Author: imikemedia

People define “faithful” differently.  Context is often the key.  A dog is considered “faithful” when it is partial to, prefers, and is obedient to its “master/owner.”  A spouse is considered “faithful” when he or she doesn’t cheat on their mate.  A teenager is considered “faithful” when they can be trusted to carry out the parents’ wishes even when the parents are out of town.  But Christians are often considered “faithful” when they attend all the services of the local church on a regular basis- regardless of how they choose to live otherwise.

“Faithful” is generally translated from the Greek term pistos.  “Believing” is also translated from the same word.  But pistos is additionally defined and translated to mean “trustworthy,” cf. 1Timothy 4:9; Titus 1:9.  What does this imply regarding our ideas of “faithfulness”?

We had a dog (she’s actually our son’s) that was allowed inside, but was not allowed on the couch or love seat.  She never got on them while we were home, but I occasionally saw doggie footprints and doggie hair on them after we’d been away for a while. Was she faithful/trustworthy?  

Do you have to hide car keys to keep a teenager from taking your car out for a spin while you’re away even though you’ve specifically forbidden them from driving it?  Or, do you depend on neighbors to “watch the house” and report any house parties thrown by your teenagers if you’re away for a few days?  Are they faithful/trustworthy?

Do you constantly worry and watch your spouse for signs or indications of an affair?  Ask yourself, “Why?”  The answer is one of two choices: 1) You’re paranoid and have trust issues; or, 2) Your spouse is giving you indications of untrustworthiness or has repeatedly broken your trust in the past, causing you to doubt their fidelity and commitment.  If it is #2, are they faithful/trustworthy?

With these examples in mind, let’s switch this up a little.  Think about your “faithfulness” and “trustworthiness” to God.  Is it limited to consistent attendance at all services, or is there more to it?  Are you only “faithful” to Him when He’s “in the room and watching you”?  Obviously, there is a problem here since the omnipresence of God indicates He knows everything we do (and think!).  Can God “trust” you to do the right thing whether you realize He’s present and watching or not?  Do we expect God to continually “trust” us even though there have been many lapses of fidelity in the past?  These examples of dogs, teenagers, and spouses should cause us to think about the issue of faithfulness/trustworthiness a little deeper, and more seriously, than just check marks in an attendance book.

But let’s take this subject of “faithfulness” a little further.  Shouldn’t our “faithfulness” to God also enable Him to trust us to:

• Think about things the way He does?  To look to His Word to determine the rightness or wrongness of something instead of bowing to societal pressures or our own understanding?
• Feel about things the way He does? To have the same disdain for sin, compassion for sinners, and love of truth and righteousness?
• Act in a way that is consistent with our profession of “faith” in Him?  In brief, to act in a way that He would approve?

Please do not misunderstand.  I would never discourage regular and consistent attendance at all worship and bible class opportunities of the local church- such is far too important and beneficial to our spiritual health and well-being.  However, “faithfulness” is not defined simply by consistent attendance, and should not be viewed as such.  Remember this oft-repeated simple statement, “God is faithful,” Deuteronomy 7:9; Isaiah 49:7; 1Corinthians 1:9; 10:13; 2Corinthians 1:18; 1Thessalonians 5:24; 2Thessalonians 3:3.  In every circumstance and in all applications, God is faithful.  While we cannot match or reciprocate His level of “faithfulness” to us, and we certainly don’t want to belittle or discount His grace, ought we not at least attempt to come as close as we possibly can to being “faithful” to Him?  Think about it, please. BY PHILIP C. STRONG

“GOD LOVES YOU AND I LOVE YOU AND THAT’S THE WAY IT’S GONNA BE!” – MIKE

It has been said that every positive has a negative. That is not true in every case, but it is in many. Surprisingly, the ideal of “freedom,” which we cherish so much, is not without latent liabilities.

Freedom’s Limitations

When the colonies won their freedom from British tyranny, it was a new day for America. No longer would there be taxation without representation.

When Abraham Lincoln signed the “Emancipation Proclamation” (without the approval of Congress), such ushered in a breath of fresh air for African slaves (at least in principle). Freedom will be cherished always.

But when the leaders of our fledgling nation framed the Constitution, not even they fathomed the implications, much less the potential abuse, that lay in the future.

For example, they did not at first see certain implications in the words, “all men are created equal”; especially that this equality would include the slaves and women. Slaves were not considered “whole” persons, and women did not have equal rights with men, e.g., the right to vote. This would come in time as the definition of “freedom” was expanded.

Of course some things they did acknowledge, e.g,, a Creator and His creation, now are outlawed from the educational system. How time does change things! Freedom expanded; freedom repressed!

A Specific Example

In the First Amendment of the Constitution, the fathers wrote in part:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

This noble sentiment was designed to prevent a government of tyranny. But the pioneers of the new republic never dreamed where this well-intentioned principle would lead the nation ultimately, when recklessly applied by leaders bereft of common moral intelligence.

Neither freedom of speech, or press, is absolutely unfettered. Laws against slander and libel restrict both speech and literature. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, no one has the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. And one is not at liberty to write a death-threat letter to the President.

Justice Holmes wrote:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to cause a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent (emp. WJ).

Note the added emphasis. Words must be evaluated not only in terms of “present danger,” but also in view of the evil that ultimately may result. Little weight has been attached to these concluding words.

Reaping a Whirlwind

We are seeing an absolute plague of sexual crimes in this country, eclipsing anything our forefathers imagined in their wildest nightmares. Is there any right-mined person who is not alarmed?

Rape, sexual torture, child molestation, public nudity, spouse-swapping, communal “marriage,” serial “marriage,” homosexual perversion, etc., reflect a societal moral disease that is worse than the “Black Death” that stalked the world from the 14th century onward.

Whence the origin of this corruption that is consuming the visceral organs of America?

Jesus declared that such horrible actions as listed (and others) proceed “from within, out of the heart [minds] of men” (Mark 7:20-21). Corrupt the mind of a person, and his body will follow rapidly.

Since the mid-50s, particularly the Roth v. United States decision (and several rulings subsequent to that), which permitted obscenity to be measured by “community standards”; (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:12b), this nation has been on a free-fall course towards unbridled sexual chaos. Pornographic entertainment (via live shows, literature, movies, video, TV, and the internet) has desensitized society and evolved an insatiable appetite for increasingly depraved interests.

Virtually anything has become “legal” in its own place. An F.B.I. agent recently stated that federal authorities now are deluged with pedophilia cases!

Who is responsible for this maniacal degeneracy? Culpability is widespread.

The aggressive movements of sexual perverts, some judges of lower courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court, share a degree of guilt — as does a sex-drunk society. These, in concert, have stamped a societal “OK” on this immoral malignancy — all in the name of “freedom.” An inspired apostle warned against using one’s freedom as a license for vice (1 Peter 2:16).

The Role of Government

From the divine vantage point, the role of civil government is for the protection of society. Ideally, governmental powers are for the promotion of “good,” and not “evil” (Romans 13:3a; cf. 1 Peter 2:14). Any civil power that promotes evil eventually will fall under the weight of its own foul degeneracy.

Today in this nation there is a festering imbalance of tolerating evil and opposing good. And it is highly doubtful that such will get better before it gets worse.

What Can Be Done?

What can Christians do to help remedy the situation? We can pray that God’s providence may prevail towards a solution. We must commit our lives to purity. It is imperative that we teach the truth regarding sexual chastity, and speak out forcefully and intelligently against the evil of debauchery. And when feasible, a boycott against those who promote filth may well be appropriate. by Wayne Jackson, deceased

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1337-when-freedom-becomes-a-license-for-evil

“GOD LOVES YOU AND I LOVE YOU AND THAT’S THE WAY IT’S GONNA BE!” – MIKE