Leadership

Study in Titus- What it is to be a young Christian

What leadership is:

Paul says he left Titus is Crete to “set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what i good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” (1:5b-9)

So, what exactly is Paul doing with this list of seemingly impossible list of qualifications? Is he trying to set Titus up to fail in his search to provide the new Cretan church with leadership? I don’t think that Paul meant it as a discouragement. It’s not a list that is made to make men seem unworthy, but I think its more of a list like the 10 commandments: something to show us where we have gone wrong. Now leadership isn’t just restricted to the church. It applies to the home, especially to the man of the house. So, how do you match up? Are you “above reproach” before God? Let’s first take a look at the definition of the word reproach so as to understand if there is possibly a way to find a loophole in which we could squeeze ourselves. Reproach means “to find fault with” (dictionary.com). So, lets look and see if any man can be above reproach. Romans 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 5:12-13 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all the men, because all sinned- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Clearly no one can be above reproach. So then, why does Paul seem to contradict himself? In his earlier letter to the church of Rome he says that all men have fallen short, yet to Titus in Crete he writes find men who are above reproach. How is Titus supposed to find men who are above reproach when all men have fallen short of the glory of God? I will do my best to explain. Paul is telling Titus to find men who are above reproach in the eyes of men. This does not mean that these men are saints and holy to their very bones. No, they are first and foremost men, meaning that they have a sinful nature. Paul is not asking Titus to find men without sin, for there was only one man to ever walk the planet who was without sin and that is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. However, Paul is asking Titus to find men who are upright in the eyes of the people, men who will inspire others to look to God. That is what he means by above reproach. Now then, my question is, how do others view you? Do they look to God when they see you? Or do they damn you as a hypocrite? See Paul understood that to be a leader, you needed to have others look up to you. When he was Saul, men followed him because he was their idea of the perfect Jew. And as the Apostle Paul, Christians looked up to him because to them he was above reproach. He taught them well and using sound logic and reason to debate. This he proved on Mars Hill in Greece. To be a leader is not to be without fault. Everyman has his faults. To be a leader is to be someone who others can look to and say “I wish I was like him”. Think about the leaders in you life. Your parents, youth pastor, teachers, government, etc. How many of these people would you follow because you really want to? If you can’t say yes, then I think it would be a good idea to sit down and rethink your priorities. Granted, the government is corrupt and so this may no apply to them. However, we have the ability to choose our government officials so it does apply to them for we put them there. Look at your role model. Does he/she display good morals? Is he/she honoring God with all they can? Who we choose to follow has major repercussions upon how we will view God and the world. Without good Christian leaders in our lives, we will become immersed in a society that rejects God. So how do we spot good Christian leaders? Look to what Paul told Titus. You see, everything in life there is an answer for in the Bible. The problem comes when we begin to think we already know it all and don’t need to look at the Bible for answers. That’s how cults begin or hypocrites mar the image of Christianity. We as a body of Christ need to be challenging each other to search the Word for answers. And if they aren’t clearly found then we need to pray with each other and seek the counsel of God. I challenge you to look at those leaders in your life and ask yourself, do I see them as above reproach? And if the answer is know then go to the person and respectfully and kindly explain the concerns you find with their character or attitude or whatever is not above reproach. Let’s do a little iron sharpens iron here. Let’s make each other stronger in Christ.

History #1

It may seem as history is written only by the winners. But you must keep in mind that the losers also write their history. True, the German account of WWII may differ from ours on a few details. However, the main content isn't different. The fact is that a crazed dictator and his regime gained control of the country and went on to expand its borders using revelutionary battle tactics. It is also a globally accepted fact that this same regime killed 6 million people of Jewish decent. No longer is history simply written by the winners. Now a days, historians around the world communicate to get the full story. Therefore, this claim to history being written exclusively by the winners is in and of itself irrelevant, seeing as it is not factually based. Furthermore, through archiology, we have been able to find and study many ancient societies, thus proving some stories about them and disproving others. These findings cannot be written by the winners, because the winners of that time period are long since dead. For example, Homer's Illiad has been found to have some true aspects to it. There really was a city named Troy and the prince of Troy really did steal away for himself the Spartan's king. Sparta in response did actually sail to Troy and there was a long and bloody battle between the two nations. These facts have all been proven through archiology. However, there was no god-man named Achilles. As it turns out, he is just the representation of a warrior who was very skilled, but not industructable. History for a long time was written by the winners, and therefore subject to variations from the truth of what happened. However, due to modern science we have been able to establish the myths from the truth, making history once again true.

Economics #2

Socialism doesn't work because it takes away from peoples right to freedom. It also relies on man being innately good. However, do yourself a favor and turn on the news. Man is innately evil. This is proved through the high crime rates, especially in communist states. Another thing that socialism would need in order to succeed is complete control of all people. This is impossible within First World democracies such as the U.S. because people are used to having their freedom. Take that freedom away and you will have a revolt on your hands. Plus, there is a very strong anti-communism/socialism sentiments nationwide. This is rooted in the Cold War when Russia, then the USSR, was the U.S.'s major enemy. All of this is besides the fact that in most American thinking, socialism is innately evil. They feel this way because of when they look at socialist governments and countries they see massive amounts of corruption. For example, Joseph Stalin killed more of his own people then Hitler did Jews. Communism wouldn't work in America because of the immense hatred for it.

Economics #1

I find Mr. Moore's argument very compelling. Although him and I may not see eye to eye on how a economic system run by the people should work, I believe he is right in saying that the argument should not be between a 16th century philosophy and a 20th century philosophy, but for a system where the people are thought of and laws are created for the greater good of everyone. However, I don't think that socialism is that answer. Granted, it appears to adhere to and cover most of the aspects of such a system, yet it is missing a way from which to get from a tryanny to the social utopia. And that is where the problem lies. If socialism mapped out a way for the removal of the tyranny that comes before the utopia specifically a time frame for it, I would be much more obliged to accept it. But it doesn't and therefore is not the best solution for a system run by the people and for the greater good of the people. Mr. Moore's push for such a society is good, for it opens the eyes of not only the people but also those of the polotitions to change the system we have. Capitalism has its short commings, but then again so do all other forms of government because man is fallen and therefore cannot make a perfect system to govern by.

What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be? Due Friday, March 25th by midnight.

Answer: The ramifications of a global secular government would include the annihilation of religion. And that's not just Christianity, it includes all religions. Or at least this government would try to destroy religion. As for the success of this goal, well thats pretty far up in the air. However, that is irrelevant. The real matter is how they will go about this. Will they try diplomacy or skip straight to violence? How do they expect to rule without any sort of religion or belief system to hold everyone together? These are the questions that scare me.

Abortion

Question posed by Mr. Dyck:The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Answer: The question isn't what about the women, the question is what is the unborn? Sure, if you admit that the unborn are not human, then yes, forcing a women to take the baby to term would be a violation of their rights. However, when you throw out the humanity of the unborn, you must also throw out the scientific law of biogenesis, which states that things procreate after their own kind, causing a fetus to be just as human as a two year old. So then, you find yourself at an impass, on the one hand you don't want to admit that a fetus is human, but on the other there is scientific fact that it would have to be. Oh, by the way, there are only four differences between a newborn and a fetus. Those differences are size, level of development, environment, and dependency. Let's analyze these differences. If size is makes someone more human, then Shaq is more human than Hilary Clinton and therefore has the right to kill her. The simple fact that Shaq is taller than Hilary Clinton has no bearing on Hilary's humanity. Now then, what of level of development? If this were true then a seventh grader is more human than a two year old and should have every right to kill the younger child because they are more developed. Again, not a valid argument, because any seventh grader that kills a two year old is tried and convicted of either murder of man slaughter. Environment has no bearing either. If you are on an airplane do you cease being you? Of course not. Leaving dependency. If dependent people aren't human than we should kill all people dependent on insulin, oxygen, ect. My brother happens to be a type 1 diabetic, which means he needs insulin to survive. Does that make him less human than me? Certainly not. So, in truth, there really are no substantial arguments for a fetus as not a human being. So, returning to the asked question, making abortion legal is not adding a right to women. It's taking the right of an innocent, undefended child. If the government were to make abortion illegal once again, it wouldn't be taking away a woman's right, but protecting that of the child. That doesn't mean that the next step is for the government to force women to undergo contraception and sterilization. That would be a violation of rights and therefore unconstitutional. The question at hand is not if women have the right to have an abortion, it's what about the child? What about the human being killed? What is the unborn? The law of biogenesis would say that the unborn are human, and the four main differences between an unborn fetus and a newborn baby are trivial. Abortion is not a right that women have. It's murder.

Law #4

Read the following article
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Critical+Legal+Studies
then read Deuteronomy 10:12-19, Jeremiah 22:3, Micah 6:8, and James 1:27. What is the difference between how the word "equality" and "justice" are used? How should we as Christians "do justice'?

Answer: The difference of how the words equality and justice are used is the context in which they are used. In article they are used as terms that describe what certain people are after, whereas in the Bible they are used as terms that are physically applicable to every human being. The way we Christians "do justice" is by seeing people in need, i.e. orphans and widows, and lending a hand where they need it. For instance, last year my neighbors husband died of kidney failure. She has been left to take care of four dogs, an acre of property and a class A motor home. Every now and then she'll give me a call and ask me for help with something, and no matter where I am, I stop and work out a time that I can go over and help her. Sometimes it's immediate and sometimes its the next day, but the point is that I don't leave my neighbor in need hanging. I help whenever and with whatever I can. That is how Christian's "do justice" to other. We see someone in need and we help in whatever way we can, whenever we can. Sometimes that might be simply praying for a person we know to be unsaved. Other times it may involve helping someone who doesn't know they need it. Or it may be getting a couple of people together and cleaning up an elderly persons yard. Whatever the need is, we as Christian's are called to help where we can.

Law #3

Question posed by Mr. Dyck on dougswhirldviews.blogspot.com: There is much debate today about Shari'a law. What are the differences between the Islamic view and approach to law and the Christian view and approach to law?
Answer: Shari'a law is very violent. If you are caught stealing you lose your hand. If caught again you lose the other one. Thats the idea of Shari'a law, taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth to a whole new level. Christians on the other hand believe that the punishment should be equal to the crime. Like the death penalty for murders or life in prison for a rapist. However, we don't go as far as to cut off the theifs hands because we believe that the human body is the holy image of God. So, how do we deal with theive? Just smack them on the wrist and say bad boy? No, we treat them with loving understanding but still punish them for their crimes. Things like community service or a few days in prison, with rehab after and someone to disciple them in what is right and wrong.

Law

Question posed by Sarah, friend of Doug who is a friend of mine: Are governments the ultimate authority for creating laws?

Answer: Now that depends of the government. If we are talking about the governments of today, then the answer is no. However, if we are referring to the Theocrisy of ancient Israel, then yes in that case the governing power was the final authority upon the law. The reason that ancient Israel is the only real place in which this sort of statement could be true is that they were ruled by God. God, by nature, is all powerful and perfect, thus making Him he ultimate authority. Yet as soon as God is rejected as the ultimate authority and humans step in to try and fill that role, pride becomes involved so that man believes himself to be the ultimate power. In Exodus 16, God is talking to Moses about what the Israelites are to believe in. He is showing kindness to Israel, even when they choose to complain of his cruelty. Only God knew what was best for them. That concept is true with us today. Governments are faulty because of the human factor. What is the human factor? The human factor is man's innate sinful nature due to the Fall. The moment Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the human factor came into existence. Part of the human factor is to be unbelievably cruel to one another. This we see exemplified in totalitarian dictatorships, monarchies and oligarchies. How so? We see that when a single man, or even a small group of men, are given unlimited power they become greedy and cruel. Examples of this are Julius Ceasar, Fidel Castro, Sadam Hussane and many others. These men were entrusted with unlimited power. With time they became greedy and began to abuse their powers in order to further their greedy needs. Man will never be able to be the ultimate authority when it comes to governing other men. God must somehow fit into the process in order for the society that is being created or reformed to stand free and honest.

Feminism

Question posed by the honorable Mr. Dyck: How should Christian's respond to feminism?

Answer: Christian's should respond the same to feminism as they should to homosexuality: with patient love. Granted, feminism does seem to go against the Biblical view of male and female roles, but that doesn't give us the right to go bashing on it. Just because they believe something that we may not think is true doesn't give us the authority to cram it down their throats. Come on, lets be honest, how many "Bible bashers" do you know that are successful? Sure, we have the truth, but how could shoving it in someone's face help them understand it? The same applies to feminist. If all's we do is cram our ideology down their throats, their going to view us as enemies and we'll get absolutely no where in arguments. However, if we were to patiently listen to them and what they believe, then we would be able to understand where their coming from. This approach also opens up for them to want to listen to what we have to say. As for their ideas, there are some flaws such as calling themselves a minority. There is just over 1.5 million women in the United States alone. That's just about half of the population. Now I wouldn't call that being a minority. As for oppression, sure there are the guys who beat their wives and that kind of thing, but honestly are you really going to apply that stereotype to all guys? Not every man expects his wife to stay at home. Not every man abuses her. Therefore, this argument is not entirely valid. As for the "I'm oppressed because I can't do what I want to do" argument I'll say this: no one is making you stay home and take care of the kids or forbidding you to go and get a career. A lot of the time women stay home because they want to be around their children. Men aren't forcing them to. I say go ahead and get a career if you want to. Now don't get me wrong, there are some situations where the man is overbearing and does try to force a women to stay at home. To this there is a simple solution: leave. However, if the man makes enough to support the woman and their children, then I don't see why the woman would need to get a job. Sure, extra money is nice, but most kids that grow up without some sort of solid mother figure become messed up later on. A lot of them go on to commit crimes and abuse women. I know that's kind a dirty trick, bring the kids into this, but it's true. In closing, I think the proper response to feminism is to listen patiently to what they have to say before trying to cram your own ideology gown their throats.

Sexist? Homophobic?

Discussion topic posed by the honorable Mr. Dyck: One of the charges frequently made against followers of Christ is that the church is sexist and homophobic. While there are some who this may be true of, how would you respond to the charge that the Bible teaches this?

Response: The Bible certainly does not teach either of these philosophies. Granted that it calls woman mans helper, but in the Bible it teaches husbands to cherish their wives. The teachings of the Bible also frown uppon abuse of the family, especially of a wife. As for homosexuality, God is very firm in His stating it as a sin. However, that does not make Christians homophobic. Leviticus 19:18 says, "You shall not take vengenance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."(NKJ) Jesus qoutes this passage in Matthew 22, when he is asked what the greatest commandment. He first lists that we should love the Lord our God. But then he says that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. He didn't say only if their straight. Or only love your neighbor if he's a man. He didn't say, love your neighbor unless he/she is homosexual or chooses to live a sinful lifestyle. He simply says that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Who then is my neighbor? A neighbor is someone who has a problem, of which I am aware and have the means to fix. Therefore, homosexuals are our neighbors because they have a need, of which we are aware and we have the means to help them. But what if they scare me? That's good. They should scare you because of their deviation from the norm of human sexuality. However, that does not give you the right to reject them completly. We are called in Matthew 28 to, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..." Therefore, Christians cannot claim to be so and hold to sexism or homophobia, for it is directly against the words of God.

Sociology

Question posed by the honorable Mr. Dyck: should the state (government) be involved in parenting?

Answer: I would have to say no. It's a violation of a man's right to priviacy given to them by the Constitution. However, that only applies to democracies. Still, I don't feel the state should have any control over what you can or cannot teach your kids, unless it obviously presents a clear and present danger. Let's take the United States of America as an example. If the state where to force it's way into parenting here, then children would grow up to be robots. No one would think on their own, or do anything because they want to. Everyone would spend their time doing what the government wanted done. It's a violation of mans God given right to freedom. Now, don't misqoute me and say I'm against child protection laws, because I am most certainly not against them. Without these, brutality would reign in multiple households, destroying childhoods and ruining decent behavior. What I'm against is government demanded brainwashing. It cuts out all imagination and ingenuity. It demoralizes people. They have no choice as to what they want to be. This would start to affect other aspects of their lives as well. They aren't smart enough to chose what they want to do in life, then they certainly aren't smart enough to pick their clothes out every morning or decide what school they want to go to. State involvement in parenting would lead to down a path toward dictatorship or socialism. Democracy doesn't have time to be wasting on whether not a child should be taught certain things. Thats a parents job, not the states. The state's job is to keep us safe from other forces in the world that would want to cause us harm. Granted that sometimes it is good for the state to step in when a parent fails. But to be honest, most of the kids that are taken from their parents don't turn out all that great. They run away, they get in fights, their insecure and fall behind in school. In conclusion, the state does not have the right to interfer in parenting, unless it is in the childs best interest to do so.