Return to Organic Church Services

We have special church services many times a year. Can I suggest a new one? Can we have a service where there are no directions?

These days, it feels like we never go more than a couple of minutes without being told to do something. Come to the altar. Raise your hands. Shout. Dance. Jump. Clap. Say amen. Pray for someone. Tell someone your deepest problem. Reach across the aisle, and pick your neighbor’s nose. On and on and on. All the time. Every service.

And there’s this looming fear that we should do it because the person with the microphone is saying it under the unction of the Holy Ghost, but it’s so frequent these days that it’s no longer special. It just feels like spiritual calisthenics and time stretching.

There’s power in letting conviction take root. There’s power in letting it be awkward. There’s power when someone steps out and walks down to the altar without being asked. I’ve been that guy many times, and it changes your life. With all of the constant instructions, there’s very little room for steeping in the worship and the preaching, and being obvious about changing your direction any more.

Just once a year, can we have a service where we aren’t asked to do anything? Nothing. Sing or don’t sing. Say amen or don’t. Just let it ride. I just want to have an “organic” service for a change. I just want to sing the songs, listen to a sermon, and let everything else happen as the Spirit leads. All I ask for is altar music and enough volume so that I can pray without people hearing what I’m confessing over in the next section. Is it just me? 

Holiness Gatekeeping

When people come into an Apostolic church for the first time, I’m pretty sure that we all agree that we should welcome them “as they are,” befriend them, listen to them, guide them to the altar, and answer questions about scripture. Right? That’s what Jesus did, when people came to Him. He didn’t wait to eat with sinners until they sanctified themselves with the temple priests. He didn’t withhold healing from people until they had worshipped God to His satisfaction. We’ve been taught for a long time that we should let God lead and guide them, and help them sort out their issues. It’s part of being disciples and making disciples.

But somewhere along the way, something changes. People in church make a decision that a person hasn’t made it as far as they should in their “walk,” by however long it’s been since they first turned their heart to the Lord, and then the people feel like they should start nagging them about spiritual matters in which they feel they’re not measuring up. And what else is there to talk about, except visible, outward things? So this journey of the spirit starts being judged by the path of the flesh. Someone doesn’t do enough of this, or does one too many of that, so we “correct” them.

Why do we do this? Is that really what God wants? Why don’t we just continue to love them, point them to the altar, and answer questions about scripture, all throughout their journey? At what point is it appropriate to step into God’s shoes and try to tell someone that they’re not being spiritual enough? If there are specific things that a person is doing that is causing disruption or harm to someone else (or to you), that’s a separate issue. Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think it’s ever our job to try to convict someone about behavior that is between them and God. It’s probably not going to work, anyway.

Lying

We Apostolic Pentecostals get real picky and choosy about what sins we get upset over. People have affairs, and we get them counseling, and try to restore them and their marriages. People get caught up in substance abuse, and we help them get into rehab and nurture them back to health. This is great! This is proper. This is the work of the Good Samaritan.

But if someone supposedly violates one of our standards of holiness? Out comes the whip; it’s time for a public flogging! Even if it’s just based on rumor or speculation, we feel the need to run them out of church on a rail! I mean, think of the children! We don’t want anyone getting the wrong impression that we approve of such things, do we?! Of course not! And, if we don’t overreact, the horror will spread! Ug. This is nonsense, and absolutely not in keeping with Christian charity, nor even with our previous attitude.

And then there’s the opposite of the self-righteous extreme. The sins we think just don’t count. What about lying? And I mean bald-faced, straight-up lying? Repeatedly? Unashamedly? Some people apparently think this is fine. I guess they think it’s acceptable as long as it’s done in service to a cause they believe to be righteous. But do they really think God cares what purpose they think it serves? And if you only hear about it from someone else, you think, “Nah, they can’t have said that. That would be ludicrous. No one would try to say that, would they?” And you wind up giving them the benefit of the doubt, and the lies continue, and worsen.

The “Right Amount” of Prayer

Pentecostal preachers like to tell stories about how they were counseling with someone, found out that they weren’t being very spiritual, and then point out that all the trouble in their life was because of this. I’ve heard this many times. The lesson is that, if you would just pray, your situation will improve. And, sure, we Christians will all nod and agree with that. That’s part of the basic premise of a relationship with God, right? But if we draw a line through those two points — first, that life is terrible if you don’t pray at all, and second, that life is “better” if you pray “more” — then there must be a third point on that graph at which you pray “enough” that you don’t have any more problems. Except, I don’t know anyone like that. Does anyone else know someone that doesn’t have any problems? If you do, please point me towards them, because I want to find out how much they pray. I want to know the amount of prayer it takes to not have any problems. I’d settle for how much it takes to just get me past the health problems I currently have. After almost 3 years, I still have no clue how much that is, and, if I’m being honest, I’m kind of tired of trying to figure that out.

Should Retired Ministers Get a Pension from the Church?

Twenty three years ago, I had a pension with Arvin. They got “bought” by Meritor. After a couple years, they sent out an email that basically said that the pension fund was “theirs” now, and they were under no obligation to keep it running and pay me anything when I retired. I took the hint, and withdrew what little money was in it, and got hammered with taxes, because of course I was.

Almost no one gets pensions any more. The few people who still get them might get something like a third of their salary when they retire, if they work roughly their entire career at the same place. For the most part, we’re all expected to fund 401K’s, or otherwise figure retirement for ourselves. Am I going to have enough to live on? Well, considering that I’m going to retire the year Social Security officially goes “broke,” I highly doubt it. But that’s beside the point. It’s on me to figure out, one way or another, same as everyone else.

Which brings me to my question: should retired ministers get a “pension” from their church upon retirement? Now, obviously, churches are not funding some massive investment portfolio to pay an actual “pension” out of the dividends from, but the idea is the same. Should churches continue to provide some sort of income to former ministers after they have retired? If no, then I guess we’re done with this thought experiment.

If yes, then how much? Since we’re talking about the church providing an ongoing salary like a pension, what percentage of the former minister’s salary would be appropriate? And, since we’re talking about paying this out of ongoing tithes, which could be used to hire new staff, and give raises to current church employees, how long should this be paid?

Let’s put some numbers to this. According to ZipRecruiter, the average salary of a minister in Indiana is $60,000 per year. Let’s be generous, and say that our hypothetical minister was working at a large church, and his pay was double that, or $120,000/yr, or $10,000/mo. How much do you feel it would be appropriate to pay this retired minister, and for how many years? 100% for life? 50% for 10 years? Some sort of sliding scale that phases out over time? Nothing, as it was on them to prepare, like all of us?

Here are some additional thought experiments. Should there be anything in the “pension” for the minister’s spouse? Does it change your answer if the church had been paying into an ampe life insurance policy? Next, let’s say that our retired minister still has “some gas left in the tank,” and takes another job after retirement, and is making a non-trivial salary with that gig, as well as collecting Social Security. Does this change your answer? Finally, what if he had been working for a huge church, and making 3 or 4 times the average, at $15-$20K/mo? Does that change your answer? In other words, do you feel like this is based on cost of living today, or is it purely based on how much he had been making?

My own biases are leaking out in this discussion because I got the rug pulled out from under me, but that’s why I’m interested in other people’s opinions. I want to see this from other people’s points of view. What do you think?

Employee claims she can’t use Microsoft Windows for “Religious Reasons” : Reddit/r/AskHR


And they let her! You mean, all this time, I could have requested Linux on my corporate laptop for religious reasons!? BRB. Going to HR to explain my actual, deeply-held beliefs on this…

Compelled Speech vs. The First Amendment

In the lawsuit, she argues that denying requests to allow her to ignore students’ preferred names and pronouns “deprived her of due process and equal protection of law” and violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion.

Source: A Kansas teacher is suing school officials for requiring her to address students by their preferred names, saying the policy violates her religious freedom – CNN

This is essentially the issue that propelled Jordan Petersen to prominence in Canada, and it seems bound for the Supreme Court. Will the Supremes find an interpretation of the First Amendment that can compel people to say things they don’t want to say, under the threat of the police power of the US Federal Government? No matter how desperately much you might want to use the government’s authority to force people to say things you want them to say — about anything; not just transgendered pronouns — the concept seems hard to square with the clear language and intent of the First Amendment. But, hey, Citizens United, so anything could happen these days.

Ricard acknowledges in the suit that despite being told that another student who was listed in school records as female preferred to be addressed by a different name, Ricard called the student “Miss [student’s last name].” Ricard was reminded multiple times to use the student’s preferred name and pronouns, but continued to call the student by their last name only.

That all being said, according to the article, the teacher in question seems to have been deliberately belligerent in addressing the student, and trying to provoke a confrontation. If that’s true, she is… how you say? A jerk. Kids get called by different names all the time. We call our youngest by his middle name, and no teacher has a problem with that.

Like the case of the no-gay-wedding-cakes baker, this case seems to have been specifically engineered to go to court. I guess the people who cheered Amazon and Cloudflare for throwing Parler off their services can thank Masterpiece Cakeshop for establishing the legal affirmation to do so, but I wonder if the people behind Parler would reconsider their (presumed) support of the baker now. I guess we’ll soon find out whether the Supremes will defend the right of individuals in the same way. I don’t see how they couldn’t, but then does the government (school) have the ability to fire her for these shenanigans, even if she has the legal right to do them? We’re probably going to find this out as well…

Calf born with three eyes and four nostrils as people queue up to worship cow

A three-eyed cow born in India has been dubbed a “divine miracle” and a reincarnation of Hindu God, Shiva, with a veterinary doctor saying it is not Viswanatha but an abnormal embryo development.

Source: Calf born with three eyes and four nostrils as people queue up to worship cow

Aha! Excellent! This is a perfect display of the theory of evolution at work in the modern era! With crappy cell phone video and all!

Clearly, this mutant, super-seeing, super-smelling cow will be favored for mating over all others in its herd. (And that’s true whether it’s allowed to breed naturally, or forced by its owners.) So this cow will start a new species, which will eventually come to supplant all other cows in the world.

I just wish I could be here in a couple hundred thousand years, and see them roaming the hills, here in the Americas.

Nightbirde Speaks Out During AGT Finale After Exiting Due to Cancer Battle | PEOPLE.com

“I spend a lot of time squeezing my eyes shut and trying to remember what I believe; counting my breaths in the grief cloud; burying my face into God’s T-shirt. I remind Him sometimes, (and not kindly) that I believed Him when He told me the story He wrote for me is good, and that He never stops thinking of me,” she continued. “I must be a fool in love, because even from under all this debris, I still believe Him. And when I’m too angry to ask Him to sit on my bed until I fall asleep, He still stays.”

Source: Nightbirde Speaks Out During AGT Finale After Exiting Due to Cancer Battle | PEOPLE.com