The White Whole Theory

The scripture in Acts 15 is used by both catholics and protestants (which includes Pentecostals) to argue for a hierarchical structure for church government.  Catholics use this scripture to make Peter the first Pope and protestants use this scripture to make James the leader of the early church, but neither position is supported by reading the scripture.  If we examine the context surrounding the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 and the response of the Apostles and Elders in the council there are some profound ramifications for our current church governmental structure.

The reason for the council was that some men came to antioch teaching that the believers needed to be circumcised as required by the law of Moses to be saved (Acts 15:1).  In reading this scripture there are a couple of things that we need to note:

1. Paul and Barnabus argued with them vehemently about this as they knew this was false teaching.  Some scholars believe that the letter to Galatians was written before Paul went to Jerusalem for the Council and in Galatians Paul was brutal in his dismissal of this teaching.
2. It was the church in Antioch that asked the church in Jerusalem for help with this issue.  An important consideration in why the church in Antioch doing this is that they did not have the New Testament and only Galatians and James where written before the Council.  This means that if the Antioch church was unsure of which was the correct teaching, the Jerusalem Church would have been the logical place to appeal to for help.
3. In Gal 2:11 we find out the Paul confronted Peter because he was not opposing these men who where proclaiming this teaching and started avoiding gentile Christians because of peer pressure.  It is possible and probably likely that this happened while Paul and Barnabus where in Antioch and would understandably have confused the Christians in Antioch if Peter seemed to support them by association even if he didn't actively support their teaching.

When the Council in Jerusalem is held it starts with a lot of discussion then Peter addresses the council reminding them that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Grace.  This allows Paul and Barnabus to tell the council about there missionary Journey and all the wonderful things that God has done among the Gentiles.  After this James speaks to the council giving them his opinion, which the apostles and elders agree with in their letter.   

In examining the response of the apostles and elders we need to note the following:

1. The authority in the letter rests on the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, not the authority of either Peter or James.
2. Neither Peter or James are given any special position in this council other than that they had oppinions that where worthy of noting in scripture.  Any special positon to either of these men is given by us in our interpretation of scripture, based on our experience that church has a hierarchical structure.
3. The question the church in Antioch asked was do we need to be circumcised, yet the response from the Jerusalem Council and ultimately the Holy Spirit is a general one about the Jewish law mentioning only 4 things from the whole of the old testament law.  An important note here is that they didn't mention tithing even though this is in the law and it would have fit with the response that the council gave.
4. So as you can see this passage of scripture gives no support to our current hierarchical church structure where a Senior Pastor rules his little kingdom as he sees fit.  In fact it actively opposes it as the ruling was given by a council of apostles and elders with no mention of any single leader.  

When Christians get involved in politics or think about voting in an election the thing that seems to be the highest priority is the moral standards of the politicians and political parties.  Yet this is at odds with the message of the Gospel.  The message of the gospel is that Jesus had to die on the cross because we were unable to meet the standard that the law required to know God and be like him.  Jesus’ message was one of grace and love for the sinner and open opposition to the Legalistic teachings of the religious leaders.  So if we were to create a political movement based on love what would it look like?

¹If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

1 Corinthians 13: 1-7

¹³ And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13:13

 So what does this well-known scripture tell us about how we should be involved in politics?

1. If we don’t do it in love then it is meaningless and has no eternal value.  All we do is make a loud noise but have no lasting effect.
2. Our involvement must be done with patience and an understanding that not everyone will listen.  We must wait for the opportunities that allow us to get our message across to the public.
3. Our policies need to be kind, we should not support policies that treat people harshly like the current border protection policies of both major parties.  Compassion needs to be a major component of any policies we support.
4. We should not boast about our achievements but let our actions and the results speak for themselves.  The media will want to know about our policies and platform and will provide ample opportunity for us to put forward our position and critique the policies of the other parties.
5. We should not be proud of what we achieve but recognise that anything we do achieve is through God’s grace.
6. We should not be part of the standard political manipulation that tries to shade the truth to match our political goals and thus bring dishonour to us and our opponents.
7. We are not there for our own needs, but to represent the needs of the constituent that elected us.
8. We should be calm and measured in our responses and avoid political grandstanding, i.e. Question Time in the Australian Federal Parliament and the great American filibuster are examples of the kind of behaviour to avoid.  
9. We should not seek revenge when opposing parties manipulate the truth and lie about what we say but depend on God to bring the truth about their behaviour into the light.
10. We need to uphold sound moral standards but we also need to remember that Jesus only gave us two laws under the New Covenant, love God and love your Neighbour.
11. We should support policies that protect and support the disadvantaged in our society and provide them with the opportunities to overcome their circumstances.
12. We need to trust the advice of professionals and academics where it does not disagree with our faith.  This means that we need to have a very good reason to support policies that are against mainstream academic and professional opinion.
13. Our policies need to provide hope and avoid personal attacks.
14. We need to persevere and not react to every wind that blows in the news cycle.

And remember our purpose in being involved in politics is not to achieve power and become the government but to show through our words and actions that Jesus is alive.

When equality is talked about it is mostly talked about in terms of a person's right to be able to do something.  The argument generally takes the form of X group has been denied Y right.  While this often has positive results, this form of argument generally leads to those who disagree with the argument made, being labelled as haters whether or not they have a valid point.  This results in a politicised debate that degenerates into supporters calling those who oppose them as haters, silencing any rational reasoned debate on the issue in a bid to obtain the rights that they see as theirs.

For me the root of the problem is that what they are fighting for is not equality just the right to be able to do something.  This right to be able to do something I like to call functional equality as opposed to inherent equality.  Inherent Equality is true equality and is the recognition that we are all born equal. No matter where we are born, what our skin colour, our social status or our skills and talents we are all inherently equal and the ability to be able to do the same things as other people is not going to make us more or less equal with someone else.

That is not to say that the things that people fight for in the name of equality are not necessary.  A lot of the changes that have come about as a result of people fighting for functional equality have been necessary and made our society better.  The problem is that the granting of rights does not change the underlying cause of these problems in society.  To change the cause of these problems requires people to recognise that we are all born equal no matter our race, sex or social status and that requires a change of heart.

And changing hearts is what Christianity is all about.

Romans 3:23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.

but,

Ezekiel 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit in you. I will take out your stony, stubborn heart and give you a tender, responsive heart.

then,

Galations 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture quotes from (2004-07-01). Holy Bible Text Edition NLT. Tyndale House Publishers.

Open Source Web Data Management System

• Data source management, add and manage multiple data sources.
• Automated form builder, data sources can be used to automatically generate forms that will add or update data in the data source.
• LDAP and OATH authentication, integrate the authentication of Eldar Works with your external authentication system.
• Online and Offline report generation.
• Full featured Content Management System.
• Data source subscription, subscribe to other peoples data sources and publish your own data sources.

Has Christ been divided into factions? 1 Cor 1:13a
When I have read that question in 1 Corinthians I have always read it as applying to a local community of believers, but the Body of Christ is not just a local congregation but the universal church. If we change the question to, 'Has Christ been divided into denominations?' The answer is obviously still no, yet we as the Body of Christ accept the status quo and make no effort to change it. Yet, Jesus in his prayer in John 17 asks:
²⁰ "I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. ²¹ I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one-as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. John 17:20-21
When the world looks at us I don't think they see a fulfilment of that scripture, they see many denominations and organisations that are often divided and sometimes even in conflict.
So how did we get here and what do we do about the situation? For anyone who knows even a little bit of church history how we got here is obvious. From the reformation onwards, every time God has restored a truth to his church the old has always fought the new and we have ended up with one or more new denominations. What we do about the situation is not as easy, but I think it must start with recognition that the line between human organisations created to serve the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God has become blurred. In believers minds when you talk about the Church there is no distinction between the people, the community of believers and the human organisation that allows leaders to serve the Church.
Why is this distinction important? It's important first of all because it's the truth, but there are also a number of practical outcomes. Firstly no matter how good the organisation is and how much it has done for the Kingdom it is still a human organisation that has responsibilities that can be at odds with the work of the Kingdom. Secondly we cannot serve two masters so if the needs of the organisation come into conflict with the needs of the Kingdom then one of them will loose and we will end up hating either the organisation or the church except we see no difference between the two. Lastly and probably most important of all it means that the organisation is not submitted to the Body of Christ and can effectively do what it likes without fear of discipline because there is no one that they are responsible to. An example of this is the discussion over homosexuality that occurred in some traditional church organisations. These organisations where not submitted to the Body of Christ as a whole so the collective church leadership had no authority to tell the organisations that they were out of line.
So what practically should we do about this? Well nothing immediately except be willing to let God change our organisations when he tells us to. This is such a massive undertaking that only God can do it and when it happens you will only be able to call it a miracle. I definitely look forward to seeing God do it.