By the way, since the seminar is 30$/person plus hotel, “Limited Resources” does not mean limited funds but zero to a few talentless instrumentalists (though one probably begets the other).

I have decided that I am going to be a good Christian and undercut my brothers and sisters in North Carolina. For the low price of 20$/person, I will teach you how you can truly worship with limited resource in just 4 simple verses. But wait! That’s not all, if you read this post now, I’ll throw in an extra Scripture verse that proves my bias! Speaking of scripture, let’s see if we can glean some wisdom in its pages on how to Worship with a few talentless instrumentalists.

1. Consider killing your son, but don’t (Abraham and Isaac – Genesis 22)
2. Learn to program a PERL array of hashes (Holy Array – 1 Chronicles 16:29)
3. Make a footstool (Holy Footstool – Psalm 132:7)
4. Be IN God’s spirit (True Worshiper – John 4:23)

And finally, the extra Scripture I promised you comes from Song of Solomon 8:8. Commonly referred to as the “proves everything and anything verse”. Since this is only a 20$ seminar, you’ll have to look it up on your own.

I trust you found this exciting course in Leading Worship with Limited Resources helpful. Be sure to check out my next course, How to Kill Your Enemies and Still Love Them.

Ever wonder why you have an early morning meeting with “Traditional” music and an later meeting with “Modern” music? Well, the older people don’t like the modern music and the younger people don’t like the traditional music. Some people have tried to incorporate both types of music in their meetings. That way they please everyone… but does that just end up annoying everyone?

Think about it, you’ll hear older people complaining about how the newer music is not reverent enough, not respectful… or they just do not “get it”. And the younger generation wants something more hip and upbeat, traditional hymns just bore them. But for the past 200+ years, we’ve traditionally played music during the Sunday morning meetings. We have to play something, right?

I’m not sure that removing music would help, I’m sure that would divide as well. To be honest, I do not know what is the best answer, it seems like no matter what you do, it will cause disunity among the church. I think the ultimate problem is that the people who would be upset are not considering the their brothers and sacrificing their own taste. I think an attitude of sacrifice comes from maturity in Christ. What are your thoughts?

In a recent OpEd in the WSJ by Dr. Albert Mohler about homosexual marriage, Mohler starts by saying, “The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year history. But now it’s facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations: homosexuality.”

So, I wonder, what is Mohler’s foundation? It doesn’t appear to be Jesus.

I know Mohler is a follower of Jesus… I am merely using him as an example of two things. 1) We ought to be careful of the words we use when we try to spark emotional reactions from people and 2) We ought to be able to discern hype when we read it. In fact, I seriously doubt Mohler actually believes that homosexuality is shaking the foundations of Christianity.

Check it out, let us know what you think!

When we read the bible, it’s fascinating to find that something is missing that we probably would not expect. What’s missing? The answer is that when the church gathers together, preaching is missing.

His writing is probably much better, much softer, much more humble than I could write about the same topic. You can tell he has put a lot of thought into this idea. The idea that there is no model for “preaching” when the Church gathers together.

As I do, Eric, rejects the belief that Acts 2-4, 20:7, Timothy 4:2 or even the Old Testament can be used to support our modern tradition.

So, what does this mean? How should we respond to this idea?

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. – Exodus 20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11

A friend of mine posted a status update on his Facebook wall, where he called into question the use of the acronym OMG (Oh My God) by Christians and its apparent condemnation in Scripture. Unfortunately he had to delete his status update because so many of his friend were offended, feeling like they had been called out for breaking the Second Commandment.

I have a few thoughts on this topic and I would like to share them. I do not believe “God” is God’s name. In fact, a good theology teacher would admit to you that we do not really know what his name is. According to most, it seems to be YHWH which is usually pronounced Yahweh (Ya-Way). This comes from Exodus 3:14. There are no vowels in written Hebrew — well there weren’t any vowels when the Old Testament was written. So the pronunciation of YHWH is a tradition. Most decent theologians should admit that the true pronunciation of YHWH is lost. Many believe that the Jewish nation was so afraid of using God’s name in vain, that they used the vowel sounds of the Hebrew word for Lord and transposed them onto YHWH which is where we get Yahweh. They did this to be extra careful not to actually say his name (in case it was in vain).

There is one other place in Scripture where God refers to himself by name. But it is not YHWH, if you look at Exodus 34:14 God says, “for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” God’s name might not actually be “Jealous” it could be a “you are what you eat” thing. You can call God, Jealous, because he is jealous. I am not going to get into what he is jealous of or even if it is his actual name, it’s merely an interesting place in Scripture where he names himself.

Presently, we refer to God as “God” and treat that as if it were his real name — but it clearly isn’t. So I have a couple of questions…

1. Is saying OMG breaking the 2nd Commandment? In other words, is the mere reference to God breaking the 2nd commandment if it is done in vain?
2. Is saying OMG but meaning “Goodness” or “Gosh” more acceptable?

I would love to hear your input on this. I am really torn on this subject. Personally, I try not say “God” in vain… but I am not entirely convinced that it is wrong either.

Usually at this point on this series, I would discuss the various mistranslations from the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures or the obvious transliterations. However, I cannot do this for the word “pulpit.” Why? Because there is no word in Scripture, whether old or new, that equates to pulpit. Not a single word, either translated or transliterated, will bring you to our current practice of using a pulpit.

Believe it or not, I have actually heard a “biblical” defense of the pulpit before. There is a single verse in  Scripture, Nehemiah 8:4-8, which reads:

Ezra the scribe stood at a wooden podium which they had made for the purpose. . . . Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. . . . Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with {their} faces to the ground. . . . They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.

I do not believe this is a biblical defense for pulpits though… that’s like saying that we should all use nets because in scripture John used a net.

I’m going to ask you; how did a piece of furniture get so highly elevated in our faith that we frown upon people who misuse (or don’t use) it?

Deacon is a really good word for this series because it is more than just a meaningless word. In Christendom we have whole theologies built around the idea of the deacon office. But do we really understand what a deacon is? The word “deacon” occurs five times in the NKJV (Philemon 1:1 & 1 Timothy 3:8,10,12,13). However, the word itself is a transliteration of the Greek word, “διακονος”. διακονος (and it’s verb version διακονεω) occur in the New Testament a total of 66 times. Basically, around 7% of the time, the word is transliterated (or added to the translation)… obfuscating the true definition of the word. According to BDAG the meaning of διακονος is:

1. one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, agent, intermediary, courier
2. one who gets somethign done, at the behest of a superior, assistant

and the meaning of διακονεω (the verb form) is:

1. to function as an intermediary, act as go-between/agent, be at one’s service
2. to perform obligations,
2a. perform duties, render assistance, serve
2b. wait on someone at table
3. to meet an immediate need, help
4. to carry out official duties, minister
5. care for, take care of

The Facts

1. διακονος (n.) occurs in the Greek New Testament 29 times
   • Translated “servant” (and it’s derivatives) 18 times – NKJV.
   • Translated “minister” (and it’s derivatives) 8 times – NKJV.
   • Transliterated “deacon” (and it’s derivatives) 3 times – NKJV.
2. διακονεω (v.) occurs in the Greek New Testament 37 times.
   • Translated “serve” (and it’s derivatives) 20 times – NKJV.
   • Translated “ministered” (and its derivatives) 14 times – NKJV.
   • Translated “administered” twice (2 Corinthians 8:19,20) – NKJV.
   • Translated “provided” once (Luke 8:3) – NKJV.
3. 1 Timothy 3 has the word διακονος twice, in 3:8 and 3:12.
   • Both times it is transliterated as “deacon”, but in 4:6, it is translated as “servant” or “minister”.
4. 1 Timothy 3 has the word διακονεω twice, in 3:10, 3:13.
   • In 3:10, the word διακονος is not in the Greek at all, yet the translators felt it was necessary to add “as deacons” after “let them serve”. Where “serve” is the actual translation of the word διακονεω.
   • Similarly with 3:13, the word διακονος is not in the Greek at all. The translators add “as deacons” after the “for those who served.”
5. Jesus was called a διακονος (Romans 15:8).
6. Paul was called a διακονος (1 Corinthians 3:5, 6; Ephesians 3:7; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:23,25).
7. Jesus came to διακονεω (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27).

Conclusion

Based on my research and studies, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a “deacon” in the traditional sense of the word. A “deacon” is merely a servant, not an office to hold. The noun and verb in the Greek is translated “serve” 38 times, “minister” at least 22 times (25 if you count “administered” and “provided”). Only 3 times is it transliterated as “deacon” and twice it is added to the English text. So why did the translators believe that they should not translate the word in those places? Frankly, I find this very disturbing.

So, for all of you churchers who argue about deacons during business meetings. I’m sorry to tell you, you’ve wasted a lot of time. A “deacon” is not an office, it’s not someone who is voted on, a deacon is the person next to you who has been serving you and ministering to your needs. A deacon is the person who does not care about the title “deacon” as much as they care about the needs of those around them.

You see, the word “baptize” is not actually a real English word. It is a transliterated word and like “church” was used by King James as a form of deception. When you use a word that has no meaning, you can assign any meaning you want to it. Then you require a professionally trained individual to tell you what it means. Of course, the word “baptize” for 1500 years has been twisted and distorted and even today, there are people who misuse or mistranslate it.

According to Merriam Webster, baptize means:

1 : to administer baptism to
2 a : to purify or cleanse spiritually especially by a purging experience or ordeal b : initiate
3 : to give a name to (as at baptism) : christen

And, baptism means:

1 a : a Christian sacrament marked by ritual use of water and admitting the recipient to the Christian community b : a non-Christian rite using water for ritual purification c Christian Science : purification by or submergence in Spirit
2 : an act, experience, or ordeal by which one is purified, sanctified, initiated, or named

βαπτιζω in the Greek means literally the “act of immersion or dipping”. It does not mean, “to immerse in water”. It only means “to immerse,” however, in the context of water, it would mean that you immerse in water. Similar, in the context of fire, it would mean that you immerse in fire. It can be used to describe a ship sinking, washing your hands, or even washing your dishes.

The Facts

1. The word “baptize” (and it’s derivatives, including baptism, baptist, etc.) occurs 106 times in the NASB.
2. βαπτιστης (the noun form for Baptist or “Baptizer”) occurs 14 times in the Greek and is always in reference to John the “Baptist”.
3. βαπτιζω (the verb form for “Baptize”) occurs 77 times in the Greek New Testament. In Mark 7:4 it is referring to ceremonial washing; Luke 3:16 “he will baptize you with the holy spirit and with fire”; Luke 11:38 refers to ceremonial washing of hands before dinner; and more.
4. βαπτισμα (the noun form for “Baptism”) occurs 22 times in the New Testament and is always transliterated as “baptism”.
5. βαπτισμος (another noun form for “Baptism”) occurs 4 times in the New Testament, is transliterated as “baptism” once in Col 2:12; and refers to ceremonial washing or other washing in Mark 7:4, Hebrews 6:2, 9:10.

Conclusion

I have a pretty big problem with transliterations. Mainly because they do not mean anything to the reader. Actually, they mean a great deal to the reader. For instance, to a Catholic the transliteration of “baptize” means, “an infant who had water poured on its head to wash away its original sin so that if it dies it will spend less time in purgatory.” But baptize, literally means “immerse”. Now, this post is not about which modes of baptism are acceptable in God’s eyes, frankly, just because the word means “immersion” does not mean (to me) that people who are “sprinkled” are not real Christians. Why? Well because there is a ceremonial definition to the word Baptism. It is a symbolic act done as a proclamation of your acceptance of Jesus’ gift and acknowledgment that he has purified your soul.

I believe “immersion”, “dipping”, or “washing” are suitable translations in replacement of our current transliterations. As BDAG puts it, “the transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing, but the need of qualifying statements or contextual coloring in the documents indicates that the term ‘baptize’ was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests.”

As it turns out, I was talking to Alan Knox about this post and he reminded me of some research he posted on his blog about the word βαπτιζω. Here are some links to his series on Baptism:

• Baptism in the LXX
• Baptism in Philo
• Baptism in Josephus
• Water baptism in the New Testament
• Other Baptism in the New Testament
• Ambiguous Baptism in the New Testament

As Alan’s research shows “we must recognize the importance of context in understanding the meaning of the verb. The verb does not always mean ‘to submerge under water’.”

Because there are words in our Bibles that are not valid translations, it causes confusion and goes against the very nature of scripture. Our Old Testament scriptures were written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic), the language of the Israelites. Our New Testament scriptures were written in what is called “Common Greek”. In other words, our scriptures were written in the languages of the people. Remove ourselves from those languages, put in 2000 years of mixed up Christian history and you get translations and other doctrine that is full of words and terms written for professionally trained or educated individuals.

So, back to the word “church”. What does it mean? Where does it come from? Well, the English word for ‘church’ actually comes from the German word “Kirche” which is a translation of the Greek word “kuriakon”. Kuriakon means “belonging to the Lord” but was eventually used to designate buildings.

So, what’s the problem? Well, I’m not finished yet. You see, the word “church” in the Bible is never being used to translate the word “Kuriakon”. Instead, it’s being used to translate the Greek word “ekklesia”. The word “ekklesia” does not mean “belonging to the Lord” it means “assembly” or “congregation” — that’s it. You see, King James told the translators to use “church” to translate “ekklesia” instead of using “congregation” or “assembly” which was used by some of the earlier translation. Oh, if anyone tells you “ekklesia” means “called out ones” punch them square in the mouth.

The Facts

1. The word “kuriakon” which again means “belonging to the Lord” occurs twice in the New Testament. It is not translated “church” in either case (1 Corinthians 11:20 & Revelation 1:10).
2. The word “church” occurs 112 times in the NASB. It is never a translation of the word “kuriakon” (from which is it derived).
3. The word “ekklesia” occurs 115 times in the New Testament. It is translated “church” 112 times, “congregation” 2 times, and 1 time it is translated “assembly”.

Conclusion

I hope you see where I am going with this. The word “church” does not actually exist, it is meaningless. In fact, it was originally used as a form of deception! We held onto the word because of tradition (and maybe because of more deception). We have used the word “church” to mean the building, the time, pretty much everything except what the Scriptures actually intended. The rest of this series will be about these nonsensical words. Hopefully we will all to stop using them and replace them with words that actually mean what God intended when he inspired these writings.

First, using ice in an already cold drink is not economical. I have never been served a warm beverage at any restaurant. They use ice, refrigerators, and more to keep their beverages cool. This is one of two only acceptable uses of ice. Putting ice in your drink will keep it cooler longer, yes, but how often do you let a drink sit out for hours on end? I have never been to a restaurant and thought to myself, “Boy, this drink sure did get warm fast”. It just doesn’t happen.

Second, the act of putting ice in a drink can be linked to sin in Scripture. I’ve already explained in my first point that there is no reason to put ice in a drink. Yet restaurants around the U.S. continue to do so. Why is this? I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I believe it is to make more money on drink purchases. The more ice in your glass, the smaller serving of drink you actually get. You paid 2$ for a glass of Coke, but what you got was a glass of water with some Coke to fill in the cracks. Not only are you paying an exorbitant price for soda, you’re getting a glass filled with water instead.  The practice of watering down wine in the Bible was considered a bad thing, as the Lord says, “Your silver has become dross, Your drink diluted with water” (Isaiah 1:22, NASB).

Third, ice ruins the flavor of the drink. This is a common complaint about ice and it is a proper complaint. If I order a soda, it already contains the proper water to other ingredient ratio. Adding more ice to it waters it down as the ice melts. Then I am no longer drinking my favorite drink, I’m drinking a watered down version of it. The phrase “watered down” is never a good one.

Fourth, ice always gets in the way of taking a good hearty swig. Maybe I am the only person who hast his difficulty, but when there is ice in my drink, I feel like I’m having to battle the ice to get a good gulp in. Either I’m having to push the ice away with my upper lip or I am twisting the cup around trying to find an opening. Further, when the ice starts to melt and get tiny, I always end up drinking little bits of ice. It is uncomfortable, too cold, and just awkward. It is really quite unbearable, why do people voluntarily put themselves through this?

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not want to be seen as a legalist. There are some acceptable uses for ice. As I mentioned above, you can use ice to keep things cool, like in a cooler, or an ice pack. Also, if you must have ice, it is acceptable to put ice in water. Reasons 1, 2, and 3 for not using ice cannot apply to water. It’s not watering it down, your not get less than you paid for, and generally ice water is cooler than tap water. Of course you still have to deal with a glacier in your face every time you take a swig, but hey, get a straw. In the U.S. today, there is practically no reason to use ice. Ice had it’s day in the sun before modern day refrigeration practices came on the scene. But most reasonable uses of ice are quickly melting away.

I generally fall in line with the “regards every day alike” category. Sunday is no more special to me than Saturday or Tuesday or Friday. If you think Sunday is a special day, than that is fine with me. However, one thing has me perturbed about our Sunday tradition as Christians. From my experience, there is usually a pretty high emphasis on attending Sunday morning church meetings. A lot of Christians believe it is wrong to work on Sunday because it interferes with meeting on Sunday mornings. These same people often times attribute the command to rest on the Sabbath (Saturday) with resting on Sunday (not the Sabbath). But many of these same people have a tradition of going out to eat after their church meetings on Sunday. Of course this means that they are in essence supporting the working class on a day that they feel it is wrong to work on.

So, if you believe it is wrong to work on Sunday, do you support other people working on Sunday? If so, how do you justify this?

The preacher said, “In your walk as a Christian, if the world doesn’t hate you, then you should think about your walk.” (or something to that affect)

I’ve heard these sentiments before, in fact, I once agreed with them. There are some scriptures that might even support this idea. But the reason I disagree with this is because I do not think it is a hard-and-fast rule – in either direction.

When I was listening to this preacher, I thought back to everything I’ve read about Jesus, everything in Scripture. I remembered Jesus hanging out with the people who we think should hate us – but they didn’t seem to hate him. Oh, there were people who hated Jesus… the religious people hated him. Especially the religious leaders. You might argue that the governmental leaders hated him too, but I think it’s safer to say they were just trying to keep the peace.

Now, later on, the government persecuted the Christians. Even today some governments persecute Christians. With these persecutions you will see common folk who hate Christians. Not because of the Gospel, but because of their dedication to their government’s ideals.

So, after listening to this preacher, I’ve further developed my opinion about our interaction with the world. We’re not called to be hated, we’re called to follow Jesus’ example.

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

- 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

This I Now Believe:

1. I used to believe it was my job to judge others, but now I believe that I can only judge myself. Jesus spent so much time correcting the thinking of the Jewish Elders. They had a law and used it to condemn one-another, Jesus taught them (and us) that the law was really meant to be used to judge ourselves. Today, we use the New Testament “laws” to judge others… I can’t help but think that maybe Jesus intends for us to use those “laws” to judge ourselves.

2. I used to believe that a pastor was a paid position, but now I believe that there is no Scriptural support for paying a pastor a salary. I have dealt with some of this in previous posts. After studying Scripture, considering context, and reconsidering my previous position, I have come to the opinion that it is more of a hinderance than a help to pay a pastor a salary. I am not saying that people are wrong or sinning by taking part in this activity just that from my studies I do not believe it is a best practice.

3. I used to believe that the SBC was the most Scriptural denomination, but now I believe that the SBC is equal to all other denominations. The SBC has positive traits about it and negative traits about it. Some things the SBC does are more inline with Scripture than other denominations, and others are way off base. Afterall, the SBC is run by men and with men comes error. By the way, it is not my intention to pick on the SBC in this post… but the SBC is the one denomination that I have the closest affiliation with and know the most about.

4. I used to believe that women were not qualified to teach men, but now I believe that women are both qualified and capable of teaching men. Truth be told, I do not have a fully formed opinion about what Scripture (esp. Paul) is teaching us in regards to women and men. I have read compelling arguments on both sides. I currently lean towards the idea that women are not forbidden from teaching men – for at least a couple reasons. First, in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28). Second, I have been taught and blessed by many women, especially my wife.

5. I used to believe that it was a sin to drink wine/alcohol, but after reading Scripture I realized that not only is wine/alcohol not forbidden it is condoned and actually encouraged in some instances by the Father and Jesus! (Deut. 14:26, Prov. 31:6, John 2:1-10) The only thing that is ever condemned in scripture regarding alcohol its misuse.

6. I used to believe that God had called me to become a vocational pastor, but now since I believe that is it a hindarence to receive a salary from those people that you lead, I believe that God may have called me to be a pastor, but one who works with his hands – just as Paul gave us as an example. (Acts 20:34-35, 1 Thes. 4:11, 2 Thes., 2 Thes. 3:7-11)

7. I used to believe that Christians go to Heaven when they die, but now I believe that Christians go to Paradise when they die. I believe there is a difference between the two. I have a hard time seeing any place in Scripture that indicates that any Christian goes to Heaven after life. I could be completely wrong, but my studies have led me to believe that when we die we go into a place of Paradise (perhaps a place of non-Paradise for non-Believers)… then at the End of Days we will be judged, the new Earth will be formed, and we will forever abide on the new Earth with Jesus.

8. I used to believe that maturity came from going to all the church services, but now I believe that many Church-goers are very immature in their walk with Christ. Not because they don’t want maturity, but because they are never given an opportunity to grow. Sure we give them programs to join and Bible studies to attend, but real growth comes from following Jesus, by encouraging one-another, edifying one-another, teaching one-another. I see a lack of growth in today’s church structures because there is usually only a few men who are given the opportunity to follow the “one-another” commands in Scripture.

9. I used to believe the Bible was inerrant and infallible, but now I believe that the Bible is neither inerrant nor infallible. I have wrote a series about this in the past. But let me try to sum up my position here. The Bible is a collection of works, scripts, and manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts have errors, misprints, different words/layouts, etc. When we look at all of this evidence we are only ~99% sure of the content of the NT and ~95% sure of the content of the OT. Many would say, “Yes but the remaining % does not effect our Theology”. To which I would respond, fine – but it’s still not a perfect document. In order for something to be considered inerrant and infallible, it needs to be perfect. Our Bibles without translation are not perfect and our Bibles with translation are even less perfect. I believe that Scripture is inerrant and infallible – we don’t have the original manuscripts, but we do have the Holy Spirit to help us and guide us. If we stopped relying on an imperfect document and started to rely on a perfect God to teach us, then perhaps we’d be much better off.

10. I used to believe that the SBC believed that the Bible was inerrant and infallible, but now I believe that like many denominations the SBC interprets and translates certain verses to suit their theology. We all do it, we want to believe something so we use the Bible to justify that belief – whether it is in context or not. When we do this though, it goes against any statement of belief about the authority of that document. We are what we eat, in a sense.

11. I used to believe that worship meant singing a few songs about God, but now I believe that worship comes from following and obeying God. We truly worship when we do what he has asked us to do. Don’t worry though, this could be by singing… but it may also be by feeding the homeless, being a good steward, etc.

12. I used to believe that people went to Hell because of their sins, but now I believe that Scripture never once says that people go to Hell for their sins. In fact, there is Scripture that says that Jesus covered the sins of the world. Why then do people go to Hell? The single verse in Scripture that talks about why people go to Hell says that people who are not found in the Lamb’s Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire. Is that because of their sin or because of their rejection of Christ as Savior or perhaps something else?

13. I used to believe that Scripture taught us to tithe, but now I see that the tithe was a system for the Jewish nation. They had a class of priests who were not allow to own any possessions. The Jews also had a sin problem. To deal with these two things, the Jews had to make a sacrifice and the priests ate that sacrifice. But Jesus was the final sacrifice and he summoned the Kingdom of Priests (us). It seems rather absurd to me to think that we need to continue the practice of tithing, when the problem of sin has been dealt with and since all believers are Priests.

14. I used to believe that fellowship happened by sitting next to others without any interaction, but now I believe that fellowship happens when we consider one-anothers needs, when we encourage one-another, when we teach one-another, etc. Fellowship is not running around pews for 30 seconds trying to shake as many hands as possible. Fellowship is much deeper and much more meaningful.

15. I used to believe that going to seminary made me a better Christian, but now I believe that going to seminary only made me more knowledgeable (and not necessarily about the ways of Christ). I am very grateful for the education I received from The College at Southeastern. However, it did not make me a better Christian, it did not make me more important than the other Children of God. Although, before I went, I truly believed that it was important and required to be a good Christian. Since then, I have learned that God’s expectations are not often the same as man’s expectations.

So, I hope you enjoyed my two meme’s. If you would like to do your own, I would recommend combinding them into a “This I Used to Believe… This I Now Believe” format. If you decide to to this, then please post a link in my comments so that I may read them. I look forward to hearing from you.

So, this is what I used to believe:

1. I used to believe it was my job to judge other people’s sins.
2. I used to believe that a pastor was a paid position.
3. I used to believe the SBC was the most Scriptural denomination.
4. I used to believe that women were not qualified to teach men.
5. I used to believe it was a sin to drink wine/alcohol.
6. I used to believe that God had called me to become a vocational pastor.
7. I used to believe that Christians go to Heaven when they die.
8. I used to believe that maturity came from going to all the church services.
9. I used to believe the Bible was inerrant and infallible.
10. I used to believe that the SBC believed that the Bible was inerrant and infallible.
11. I used to believe that worship meant singing a few songs about God.
12. I used to believe that people went to Hell because of their sins.
13. I used to believe that Scripture taught us to tithe.
14. I used to believe that fellowship happened by sitting next to others without any interaction.
15. I used to believe that going to seminary made me a better Christian.

Well these are 15 things that I used to believe. So please, if you’re reading this, I’d love to read some of the thing that you used to believe. Post them up on your blog and leave a link in my comments. I hope you enjoyed this list!