second say that is true. If we are all born with the ability to love across gender and we are part of a belief system that is actively oppositional to that possibility with horrible consequences, then a defense mechanism could be to crush ‘loving across gender’ and make it a horrible, unacceptable thing that must never be acknowledged.
 
At a later point, I would like to tell you my story as you seem overwhelmingly compassionate enough, without thinking for one second I am asking you or you may have to own my beliefs. It is a harrowing tale filled with struggle, pain and rejection, the worst rejection being from me. Christianity is indeed the kingdom of the righteous and I swear to you Johnny, I feel righteous where I’m at, for myself, after my life’s experience (I’m 39 yo). As I’ve said before I really do believe I have a healthy relationship with God and Jesus, I know they love me no matter what, even if I am doing something they may not want. You wouldn’t believe what I love my kids through.
 
I feel like overcoming my denial of my orientation and at the same time believing that my Father in Heaven still loved me and believed in me was an place that Jesus would have me come to. What I really don’t understand is how ‘homosexuality’ became the awful social stigma that it is, given far more attention than the stealing or adultery, whose admonishments are actually written into stone by God Himself! Why such a big deal? Why is that the sole focus and why do people think it is ok to humiliate me or treat me like the child of Satan instead of God, deserving of nothing good? How is that more Christian than my love for another woman? We are all just people doing the best we can.
 
Loved your soda analogy and so did my 14 yo son! And again, thanks for letting me be honest and respectful. Thank you for letting God, who will take all into consideration, do the judging while we walk the path together for a bit.
 

(ME)
February 17, 1010

Hi again,
I really appreciate this conversation, and I am glad to hear from you again. Many people are reading our dialogue, and are being blessed by the gentle and peaceful nature of it. I have spoken with others who are dealing with homosexuality who have not at all been kind to me, assuming the worst because of my Christian identity. But I have prayed that God would give me the ability and opportunity to have such a conversation, and here we are. 

It’s interesting that you have a son. I am wondering how this orientation of his mother is impacting him, but it’s really none of my business. I haven’t read enough or experienced enough of homosexual sociology and culture to really know the outcome of such things.  I have no opinion, based on scientific knowledge of my own to speak of, but I know that God does love you as much as he loves me. And I know that God is powerful and can answer prayers.

I also know that God is a God of unimaginable grace and mercy as well.

I agree that there are many philosophical and psychological theories surrounding homosexuality, but I can’t imagine, for myself, being attracted to the same sex. Therefore it’s difficult for me to agree that, simply based on my upbringing, I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  

For the Church (Christians) to learn how to welcome and love the homosexual as easily as the alcoholic, the bigot, and the divorced would be a wonderful witness of the power of God’s love. And I’m sure that if that kind of compassion was shown from those who are supposed to be “known by their love” that healing would come in powerful ways, even beyond our own expectations. 

Keep praying and knowing that God hears you and cares for you. 

In His dust,
Johnny

(HER)
February 18, 2010

Johnny,
 
I can appreciate being mistreated because of a label (mine just happens to be different than yours) and I am sorry for that, especially since you have what I would assum is a genuine Christian heart. I’m grateful that I did not let a sweeping generalization or label detract the conversation we are having.
 
Due to the nature of our conversation, I am OK with filling you in on my kids. I have 2, a 14 yo son and a 9 yo daughter. My son seems very well adjusted, he was 11 when I came out. He is on the local high school football team and has an active at school social life and sports life. I made the decision not to ‘out’ him, so in his interest I stayed in the closet around the games. HE outed me! He had some sort of a sense of pride and acceptance because he told everyone on the football team…I would have thought that would be a difficult crowd to be out to. However, they all still love me, mostly because I still feed them and cheer for them. Whether they think its gross, sinful, whatever…they are still able to love me and appreciate me because I am still who I am. With that, my assumption is that he is adjusting beautifully. I don’t believe that having an openly gay mom gives him greater propensity to be gay, just as your compassion towards LGBT does not make you attracted to men.
 
And I agree with you…when the Church begins to accept all, then the awesome Power and Love of God will be swept over the world.  No one should be treated, especially by the Christian community, as anything less than a child of the Most High. I think when and if they ever change their acceptance policy that God will be more able to see His Plan for His Peace and Love to envelope the world, and those that had been living in ignorance, fear or superiority will be able to experience His love in ways they could never before comprehend.
 
Where exactly is this conversation being posted, I would love to take a peek.

(ME)
February 18, 2010

Hi. It’s posted at www.flocksdiner.com. I have to do some traveling today, so I don’t have time to fully respond right now.Thanks for writing again.I am being blessed by our converstation.

Johnny

(HER)
February 18, 2010

Drive safely during your travels today.
 
I am being blessed by our conversation as well, how could I not be? A Pastor and a Lesbian walking this path together with what I would call Christian love and compassion.

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

St. Patrick’s ministry was considered an outreach to “barbarians” by the Roman Church leaders of his time. To be worthy of receiving the Christian faith, a people first had to be considered civilized to some degree, and upon receiving the faith, they had to be willing to accept “the Roman way” (Hunter, The Celtic Way, p. 17).

The ability to be welcomed into the Kingdom was expected only of the non-barbarians of the world. The Irish who were believed to be uncivilized by the Roman wing of Christianity were considered, to coin a phrase, “Un-Christianable.”

Most established denominations come from Roman or European roots, and most have trouble reaching today’s barbarians. There continues to be a lack of willingness to welcome those who are considered uncivilized and not willing to take on “the Way of the Church.” To be sure, there are some denominations who boast that they are different, and provide a home to those who have no church that will accept them, but in my opinion, that is more lip-service than reality.

Most denominations have trouble welcoming homosexuals (who would come to Church with their ‘mates’), prostitutes (who have no plans of quitting their night job), couples who live together (and have no plans to get married), and, let’s not forget those who come for no other reason than they like the practical teaching of Christianity (but have no plans to “join” the Church).

There are many “barbarians” in our world today, who are not civilized enough, nor are they willing to become “Denominationized” and make themselves able to fit in with the predictable behavior of those to whom the Church finds easiest to minister.

So what to do?

Recognizing that we are all “barbarians” is probably a good beginning (s. Romans 3:23). Secondly, the Church would do well to remember who Jesus spent much of his time with—the twelve not-good-enough’s that no other rabbi would take the time to teach (disciples), and people whom very few, in his time, would even consider inviting to worship (barbarians).

“While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the ‘sinners’ and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and ’sinners’?’ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners’” (Mark 2:15-17 NIV).

Denominational leaders are expected to spend the majority of their time with the “church folk”, as if he or she is the matradee of the civilized and churchized, while the barbarians are ostracized until they are ready to be assimilated into “the Denomination way”, like good little boys and girls.

I know my words may come across as a bit negative, and my intention is not to offend the establishment, but to bring recognition to the truth that many Christians could stand to hear God’s warning and promise in Ezekiel 34:4: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally” (NIV).

As George Hunter says so clearly, “…as in the case of the ancient Roman wing of the Church, denominations are still substantially in the hands of the less apostolic wing of the Church, which works overtime to gain and retain institutional control; which assumes it knows best; and which works persistently to impose Roman, European, or other culturally alien forms upon the more indigenous and growing movements within the denomination. This pathology is observed today, for example, in most of the denominations in the United States that were ‘imported from Europe’” (pp. 95-96).

In His dust,

Johnny

Works Cited:

George G. Hunter III The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West… Again (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000).

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Christianity in the Western world is increasingly vanishing. The decline is partly due to a deep-seated, chronic denial by entrenched “Church culture” survivors, who live in the present, while heading into the future with their hearts stuck in the past.

We all wish that every congregation was healthy, boasting thousands, or at least hundreds of passionate believers. But some congregations just aren’t willing to recognize the chronic state of their branch of the body. The difference between those very few congregations that actually see such growth and spiritual vitality, and the majority of congregations that are in a constant decline or, at best, remain temporarily stagnant, is partially due to a willingness to recognize that people have changed. What leaders of strong congregations see is that which George Hunter III recognizes:

“These populations are increasingly ‘postmodern’; they have graduated from Enlightenment ideology and are more peer driven, feeling driven, and ‘right-brained’ than their forbearers. These populations are increasingly ‘neo-barbarian’; they lack ‘refinement’ or ‘class,’ and their lives are often out of control.”

Until we are willing to admit and respond to the fact that younger generations are unable to recognize the language, habits, and values of those of us who grew up in the Church culture, we will continue to see a decline in Western Christianity.

I believe that the decision which we will have to decide upon is whether we care more about our own values, or reaching the West for Christ.

As a songwriter in Nashville, one of the cultural axioms that I picked up rather quickly was that of calling a songwriter’s song his “baby.” I learned that, when a writer performed his song, he was not just trying to sell a product, but he was showing off his “baby.” And if someone didn’t like his “baby,” the writer took the dislike very personally. Rewriting the song was like giving the song up for adoption; something many young or new songwriters were unwilling to do. “This is ‘my’ baby, and I’d rather it never be heard by anyone than see it change!”

The mature songwriter learned that, as beautiful as his baby was to himself, if he wanted it to be recorded and have a chance at being played on the radio, he would have to learn how to make the baby loveable to others, even if the baby would no longer be his. If he was unwilling to give the baby away, it would almost certainly die with the songwriter.

Most congregations and Church leaders are not willing to give the baby away in order for it to be loved. In other words, many of us would rather see our congregation die than see it change.

It is written in the Scriptures that King Solomon had the opportunity to express his great wisdom, when two prostitutes brought in a baby that both claimed as their own. One prostitute’s baby had died during the night, because she suffocated it by sleeping on the baby, so she stole the child of the other prostitute during the night, and left her dead child with the mother of the living child.

Solomon’s suggestion to the two who fought over the child was to have the baby cut in half and each of the women were to be given a part of the baby. Of course the true mother was willing to “give the baby away” so that it would not die, rather than have her baby killed (see 1 Kings 3:16-30).

It seems that many believers would rather have our congregations die a slow death than make it something that another would be willing to love. Even in the face of certain death, many Christian leaders and congregants make no effort to change so that others will be able to love the Church.

Are our traditions and paradigms so valuable to us that we would rather see our baby cut in half than rewrite the song?

In His dust,
Johnny

George G. Hunter III The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West… Again (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 9.

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

I have been told that work belongs in the realm of business and not within the realm of Christian community development. I have also been told that work that is not profitable is not meaningful. So, what is the purpose of work? I believe that we have all come to embrace the idea that work is toilsome, it is part of the curse brought on us by the original sin. Or, perhaps we hold a more secular philosophy, that work is the opposite of leisure. We work so we can live. We spend most of our time draining our souls, so that we can spend the excess of our efforts on something that will replenish our souls. This is a dreary existence. For many there is never enough excess, their souls are being slowly drained.

Then there are those who can’t compete, they can’t even get in the game. They can’t afford to purchase what makes them feel alive, so they simply steal to purchase what makes the struggle of life less painful. In their pursuit of soulful meaning they will often exchange skill for cash, in ways that rob their souls. These are the poor and many of them wear suits.

The dictionary defines work as: productive or operative activity. That’s straight up, no cultural or philosophical baggage there. My own definition is: any effort focused on a desired outcome and leisure is any effort with no desired outcome. The early chapters of the Bible holds some clues about work. Perhaps a more biblical definition of work would be: a creative, productive or operative activity that reveals the worker. God’s creation is revelation, and we are created in His images. Therefore, our work, our efforts, become meaningful when they are productive, but also when they reveal God and His images in us.

The Church seems to have handed work over to business, because they have bought into the idea that work is only about making money. Our response to the beggar is “get a job”. We have declared that the only kind of work that is honorable is paid work, and anyone who can not pull their weight is useless. We have become like those who passed by on the road to Jericho. I have a son who is 15 years old, he looks like 7 and has the mental capacity of an infant. By these terms he is useless. I have a friend who was traumatized as a child when his step-father danced around, waving his chainsaw. The roar of the saw drowned out the screams of his little sister, who was tied naked to the kitchen table. By these terms he is useless.

What about those with learning disabilities? They are often convinced by the system, and their families, that they’d never amount to anything? By these terms they are useless.

Therefore, the Church needs to have a strategy that includes healthy and meaningful work opportunities for all in their care. We need to make sure that we are not simply feeding their short term needs and ignoring who they really are. Our response to this challenge should be, “Come and share my work with me, I want to see who God has created you to be”.

Writer: Wayne Rumsby is at least a fourth generation follower of Jesus Christ. In his late 30’s Wayne responded to an invitation to visit an inner city mission in the heart of Toronto. At the time he was working as a graphic designer. It wasn’t long before he left his job in the fast paced ad business, in the glass towers, to become a full time missionary on the streets and in the alleys. The focus of his mission was to help the marginalized discover God through meaningful work. For most of the past decade Wayne was helping people discover who God had created them to be, by teaching them to make beautiful furniture in a woodworking shop. Today Wayne and his wife Linda are working with the team at 614 with the very same vision, helping people discover who God has created them to be, and more.

© 2009 Wayne Rumsby.
All Rights Reserved

The King James Version! Some have ignorantly stated, “It was good enough for Paul, and it’s good enough for me!” I have even heard a preacher say to his congregation, “I hope none of you brought that New Idiots Version into this church today,” speaking negatively of the NIV. Why does the KJV of the Bible cause so much dissension among Christians?

I was in a Christian bookstore today and an entire wall was devoted to the King James Version of the Bible as if somehow that particular seventeenth century translation is the pinnacle of holy scholarship.

The KJV is the most difficult to read, much less understand, and comes from a translation of what F. H. A. Scrivener called “…the most faulty book I know,” which was the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. The Textus Reseptus is a highly unreliable compilation of varied Greek texts hastily put together by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 A. D.

Erasmus used very few manuscripts, most of which were very unreliable and dating only to the twelfth century. And, where verses were missing, Erasmus simply translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek, translations that neither then nor now match any other Greek manuscripts ever discovered. One example, which is given attention by Metzger and Ehrman is the KJV of Acts 9:6. The KJV is the only translation that adds the words, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” These words exist in no other version, because they were assumed by Erasmus’ own interpolation of the verse in the Latin Vulgate.

What Erasmus did in five months, when compared to the latest scholarly work, is quite scary. And how someone could not listen to the wisdom and scholarship of modern scriptural translations is nothing less than frightening.

When studying our most sacred texts, including how they began and how they have developed to the forms we read today, it is of great importance to know that some of our most reliable manuscripts evaded us for centuries. It is also important to know that many of the most unreliable manuscripts have dominated churches for close to four hundred years, thanks to Erasmus.

An example of true biblical scholarship can be seen in a strange and true story of how some of our most important manuscripts came to be found.

At a time of great economic difficulty, the cost of the writing material known as vellum was so expensive that the parchment of older biblical texts were actually scraped of their ink and used by writers who needed some more writing materials.

Imagine someone today taking a fifth century Greek writing of almost the entire Bible, scraping all of the ink off of the sheepskin, and writing something completely different on the pages. These scraped manuscripts were called palimpsests, meaning “rescraped.” One of the most important manuscripts used by scholars to translate portions of every book of the Bible except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John is a palimpsest called Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. The 209 pages of manuscript were erased in the twelfth century to record 38 sermons of a fourth century Syrian Church father by the name of St. Ephraem.

Thanks to the creation of chemical reagents and ultraviolet rays, the original fifth century writing on the vellum of Codex Ephraemi rescriptus was painstakingly rediscovered by Constantin von Tischendorf.

New translations of the Old and New Testament are made because older and more reliable manuscipts have been discovered in recent history. There are more manuscripts of even higher reliability which have not yet been released for use, because the textual scholars are not finished working with them.

Christians should not be discouraged by new translations; they should be encouraged to know that real work is being done to perfect the inerrant Word of God, which has been carelessly handled by the pens of some men.

In His dust,
Johnny

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 pp. 21-22, 142-145).

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament (4th ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 p. 12).

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

 

Numbers 21:4-9 is a story of snake biting and snake healing. Strange as it sounds, the story is part of the history of God’s people.

The Israelites became impatient and spoke against God and Moses; they complained that God and Moses brought them out into the desert to die of starvation and thirst. The Scriptures tell us that God sent poisonous snakes which caused the death of many of the Israelites. After this, the Israelites repented of their sins and God told Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live” (v.8). Moses did just as God told him, and when those who were bitten looked at the bronze snake, they would not die of their snake bite.

Beyond the theology of using a symbol of that which caused death to bring healing, there is also the message of relying on an image for healing.

We are told to place our hands upon one another to heal the sick (s. Mark 16:18b) and even to give the Holy Spirit (s. Acts 8:19). As images of God, somewhat like the bronze snake on a pole, we can be used to provide God’s healing power for the sick and dying.

Another form or image that has been used to give hope to the hurting is the physical building that is used for worship. Safety and comfort have been found in the doors of the sanctuary.

Nurture has been claimed during the 11 O’clock hour of worship and through the programmatic ministries presented to and for youth and adults. Friendships have been formed and lifelong bonds have been created through the structures and ministries provided through Christianity.

Knowing that we can find solace, peace, and friendship during those predictable hours and in those places we call church has given many believers and non-believers a sense of strength and feeling of positive anticipation. Much like the bronze snake in the desert, the church and its programs have offered God’s healing powers to many.

Later in Israel’s history, a problem arose concerning the bronze snake that Moses made. No longer did they look upon it to receive healing from God; they looked upon it to receive healing from the snake. The image which was to be used as a reminder of God’s power, had become their god.

King Hezekiah came along and destroyed the bronze snake that Moses had made, because the Israelites had been burning incense to it; they were worshiping the snake, instead of the God who ordered the construction of the snake (2 Kings 18:4b).

The entire Israelite nation had lost their faith in the true source of their healing and hope. For Israel, the image had replaced the original.

Christianity is fading quickly in the Western hemisphere. No longer do the buildings and programs enjoy the same responses of the sick and dying in our world. The bronze snake has lost its luster and is beginning to break down.

Is the demise of Western Christianity due to a lack of evangelism, effective programming, powerful preaching, stewardship, and building maintenance? Or has the bronze snake replaced the original in the eyes of worshipers, and God has decided to break it into pieces so that we will return to the true source of healing and hope?

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

 

Abortion is not new. People have been killing babies for millennia.

Abram came from a long history of pagan worship in Ur that included child sacrifice, which is probably why God tested his faithfulness with the gruesome task of sacrificing his own son (s. Gen 22).

Later, in Phoenicia and then in Israel the worshipers of Baal would light fires inside the statue called Topheth and when the hands of the statue were glowing with red heat, the worshipers would place an infant upon the red hot hands and burn the child alive as it screamed until fainting from the pain.

King Josiah eventually destroyed Topheth. “He [Josiah] desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech” (2Ki 23:10 NIV).

And then in the first century, the women of Rome would insert poisons into their wombs to kill their children, which is why Paul made it a priority to tell the women in Ephesus that God would protect them through childbearing (s. 1 Tim 2:15). Kostenberger explains that the term, σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, (Eng. ‘saved through the childbearing’) is a reference to protection while she is pregnant. He also argues that the use of the article with the preposition, διὰ, with the genitive, should be translated ‘throughout the course of the pregnancy’ (Winter, Roman Wives, p.110).

And today, we kill babies while they are still in the womb and use foreign langauges like the Latin word for baby, fetus, thereby attempting to remove personal guilt, as we don’t have to watch the baby cook on the hands of Topheth or be cast down onto rocks from the edge of a cliff; we don’t even hear them scream.

Why have children, for thousands of years, been slaughtered by the adults who are supposed to love and care for them?

In every case throughout history the sacrifice of children has been done for the purpose of prosperity. By giving the sacrifice the aborting donors hoped that the gods would open the heavens and pour out blessings up them.

In Ur, Phoenicia, and Israel babies were killed to please the pagan gods so that they would receive rain, healthy crops, and (ironically) pregnant women. In first century Rome there was a stigma attached to being pregnant, because of the preoccupation with the form of the feminine body, causing women to take preventative measures against getting pregnant or poisoning their wombs to end pregnancies. Abortion methods were even deadly to many women, yet they feared being out of shape more than death.

Even today young people are force-fed the propaganda that having a child will ruin their lives and any chances of prospering. And though it is much more difficult to attain the financial status that allows for the easier life, having a child does not mark the end of prosperity.

If young people could grasp the wisdom that waiting for marriage to have sex is much more beneficial, despite the advice of liberal fundamentalists, we would all find that less children would have to be sacrificed for the sake of prosperity.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

Bruce W. Winter Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of the New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 110.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” –1 Corinthians 6::9-10 (NAS)

Was Paul a closed-minded Pharisee whose teachings need to be evaluated and updated, or are the truths of his teachings simply offensive to those who choose not to follow God?

The parental care gene, fos B, is essential for getting female mice to retrieve and nurse their young. Other than this lack of nurturing ability, the mice that have the fos B gene removed are completely normal, including normal mammary gland development.

According to Dr. James C. Peterson, human beings also have the fos B gene, but it does not determine whether a mother cares for her children. Peterson also points out that a human’s genetic tendency to eat until one builds up a substantial amount of fat does not mean that it is healthy for the person to do so; responding to anger with violence is not the healthiest response in an interdependent society; nor is having multiple sexual partners healthy for all involved, even though we have a genetic propensity to spread our genes. “Genetic tendency does not have to be mechanically obeyed. It does for worker ants, but not for human beings” (Peterson, Genetic Turning Points, p. 47).

The debate over the causes and origins of homosexual behavior is ongoing. Until 1973 homosexuality was categorized as a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association. Whether it is a person’s environment or genetics that is the cause of homosexual behavior is debated strongly by sociologists and scientists who both have strong evidence to support their beliefs.

Some experiments on the human brains of homosexual and heterosexuals have revealed differences in the hypothalamus. Other tests have revealed that prenatal exposure to high levels of androgen cause a fetus to become attracted to females. Female rats that were given male levels of androgens were sexually driven toward other female rats, and would even attempt to mount other females to mate. Another study revealed 5 genetic markers on a section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. This finding has been dubbed “the gay gene” (Ryan D. Johnson, Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture, April 20, 2003).

Apparently, finding a genetic link to homosexuality is not a good thing for some homosexuals. The problem with any of these studies is that, if a genetic link to homosexual behavior is discovered, the fear is that homosexuality will become a “problem that needs to be fixed.” By removing the genetic codes that cause homosexuality, the person will not have these tendencies. This leads to the fear that mothers of children with these genetic propensities will opt for abortions, or have the genetic codes removed.

In an article I wrote on July 3, 2009, “Acting Like Animals,” I made the argument that, if human beings are expected to allow, even encourage, homosexual behavior to be practiced because it is a natural behavior, then why would we not allow racists to practice racism as a natural form of ethnocentricity or preservation of species?

If it is true that we can control our eating habits, sexual desires, and even nurturing habits, despite powerful genetic drives, then why are so many people closing their minds about the possibility of controlling one’s homosexual tendencies.

The desire to overeat and have too many sexual partners are very strong genetic drives, yet obesity is considered an epidemic and promiscuity has caused the government to develop a medication that is given to toddlers so that they will not develop cancer from sexually transmitted diseases (namely genital warts) later in life.

Christians are being judged for judging the homosexual lifestyle as “sinful behavior.” But is the judgment really that different from pointing out one’s natural tendency to overeat, become physically abusive, or commit adultery, which, like homosexuality, are all counterproductive to the betterment of a healthy society?

If the Kingdom of Heaven starts with the people of God doing the will of God on earth in order to make the world a better, healthier place to live, then why would the members of that Kingdom not discourage any behavior that it deems unhealthy for society?

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

James C. Peterson Genetic Turning Points (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001) pp. 46-7.

Johnson, Ryan D. “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture.” Online. 20 April 2003.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Gainey, Jonathan P. “Acting Like Animals.” Online. 3 July 2009.
http://flocksdiner.com/index.php?paged=2

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved