A Christian perspective and understanding of Authority; Intro and Part 1a

Authority is not often something we directly think of. Often, it is simply recognized, accepted, or sought, without much direct thought into the concept of authority itself. I am not going to attempt to define “authority” in and of itself, as it would needlessly prolong this writing, and is generally an understood term, basically meaning power, trusted, proven, and/or control.
Instead, I am going to go into some different areas of authority in a Christian's life, the responsibility of these areas, and the responsibility of the Christian towards them.

Today, with everything around us becoming more and more relative, more “politically correct” do what you want (so long as it's what all agree with) a proper understanding and relationship to authority is all the more important. All choose to some degree what they accept or reject as authority in their lives, on every level from trivial to divine. It is important that we, as Christians, have a proper view and understanding of authority in our lives, lest we unwittingly allow incorrect sources to usurp those proper positions and, at best distract, at worst, corrupt our walk. I intend to approach this from two different main areas, spiritual authority (ie, the Church, etc) and civil authority (government, etc)

Part 1: Spiritual authority
A:General relating to the Church and Christians

First and foremost is of course God himself, and His holy word the Bible. All authority must first be subject to God and the Bible in a Christian's life. We see several examples of authority in the Bible, far more than need be mentioned here. One that I personally like is Luke 7:8
“For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say to one, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it.”
This is not so much a definition of authority, but an understanding of, and proper reaction to proper authority. In other words, if a proper authority asks, expects, or demands something, within their authority, it is to be done.
If one accepts the Bible and Christianity as correct, one must inarguably accept the Bible, God, and the teachings of the Bible as supreme authorities in their lives.
Within that, one must also accept the proper authority within the Church, be it Ministers, Deacons, Teachers, etc. If they are properly called of God, then their authority is from God, and they are to be listened to. We see both sides of this in Galatians, where Paul both affirms his authority as an apostle of Christ, and goes after those who would usurp that authority to teach false teachings to the flock. In Galatians, Paul not only confronts these false teachers, but reaffirms his authority.
So how are we, in this modern day, to distinguish between proper authority within the Church, and usurpers, false teachers, and misguided well intentioned?
The first and best litmus test is the Bible itself, an authority ordained by God cannot violate the teachings of God, as this would in fact nullify their authority. This can be a hard concept for us to understand in our “modern” mindset of democracy, where every man is, to some degree, free to choose for himself his own direction. We have limited concept or understanding of Kings, Lordship, or Fealty. In the days of kings and lords, authority in a kingdom or realm was derived from the supreme authority of the land, that being the king himself, then to the nobles and lords (hence the term Lord of lords), to lesser knights, magistrates, etc. A man acting as a representative of the king was, in fact, essentially the king, if he was acting in proper authority, ie, within his office. His words were received as the words of the king, any action taken against him was viewed as against the king, he was not merely a man, but the king's man. On the flip side, if an officer of the court, a nobleman, or some other member trusted with noble or royal office, began acting in his own interests or interests outside his office, and was shown to have done so, consequences would be dire for him. The king's man had the protection, approval, and support of the King, so long as he remained the king's man. This was all lifted should he decide, out of pride, corruption, or misguided good intent, to turn or act against the king or the kings interests. So are we in the Church, we are all King's men, we have the protection, approval, and support of the greatest King of all, through the redeeming grace of his Son, Christ Jesus. However, we also have a responsibility as Kings men, to follow and understand the teachings of the Bible.

So, we are to judge, for ourselves, whom we allow as spiritual authority in our lives, anyone who teaches contrary to the Bible is not a fitting authority, all proper spiritual authority will be subject to the Bible, unless we deny the Bible itself. But how far shall we take this? Can we have doctrinal disagreements with an individual, yet still recognize them as a spiritual authority? To some degree yes, This is where discernment comes in, what is essential doctrine, and what is flexible in interpretation? Obviously the key doctrine is that of Christ, his death, and resurrection. Without this, our faith is meaningless, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15, especially vs 17 “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins.”. This is an inarguable tenet of Christianity, proven clearly throughout the Bible, and any who denies this or seeks to dismiss this tenet, holds no spiritual authority, and may not hold leadership in any God fearing Church. Essentially, if something is clearly stated or declared Biblically, it is, in fact, inarguable without nullifying the entire authority of the Bible. There is no picking and choosing, the Bible is either the inspired word of God, or it is not. Some issues however, are not clearly ordained in scripture, such as baby baptism, when and how the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs, etc. These are grey areas, not essential to salvation, but not harmful to salvation. We see two clear messages throughout the Pauline Epistles, unity of body, and condemnation of false teachers and the falsehoods they speak. We see both of these clearly in Philippians 3:15-18
“Let us therefore, as many as are perfect have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude , God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. For many walk, of whom I have often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ. “ (NAST, emphasis added)

Perfect as used above, is the greek word teleios (Strongs #5046) “teleios tel'-i-os from 5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with 3588) completeness:--of full age, man, perfect.”
Strongs 5056 refers to telos, meaning:
“telos tel'-os from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination (literally, figuratively or indefinitely), result (immediate, ultimate or prophetic), purpose); specially, an impost or levy (as paid):--+ continual, custom, end(-ing), finally, uttermost”
Attitude is from the greek word phroneo:
”5426 phroneo fron-eh'-o from 5424; to exercise the mind, i.e. entertain or have a sentiment or opinion; by implication, to be (mentally) disposed (more or less earnestly in a certain direction); intensively, to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience):--set the affection on, (be) care(-ful), (be like-, + be of one, + be of the same, + let this) mind(-ed), regard, savour, think”
Reveal, from the greek apokalupto:
“601 apokalupto ap-ok-al-oop'-to from 575 and 2572; to take off the cover, i.e. disclose:--reveal.”
Observe, from the greek skopeo;
“4648 skopeo skop-eh'-o from 4649; to take aim at (spy), i.e. (figuratively) regard:--consider, take heed, look at (on), mark.”
Pattern, from the greek tupos:
“5179 tupos too'-pos from 5180; a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy, a shape, i.e. a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specially, a sampler ("type"), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning):--en-(ex-)ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print. “

“Let us therefore, as many as are perfect (complete, of age, completeness of purpose) have this attitude (to interest oneself in, with concern or obedience; be like-, + be of one, + be of the same, + let this) mind(-ed), regard, savour, think); and if in anything you have a different attitude , God will reveal (take off the cover, i.e. disclose) that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. Brethren, join in following my example, and observe ( take aim at; take heed) those who walk according to the pattern (a model for imitation) you have in us. For many walk, of whom I have often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ.” emphasis and () added

Or, my personal paraphrase:
“Let us who are mature in faith be obedient to one interest; if in anything you hold dissent, God will show you the truth of the matter. Keep living to the standard we know and understand. Take heed of and model your walk after the apostles and Church fathers. Many claim to speak and live truth, but are in fact direct enemies of truth and salvation itself.”

This to me, sums up what a Christian's attitude, in general, should be towards Church authority and towards one another. We are to to be obedient to Biblical teaching, and to those in Biblical offices (Pastors, deacons and elders, teachers, etc) We are to emulate proper authority, and to seek their guidance and the guidance of the Bible in our walk with Christ. If we disagree, we must seek the Bible and ask God for wisdom on the matter. Ultimately, if we find our dissent is not Biblically accurate, we are incorrect, and if we persist in pursuing falsehoods or in inaccurate dissent, we in fact become enemies of Christ, salvation, and the Church! We are told clearly in James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him”
Basically, if you don't know the answer, ask for it, and God will show you. It may not be (and likely won't be!) a blatant flashing neon sign, and it may not be the answer we want to hear, but God will answer. Once he answers, we are obligated to that answer, it becomes part of the standard mentioned above, once you know or achieve something, don't lose it.
To sum up the general responsibility of a Christian, we are to “....Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling....” (Philippians 2:12b) or, to take seriously the pursuit of understanding our faith and belief. We are to have some level of understanding as to what it is we believe, and have a responsibility to not only accept the properly ordained, God given authority of Church leadership and accept it's role in our spiritual walk, but to reject those who speak falsely, who do not adhere to Biblical standards, or would lead the weak in understanding astray from proper faith. As an example, it is the responsibility of those in the military to follow all lawful orders, but it is also the responsibility, duty even, to reject illegal and unlawful orders. As such, a proper understanding, at least on a basic level, of the laws and regulations governing his actions is essential to any soldier, how else is he to know if he is following correct authority? In the same way, we, as warriors of Christ, are responsible to have at least a basic understanding of the Bible and it's teachings, and as we mature and learn to seek God's guidance, that understanding will increase, and our responsibility with it. A false teacher will be held accountable for his falsehoods, but if you decide, even in ignorance, to follow him rather than truth, you will be held accountable for your choice. This is why it is so imperative that we choose those who we place in positions of spiritual authority so carefully, we hold our faith in our hands, and, furthermore, we are all leaders to someone. Should we choose poorly, hastily, selfishly, or lazily, we in fact, lead them astray. We are expected to place the unity of the Church body above being proven right in matters of trivial or little import, yet on matters essential to the faith as a whole, we are to be uncompromising, in other words, unity is preferrable to conflict, but only unity that is accurate, standards cannot be lowered in the name of unity, in fact, unity, Biblically speaking, doesn't mean every one gets along, it in fact means “one mind”, unity of goal, of purpose. It is impossible for a Christian who believes in the Bible to be in spiritual unity with someone who does not accept the authority of God or the Bible.

Ontario, Canada town threatens to evict disabled boy’s pony

"The town of Caledon may force a three-year-old boy with cerebral palsy to give up his miniature pony after a neighbour complained about the smell.
Sam Spiteri’s grandfather gave him the pony, Emily, after he was diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy shortly after birth. The boy can’t walk or crawl, and Emily is part of his therapy regime.
“When we take him off the pony he cries. Even if he’s tired he doesn’t want to leave her,’’ his mother, Antonia Spiteri, said today."

Full story, National Post

Sam Spiteri Facebook group

Mayor:
Mayor Marolyn Morrison

Town of Caledon
6311 Old Church Road, Caledon ON L7C 1J6
Office: (905) 584-2272
Fax: (905) 584-4325

marolyn.morrison@caledon.ca

Caledon bylaw enforcement manager:
Glenn Blakely - glenn.blakely@caledon.ca

Marriage

I think we can all agree, whatever side we come at the discussion from, that homosexual rights, particularly marriage, is one of the biggest issues facing this nation.

I'm going to break some things down within this discussion, and see where it goes.

California's prop 8, among others, this election cycle, seems to have brought the discussion to the forefront nationwide. I'm going to make my answer quite simple and easy, and then dig into it a bit. Here we go...both sides are wrong. To all reading, check fire until you actually finish reading please.

First, lets look into the history of marraige itself. It is an institution that seems ingrained into history, but until recent times, no outside recognition was really required, if a man and a woman said they were married, they were married, each culture handled the actual social ceremony different, but essentially, that was that. For the purposes of this blog, I'm going to focus primarily on European history, simply because it is from that history that much of our culture is derived.

As far as the Catholic Church went, for centuries, if you said you were married, you were. In 1215, it was declared that a "licit" marriage must occur in a Church, but other marriages were still recognized, and still considered marriages, just not "licit"

There was no state or civil involvement until the 16th century, when some European states began to require approval, primarily to prevent marriages that families did not approve of, ie rich and poor or what have you...

In the US, the idea of marriage licenses is relatively new, George Washington, for instance, was married without a license, it wasn't even thought of. The concept of marriage licenses in the US began popping up in the early 1900's, for the main purpose of prohibiting inter-racial marriage. Read that again: Marriage licenses had thier origin to block inter-racial marriage! Before that idea, it was unheard of to ask the state for the "right" to marry, it was not in the States domain to make the call one way or the other!

So, the two historical origins of marriage licenses, or state involvement, in marriage, were to prevent inter-racial or inter-class marriages. Nowdays, it's normal, expected, to obtain a marriage license, ie, permission, from the state before tieing the knot, but why? Why has this tradition continued? I don't know that answer, except to say that once some control is ceded to the state, it grows and grows, the state (by state I mean of course government in general) simply cannot be trusted without an ever vigilant and educated populace to prevent abuse.

So, essentially, from where I'm looking at things, historically, Biblically, and, constitutionally, there is no legal reason for government to be involved on any level in marriage, it simply isn't the business of the state. So, where exactly do I stand on the homosexual marriage issue? Personally, I'm opposed, I am a Christian, and I firmly believe that the Bible is clear on the morality of the matter. I am also firmly opposed to government overstepping it's bounds, and so, both sides are wrong.

I will say this thought, the Church should be ashamed of itself, not for prop 8 or similar issues, but for rolling over and turning the decision of marriage over to the state. For declaring the sanctity of marriage while divorce rates within the "sacred" institution of marriage skyrocket within the Church. For leaders who adamantly oppose homosexual marriage while cheating on thier spouse. No one is perfect, all are human, but if you are going to use the sanctity of marriage argument, which I do agree with and consider a valid argument, I expect you to listen to yourself. If marriage is sacred, treat it as such. Show me a valid reason for divorce, with the exception of adultery and abuse, I know of none.

If we, as a Church, expect to be able to stand for the institution of marriage, we must indeed stand for it! This means not only declaring it to be Biblically between a man and a woman, but Biblically forever, before God, till death do you part.

So, to those screaming for the state to give marriage rights to homosexuals, good job, your supporting a tradition of racism and classism, hope your proud.

To those against, you either oppose it within the Church, and from a pure perspective of marriage, or you are just as wrong. If you support divorce outside of adultery or abuse, shut your mouth.

NYS 23rd Congressional district

So, along with the Presidential election coming up, one can't forget the other races. I announced after the bailout bill and John McHugh voting for both versions that he had lost my vote. Well, it seems I have the following options, all of which, to me, are not options:

1) Vote against John McHugh, ie vote for Mike Oot

After having a look around his website (which, on a side note, gave me a headache to navigate) and reading what I could find on him, I'm hesitant to vote for him. First of all, he says that he would have supported the initially bailout bill, but is angry about the second. Well, I suppose thats better than McHugh, who voted for both versions, but not much. Also, one of the main issues he mentions on his home page is "quality, affordable health care" and on his (poorly designed) issues page "The availability of adequate healthcare for every American should be a National Priority. I am for Universal Healthcare"

Oh, and he's endorsed by WF(Working Families) which, in and of itself makes me think twice before voting for this guy, protest vote against McHugh or not

Also, I'm surprised (maybe I just couldn't find it, did i mention his website was designed by a poorly trained monkey?) that, him being from Munnsville, NY (practically my nieghbor) in a heavily rural area, makes almost no mention of farms, agriculture, or Upstate NY getting the short end of the economic stick. Actually, his site gives me the impression that he's running on healthcare (not a national concern) and the Iraq war, with the bailout as an afterthought.

I see no good reason to vote for this guy, except perhaps to spite McHugh, but It's not good enough, I'll pass on option 1.

2)Vote for McHugh anyways.

This options annoys me to no end. McHugh has held the seat for a while now, and hasn't done much that I've seen. Actually, I don't think he much cares about anything outside of Jefferson County, frankly, it is my impression that he's gotten overconfident and comfortable, seeing as every election has been a cakewalk, easily crushing any opposition, the district has been solid GOP since the 1800's, and he's the GOP man, who's gonna challenge him?
I'll pass on option 2, he lost my vote when he sold the American taxpayer down the river on both Bailout votes

3)Don't vote
not gonna happen

4)Write in
Apparently my only option, and, seeing as I've voted libertarian in every presidential election I could vote in, I'm kinda resighned to my vote being nothing more than a protest vote. The problem is, who to write in? Should I go for the classic sarcastic mickey mouse or donald duck? Perhaps write in Golisano just for giggles? I couldn't find any, but are any third party candidates running who perhaps haven't discovered the internet? I've basically decided, as both candidates on the ballot suck, to vote for niether, but that only shows if I vote for someone else, if I don't vote, it accomplishes nothing, not even a protest vote. So, fellow Upstate NY'ers, for whom shall I vote?

Obama the Socialist

I find it distressingly amusing how the mainstream media goes after Sarah Palin's husband for his ties to a seperationist party in Alaska, but are blatantly ignoring Obama starting his career as a member of the NP (New Party) in Illinois. Most evidence of this has been scrubbed, and Obama denies his affiliation, but heres the wonder of the internet, nothing goes away. Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can see the truth.

"Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)." October 1996 NP Update archived link, emphasis added

From the Progessive Populist, 11/96:
"New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. "


From the Chicago DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), July-August 1996

"New Party Update

by Bruce Bentley

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

The Chicago NP will hire a second organizer and an intern, preferably Spanish speaking, to work in the 35th Ward. Upcoming events include a 70's Retro Dance Party on Friday, July 12th, and Post Labor Day Picnic on September 7th." (Emphasis added)


So, who is Obama really? We hear all about Sarah Palin's husbands ties to the Alaskan Independence Party, but strangely nothing about Obama's roots. I wonder why the media is sweeping this information about the "Chosen One" away from public scrutiny?

House passes second attempt at bailout bill

Well, the House of Representatives has buckled and passed the new attempt of a bailout bill, after a refusal on Monday to steal from main street to fund wal streets greed. So now not only will we feel the repurcussions from unwise lending practices and overspending, but we'll be paying to keep those who made those mistakes in business. Me and my dad run a small family business, an organic dairy farm to be exact. If we were to overspend or make unwise business moves, we would go out of business, that's capitalism, but it seems that failure in business gets rewarded with money so long as it's a failure on an epic scale.

I understand the complexity of the situation and the brink our economy is on, but it's been coming for a while. our economy has relied on prices going up and up and up, anyone with any understanding of history or economics can tell you that bubbles pop, yet for some reason noone deemed it cause for alarm that our entire economic system is based on bubbles not popping. Rep Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) sums it up pretty well, "How can we have capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down,".

The bill passed the Senate 74-25, the House 263-171, and has already been signed by President Bush, and so, once again, the American people are betrayed. Oh, and by the way, a tax cut was attached to the bill, because apparently our national debt wasn't big enough, let's just throw money at everything. Money, according to the federal government, is like duct tape, it fixes everything, nobody has explained to me what the plan is when the duct tape doesn't stick. Maybe we'll ask Iraq for a loan? After all, we've poured so much money into them they've been giving it away in the streets.

Main street robbery halted by the House of Representatives

The bailout plan (H.R. 3997) was voted on in the House today, and it did not pass, 228 representatives (95 Democrats, 133 Republicans) voted nay, refusing to steal out of the American taxpayers pocket to prop up the greed of Wal Street big shots. Sadly, my Representative, John McHugh, was not among those who stood against this bill, I'm questioning why I voted for him, and am uncertain if I can do so again, I will be watching him closely. I am not a one issue voter, but this is a biggie, he's lost my trust today, even as the House overall gave me a ray of hope that maybe there is a smattering of common sense left on Capital Hill.

House vote on HR 3997