So how did you take that when you first read it? Did you take the word ‘hurting’ as an adjective (who from my high school would ave known that I would get that one right) and the word “Love” a verb? Or did you take the word ‘hurting’ as the verb and the word ‘love’ as an adverb?

Repeat the phrase so that you can understand it in both contexts.

In the meme, the person representing Jesus is slapping His head, as if in surprised disappointment and probably making the Homer Simpson noise of Doop.

Before Jesus left earth for heaven, He created and instituted the Church and left it in the care of the Elders. The Church has several explicitly stated tasks mentioned in the New Testament and among those are to care for people who are hurting. It is called to care for those hurting physically, emotionally and spiritually. It is to care for those in it’s congregation, in the community and around the world.

The churches today may do an OK job of loving hurting people between 10am – 11am (or whatever hours a congregations worship service occurs or possibly multiple worship services if the congregation is large enough or energetic enough to warrant it). Another words, a church family member or visitor may find some empathy from a congregation during this time. It may be a simple hello and handshake from a person or two (rarely more) and if they do something extreme like rededicate their life or get baptized, they get several handshakes and congratulations as the majority files by them on their way to their cars and on out to Wendy's, because they have to beat the Baptists there or they’ll be waiting in line for a long time on their Sabbath Day. If the congregation is very modern, they might be lucky enough to get invited to the Wendy's with someone and if they are really lucky, someone may remember their name the next time they come to church.

Unfortunately, this is how many people feel the church loves them and I have routinely experienced this ‘love’ also. Virtually no show of interest in the individual outside of the core ‘worship’ time. No interest in them is given until they don’t come back for a week or two, at which time, someone may remember that someone that sat near them, whom they may or may not have shaken hands with, hadn’t been back since some event. If an individual has been a part of he congregation for years, it may take months before someone misses them. Of course noticing ones absence still isn’t a the same as making an attempt at reaching out or communicating.

Honestly, I don’t know why a lot of people return to a congregation more than a time or two the way they are treated. A congregation tells the person that they love them, usually only from the pulpit or from the weekly news sheet that is pretty much the same information for the whole quarter. They aren’t shown love, well actually they are shown the love to expect, that they expect or anticipate based on their Bible reading but rather based on their own or their family and friends experiences.

People expect that the church will show love by interacting with them, showing interest in them personally, inviting them to their small groups and Bible studies, being mentored when they rededicate their lives or get baptized. People expect to shown or let into places where they can use their talents in ministry and to be encouraged that they do indeed have a talent (at least one) that the Lord gave them and wants them to use.

But unfortunately, most people visiting a church are left to their own devices and interruptions, which often are incorrect. They expect God to be like a magic genie that does their bidding because no one teaches or corrects them. They think that they are going to whisked into the folds of the congregation and that all problems are just going to disappear. Why would they think any different? Even a to of the Sunday Schools and Bible studies don’t correct but let them continue on in their misunderstanding and possibly drag others down in the process due to the lack of the studies leadership and confidence.

Besides the direct no-care-itice(?) mentioned above, there are probably many more indirect reasons. Although I don’t like to pin all church problems on the preacher, if the preacher is going to be the ‘face of the church’, then he has to take responsibility.

For example, I’ve questioned preachers as to why the congregation doesn’t follow up with visitors and the response has been because the visitors don’t always leave contact information. Obviously, the current method for getting visitor information isn’t effective and could be changed. Of course, just telling someone that a change needs to happen isn’t very helpful but suggestions as to how changes could be made is (and were done).

Another avenue of thought maybe that the visitor saw nothing that attracted them to the congregation, but this is construed as offensive and hurtful. I don’t recall the conversation after that, if there was one, but the recent Covid crisis is a good example.

Many churches across the country shut down when told to do so from the government. For a couple of weeks, this was a reasonable demand until scientists and reasonable people could look at numbers, data and social impact. It would have been a great opportunity for congregational office staff to make some personal connections, even if over the phone or by e-mail, to the current members and to visitors over the past X weeks. It doesn’t appear that anything of the sorts happened. Not for myself, my parents, my brothers, aunts, uncles cousins, etc.

Once the government, and at the approval of the preachers and elders apparently from all over the country, a small percentage could gather at a time. Most places of worship separated seating so that only family groups could sit together. There were other very detrimental decisions made that would not have been taken well by visitors, had visitors been invited in. If someone was hurting, which any were, this didn’t show ANY love.

A visitor would be quarantined to a chair by themselves. Heck, members without family were quarantined by themselves. Websites would state that they could only be certain percentage full and that people could view the service on-line if they liked (a lot of churches substituted and still substitute on-line viewing with fellowship). But on-line viewing doesn’t really help those who are hurting.

I’m not sure what the solution(s) should have been for the only X percentage can meet, but for the most part, I saw no local church do anything to comfort it’s congregation let alone visitors. I saw no preachers, who just had a lot of time freed up by ‘not’ being able to do the daily jobs they say they did. In fact, I saw no attempts of any kind of change to a churches routine that may have actually been beneficial to the congregation or visitors. And when I say I saw, I am also referring to my parents, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, etc.

We essentially saw nothing but a bunch of people not ready for the end times but apparently be willing to bow the beast and the new order. That’s a bold statement Roger. It’s a sad statement. But virtually no churches put up a fuss to the lock downs and in regards to the Jan 6, 2021 incident, church leaders and preachers stating that there is never a reason to fight**.

I won’t call people making these statements cowards, as I am pretty sure that many of them would lay their life for a family member, maybe a friend, and possibly a member of their congregation. I’m not sure what the word for them is though.

Roger, thank you for your service. But there’s never a reason to fight, so apparently thank you for nothing. You wasted 9 years of your life, but thank you. Or how about those that fought during the American Revolution? Anyone saying there is never a reason to fight is saying that We should still be under British rule (never mind all the changes that our stupid fight and victory brought through out the world). These people can’t say that Slavery was wrong. If there is never a reason to fight, then not only would the American Civil War have not occurred that ended our slavery, slavery would still be prolific in the World because it was the defeat of the British Empire that signaled the of slavery.

And of the many things that probably show that the church does indeed love to hurt people is to be hypocrites. Congregations shouldn’t be telling people that they love them, that they love hurting people, if they are only going to do so when it’s convenient; which pretty means on Sunday morning slightly before the Worship service and until about 10 minutes. Tell people up front what your love is going to look like. Maybe they’ll get less of a bad taste about Christianity if you just tell them, the truth and then they can look for another congregation if they like. Heck, if you know of a better congregation, let them know as that would be pretty loving.

Certainly don’t pretend. Don’t act interested in their kids if your only interested around VBS time. Don’t stand in the pulpit and instruct people to serve but then not let. Don’t juts place an announcement on the projector screen and think you have asked and advertised for a ministry or event. Don’t ask for veterans and first responders to rise to recognized on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and thank them for their service and then later tell them and the world that there is never a time to fight**.

I’m not sure why Jesus instituted the Church to function the way it does. But He did and I accept it and I’m trying to work within it. Many are. The Church isn’t perfect and the churches certainly are not. The churches are not perfect and one not only needs to understand this, but let others know this. But the church should be striving for perfection and not intentional doing people wrong, and also correcting their ways when they unintentionally do people wrong.

Read the text again, “We Love Hurting People”. Do you love to hurt people or do you love people that are hurting? The congregation (you) doesn’t need to wait for an edict from the preacher or Elders to begin loving people that are hurting; if you aren’t loving people that are hurting, make a change and start. If you love to hurt people, stop it and start showing the love that God and the Father and Jesus Christ shows us in the Bible. If your congregation loves to hurt people and your Elders and Preachers aren’t changing the attitude of the people around, either oust them or find a congregation that is showing love to hurting people.

Noah apparently spent a good portion of his time while constructing the Ark, preaching (2 Peter 2:5). However, despite the available room in the Ark (and I bet that if there wasn’t room, God himself would throw animals off the Ark to make room for people of repentance (he’d probably start with Poodles or Chihuahua). However, when the time came, God shut Noah and his family up in the Ark along with no one else. Lot, who we are told spent a good deal of time at the gates of Sodom and Gomorrah, as a preacher had such an ineffective mission, that ten people, whom Abraham ~negotiated with God to reduce the number of righteous people found would spare the city, that the city was still destroyed. We don’t know how long Lot lived in Sodom but it was apparently several years.

Virtually all the preachers in the Old Testament would not have a good resume if it had to list the number or base their strength on preaching with conversion and repentance. Jonah is a good exception to the rule. He went to a very sinful culture and people and presented the word in Nineveh and the city repented (Jonah 3:10 ). Unfortunately, this preacher wasn’t happy because it wasn’t the people he wanted to turn from their sin, he wanted someone else.

In the New Testament, God doesn’t tell us about failed preachers so much as to watch out for false preachers. False preachers are nothing new to the Bible but were more likely called False Prophets. It’s pretty easy to know what God is referring to as a preacher and a false preacher. A preacher is someone who delivers God’s message while a false-preacher makes claims and statements that God didn’t tell them to say.

All, ALL, of the Bible is the Word of God and is good for teaching (2 Timothy 3:16). A false preacher would be one that takes the word of God and skews it into a meaning that wasn’t intended by God. I would also suggest that false preachers are those that don’t preach the whole Bible.

The original New Testament preachers were those that Jesus personally taught. The original disciple, the 11 and others, started the Churches as defined by Jesus. The next generation of preachers were taught by the disciples/apostles themselves. The New Testament time frame, from a history stand point, encompasses about 60 years so we don’t get data points of preachers across a spectrum of time to review their actions and deeds as well as their effectiveness.

The legitimate preachers appear to be highly effective, as well as does the false-preachers. Were both the legitimate and false preachers both charismatic? Maybe. The early church exploded into existence though and one would expect that the world was then hungry for a new religion; was open to the Biblical God, through the Holy Spirit’s leading. So what’s different now from then?

First, I suspect that the world has become numb to Christianity due to the Christians portrayal of the religion, the watering down of the Bibles message and reliance on congregations reliance on preachers that are at best balancing job security and their God given mandate to correct the church. If I’m correct on those observations, then every Christian is responsible for the how others see the Church through their hypocritical actions. Everyone, but especially the Church leadership, is responsible for insuring that the entire word of God is disseminated to the Church and world alike and in it’s proper context; and standing up to the world’s false accusations instead of standing in the shadows and allowing any incorrect thought to fester and flourish. And finally, the preacher needs to be all in for their role to teach and correct first, then worry about job and family security.

That’s a bold statement to make about preachers. Preachers have the same wants and desires as everyone else. They want spouses, children and friends and a stable job that doesn’t relocate them every few months. These are not unreasonable things but these days that can, and likely does, compromise them. To be stable,that is to not have to relocate every few months, to not have to constantly look for new friends, to keep children engaged and socially interactive with their own aged friends, a preacher can’t step on toes. They can’t preach what typically needs t be preached. They have to spread out topics or move on before correcting attitudes and problems because if they stay on target, if their congregations and community will dismiss them as a fire and brimstone guy or a one topic preacher. Those two things are are not bad if they are needed, but usually this tactic isn’t effective.

So to make a stable life, preachers may not teach with a proper emphasis, those things that need to be taught. A good example is the teaching financial responsibility and the giving of tithes. People just don;t want to hear it. Despite Jesus himself teaching quite a bit on the topic, most preachers will only spend a couple of Sunday on the topic. Anything else gets in people personal space, and is perceived as none of anyone’s business. I agree that the amount or percentage of the gift to tithe is no ones business other between them and God, but if God is leading a preacher or congregation to have a healthy and proper teaching on the subject, and there would be no reason to teach a subject if there wasn’t a need t change attitudes and actions on a subject. Moving on before resolving an issue, borders on or is squarely in line with false teaching.

So there is incentive for preachers to not fully teach the word of God or to peach in such a way as to purposely not convict their congregation. People convicted, or feeling guilty, generally don’t accept this as an opportunity to change their ways, but become defensive and push back, accusing the preacher of singling them out or of following an outdated religious book. They don’t recognize that the conviction is likely coming from the Holy Spirit. But to deflect anger r accusations, to lesson the personal conviction will likely keep more people in the liking the preacher camp, this the preacher probably takes this approach.

It shouldn’t be to surprising that preachers have this mindset either. Most of the Christian schools have exchanged Biblical Authority for a more secular mindset, exchanging the clear Word of God for something more palatable the world. The seminaries have likewise been infected and are selling the preaching profession as one that resembles a CEO role and the successful church as one that is big in both numbers and floor space. If it isn’t outright emphasizing the safe and stability of the preaching position, it certainly is placing a subliminal message into the minds of the future preachers that today’s preachers spend some time writing a script for their Sunday morning performance and if they are a good preacher (what the school calls a charismatic preacher) people will join the church and building additions will be non stop. Apparently, the schools have convinced our new or potential preachers that they just sit our the church the rest of the week, maybe conducting a Bible study or two, and wait for retirement to come and then the ‘Well done my good and faithful servant’ greeting from Jesus when they die.

That may be what the schools teach and what the preacher wants. I’ll admit, it would be great if they were all good, charismatic performers (it would be better if they were good, charismatic preachers) and that just by having the doors open, people would come in, learn and give their lives to the Lord. It would be great if people were truly learning about God and maturing in Christ. It would be great if every congregation had to constantly worry about expanding their facility to house all the people giving their lives to the Lord and learning to be Disciples. But that isn’t the case.

Yes, a lot of preachers do get up and do their performance. Sunday after Sunday. And it is a performance, even if their heart is in the right place. When “people”, their flock, interfere with or are no good enough for the Sunday Morning service, it is and has become a performance. When the preacher doesn’t have the time to train people because of his other duties (even if the training would be for the benefit of their performance), when the preacher is more concerned about the exact placement of the pews or chairs in the Sanctuary (Performance Hall), to impress those that are in attendance of the performance, than he is with with filling those pews or chairs, then the preacher is not concerned about the message reaching the people, he is concerned with the how the people think about him.

This doesn’t mean that eh worship service should just be strung along all willy and by the seat of the pants. Certainly the people involved in the worship service should strive for perfection; it’s good practice, shows our reverence to our Lord and stymies havoc. But the achievement of those three things should not be the cost that others can not be part of the worship service. In most congregations, those that are involved in the Worship service are primarily volunteers. As volunteers, seldom are they ever formally trained outside the church and if trained inside the church, only nominally. And to not use volunteers to accomplish not just the Worship Service but other ministries, is to name but only one.

One church I attended for a while had used people in the service that were not formal speakers, but they were willing to learn. They seemed to be good Christians and did earnestly want to serve and do more for the Lord. As I mentioned he wasn’t a good speaker and somewhat nervous in front of the crowd. For two Sundays in a row, he had a moment of staggering and stuttering while giving the devotion to the Lord’s Supper. The preacher was angry because this interfered with the flow of the Sermon and he removed the individual from being able to give the devotion in the future. A couple of weeks later, another person had the same issue and the preacher then decided that from then on out no one but he would be on stage after the concert (some still call it the Praise Band but it has more the ear marks of a concert than the leading of Worship music).

Concerned about the way I was starting to see things in the congregation, I asked about this incident as I had other incidents and actions, and the response was essentially that they essentially weren’t good enough to be on stage because they weren’t comfortable enough to be public speakers. When I asked about training them the response was that he didn’t have time (of course an attitude also accompanied the response as did the prelude question). I was disappointing since these seemed to be clear cases of exacerbating Christians that want to serve. A few people were presumably hurting the Service and the presumably Word, because they stumbled a little when reading in front of a crowd, is justification enough to stop potentially others from serving on stage non Sunday Mornings. How does this fit in with correcting and teaching?

Preachers generally have, at least in their minds, a clear revelation as to how Worship service and other activities are to be carried out. In reality, the New Testament speaks very little as to how Sunday Morning service should be carried out. One note is that Sunday Morning service didn’t actually happen on Sunday Morning but rather it happened sometime on Saturday. There is actually lots about the rituals of our ‘Worship Service’ that aren’t Biblical, but that’s a different article. For now, the concern is that the preacher, whether given by the congregation/leadership or taken, commands or wields a lot of authority not backed up Biblically.

Biblical, there are no qualifications or job descriptions for Preachers other than not be a false preacher and to correct and teach. The actual running of the church is to be by the Elders or Overseers. Modernly. preachers are generally looked at as an extension of elder-ship. Look up the roles of a Elders and you will see that you would expect these qualifications in a preacher.

The Church isn’t left with a lot of rules, regulations or traditions to follow. I’m convinced that Christ did this on purpose, however, this is a double edged sword. I believe that Christ did this so that the local congregations could adjust itself in order to reach the community it is in. The other side of the sword is the abuse of that freedom to stifle the congregation opportunity to edify itself and to maximize it’s reach potential. The ability to adjust itself isn’t permission to to dilute or misrepresent the Gospel, nor is the ability for congregations to create rules or guidelines for itself a free hand to turn it into an Elder driven club.

Our modern preachers are highly educated persons. However, with the secularization of our Seminary schools, this education doesn’t necessarily translate into true Biblical teachers but churns out Biblically compromised individuals who try to meld God, by lowering the character of Him, and the Worldview, by projecting God qualities into society. The two can not meld; it’s God first and us interacting with a secular world. That’s unpalatable to the World and likely our communities, who believes that the Church should change it ways, thus transforming the Church, into a club, which many congregations have bought into.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no clear cut qualifications for a preacher, so a congregation and it’s Elders must make absolutely sure that the individual posing a a preacher really is a man following God, has the ability to teach and will correct the congregation to bring it back within Biblical guidelines. A congregation that doesn’t have Elders is already compromised, as the New Testament not only states that the Elders are the earthly head of the Church, but even gives some very clear minimal qualifications for Elders. Congregations also want preachers that are charismatic in the pulpit; that is clearly spoken, somewhat humorous and generally pleasing to the eye. These are not wrong but I feel that is often all the congregation wants.

Sometimes, a congregation will get these three things, and little more. I and many others feel that preachers look at a church as a field of dreams; build it and they will come or preach and they will come. Both attitudes involve little actual work. Preachers now days seem to seldom step out of the building and actually do any work. Maybe a better analogy is that they seldom step out of the office and do any real work. It is probably a misguided picture of service from the theological schools that a preachers life is easy and good (also backed up by the stereotype of the older generation of preaches that tended to be over weight) and that a cleaver, prepared and well performed sermon will cultivate into a large church.

I believe that Christ, with the infinite wisdom that He has a part of the Triune God, purposely declared Elders to be in charge of the Church and not preachers. Why? While preachers, especially now days, have a great knowledge of the Bible, new and/or young preachers lack wisdom. Not that older and more experienced preachers are immune from mistakes or bad judgment, those traits are much prevalent in the immature preachers, as also all youth. That is why I believe that they are Gods tool for correcting and teaching, not leading the church.

Elders and other leaders of a congregation tend to physically stay and live close to where they work. When they change jobs, it is still often close to the same geographical location as their last job; so close that often a change in work doesn’t necessitate a change in a living location. Preachers on the other hand, often uproot and move great distances to work in another congregation (hopefully, it is serve in another congregation and not just a new work position). So Elders are likely to stay, often even their own lives, in one location with one congregation, despite accepting new positions within a company or when switching to another employer. Contrast that with preachers who often have to move from a youth position at one church to a lead preaching or pasture position in another. Or a preacher is either vetted by another congregation or is actively looking himself for another place so that he can make more money to better provide for his family.

It often takes a new congregation to achieve the kind of change that a preacher is looking for to satisfy their own career aspirations and often times that congregation isn’t on the other side of town but a great distance away. I believe that God, and it doesn’t say this, as a way to keep stability in the Church, did not and does not intend for the preacher to be the head of the Church or a congregation.

My statement doesn’t mean that a Preacher isn’t worthy of the same respect as an Elder. Paul tells us ####. One thing to remember is that Preachers are as susceptible to the same sins everyone else is. If they do succumb to sin, depending on the sin, they should be granted the same level of forgiveness and opportunity to continue in their capacity as anyone else, though there are a few sins in which their Preacher ministry should be removed fro them

On the opposite side of the same coin, Preachers should be held to the same standards as everyone else. Condemning congregation members for an occasional word slip or a deemed inappropriate word in a class, while giving a Preacher a pass for using the same or similar words (“my damn hands” or “go to hell” for example) simply because they are more learned, so it must be OK, causes exacerbation and confusion in he congregation. Giving free reign to a Preacher is dangerous.

Often preachers are permitted a pass because they are the Preacher. Church members simply are afraid or lack confidence to question a member of the clergy. This also happens a lot with Elders and various other leaders of a congregation. If Preachers, or other leaders, perpetrate this belief, they not only risk alienating their congregation but also would easily fall into the realm where they start down he road to becoming a false-teacher, as no one would or will correct them if they do start teach something wrongly.

Case in point, I attended a church where the Preacher was going over the conquest of Canaan and God was OK with the capture of virgins to make sex slaves of them. First, I was disappointed that the preacher taught that God granted the Israelite's virgin girls to be their sex toys and secondly, I was maybe even more disappointed that when I spoke with an Elder about it, the Elder simply caved to “the fact” that the preacher much be right as he is more learned than us. I was wanting looking to ask the Elder to confront the Preacher with me, as at the time I wasn’t as strong or confident, that we would go and confront the Preacher about this. As it turned out, I went alone. When I asked the Preacher about it, he gave me a condescending reply, because who was I to question him, and that what he said was correct. I asked if rape and unmarried sex is is condoned by God today and he didn’t give a clear cut answer but I took it as no, he didn’t think God approved of rape and unmarriable sex. When I asked him to reconcile how God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, the unchangeable, told the Israelite's that their little sex slaves were OK to have then is different than God doesn’t approve of rape and unmarried sex now. The Preacher simply stated that I didn’t understand and walked away.

But he was right; in his statement that I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand how he could promote that God was OK with rape and how God was OK unmarried sex. I didn’t, and don’t, understand how he could teach that that is how God was but now He’s this. I didn’t understand how he could just throw the only constant in the universe, the one thing that keeps everything else constant, throw it away. God doesn’t change; God doesn’t make mistakes; He doesn’t need forgiveness. To say that He does undercuts all of Biblical doctrine. This Preacher was above being corrected. He had convinced, whether directly or indirectly, that whole congregation that his word is on par with the Lord’s and that he was the leader of that church; the Elders and leadership were not leaders, but simply blind followers.

This charismatic, stage performing Preacher, did increase the numbers in that congregation, but it didn’t mature. Later, he split the church due to his control and over reach. This is probably one example or reason that Jesus setup the Church to be run or oversaw by a group of Elders and not one person. Checks and balances I guess.

I’m going to cut this article into multiple sections which is a deviation from others, which covered one topic per article. This article has been the most difficult so far on the “Failing church” because I know of the time, work, responsibility and love, that a good Preacher puts in. I don’t want to exacerbate those with those that should be in another profession.

Yet at Christmas this past year, again using my FB account as the reference, countless electronic Christmas cards went out. I’m to lazy to go back that far and look but if memory serves me well enough, several people at least shared their churches FB posting on their own timeline. Maybe, maybe a couple of people actually invited others to a Christmas or Christmas Eve service. Granted the Covid thing does skew things slightly. However, I am pretty sure the previous year at least a few people actually did invite people to come to service.

So how are people going to learn the resurrection story and the rest of God’s message for us? Apparently, people are going to have to their own gumption up and read the Bible and figure it out themselves. Although, my small stats from my FB usage shouldn’t be the final word on how people are communicating and sharing their apologetics with others, I fear it is the most that the majority of Christians do. And although the general crux of the Gospel is simple enough for anyone to grasp and understand (1 John 4:9-10), it can be misinterpreted or perverted (1 Timothy 6:3). Even the schooled Ethiopian needed some help (Acts 8:30-31).

Many people have a misconception of Christian and church and in some cases, rightly fully so. They have been shown what ‘Christianity’ is all about by the actions of so called Christians. Perhaps they have been hurt by Christians’ actions or as in the topic of my thesis here, the Christian inaction.

Several months back, I received a letter from someone local to me. I opened it and it was a page and a half hand written letter made out to me from a real individual. This person was apologizing for not being able to meet in me in person due to the Covid restrictions. They showed genuine interest in me and had it not been for my personal relation with Jesus and my training, I could see where someone could interested in a religion like this Jehovah Witness was portraying.

Yet, I see on my FB page, posts from ministers/ associate ministers/ music ministers/ Elders/ Deacons/ teachers and others that claim to be Lovers of Christ, showing their family life, political satire, fund raisers and the like not mentioning Good Friday, the Passover or Resurrection Sunday.. Maybe a Christian MEME forwarded from someone's else’s page or perhaps a thumbs up to a “The World Needs Jesus” post that someone made. But virtually no posts of what Christ has done for them, maybe a mention of the church service they had that day or the previous day and how great it was, but almost certainly no personal invite to come and attend a service with them or an offer to talk to anyone about Jesus.

This is how they see Jesus. This is what is shown to them. They may hear hear the Christian say how great Jesus is, but they don’t hear the Christian talk about Him. They hear the Christian say what a great worship service but the Christian never invites them. They hear the Christian say how much Jesus loves the world (the saved and unsaved) but they don’t see the Christian helping them when they are having personal problems.  To many, in and out of it, see church as a club.  Worse yet, many treat it as a club; their club.

This can be excusable for a new and/or immature Christian, but not one that has has been redeemed for a while. And the church, that is the entire congregation, the lay people, teachers, Deacons, Elders and Ministers share blame in this. People turn their lives of to Christ and get baptized then they are left to their own devices.. Many congregations leave it at that; if a new convert wants to learn more, they on their own. The new convert often isn't even encouraged to really pursue the depths of Christ love through the Gospel.  The congregation, even the lay people, are doing the new Christian disservice; BIGTIME.  And will likely pay the price (Matthew 18:6).

The congregation is seriously ill if it doesn’t encourage others to grow in Christ (Romans 15:14). And unfortunately, the Elders, ministers, deacons and teachers have far to often become complacent with the dismal numbers of people that come and sit in the pews each Sunday. But just like the non-Christian is shown what ‘Christianity’ is like, so are most congregations with their lazy Elders, ministers, Deacons and teachers. These people, are showing the congregations what it is like to be a Christian and the congregation is showing the world what they see.  Jesus rebuked these kinds of people (Matthew 15:7-9).

Again, FB should and isn’t the only means of communication available to the Christian, but it is a platform used by many across the country and I would be willing to guess that many Christians on FB have non-Christian FB friends. FB or not, show your brothers, your neighbors the love of Christ. At the very least, be inviting people to attend church with you (I hope it is a 66 book Bible believing church). If you can’t answer the questions that people have concerning God, get them in touch with someone who can; don’t avoid the subject. Then stick around and learn with that person.

Don’t be like the unhealthy Elders, ministers, Deacons, teachers or other lay people (Matthew 15:8). Don’t follow their lead or rather their non-leading (Matthew 23:3). These people should be showing you not only God’s love but how to share Christ with others (James 1:22). If they're not, I suggest you find somewhere else to worship as I would question, not necessarily their love for God or spiritualness, but their dedication, ability or possibly their motives.

These people are not going to be your lawyer or counsel when you stand before God. You’re not going to able to point your finger and sift blame to someone else because you didn’t do what God wants when you stand before Him on judgement day. Someone else may have misled you, but as I stated above, the underlying message of Gospel is understandable by all.  You knew enough and you knew better.

God’s grace and plan for salvation didn’t stop with you (Philippians 1:6). He wants everyone saved (2 Peter 3:9). And as a Christian, as a member of the priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), you have an obligation to spread the word (Matthew 28:18-20). Look to others for help in understanding and for good examples (Matthew 7:7), but do not let others hold you back from acting despite their teaching (Colossians 3:21). The time is now (Matthew 9:37). Spread the word (Mark 16:15-16); did you read that?  Those who don't believe are condemned!  They're going to HELL!  We can at least try.  Use all means available.  Certainly use the easy resources such as FB, but also make the personal connection, a phone call, a face to face conversation, a helping hand.

It doesn’t mater your background, God will forgive you (1 John 1:9). It doesn’t matter where you are now, Jesus calls to you (Luke 5:32). Don’t let your sins keep you away. Don’t wait t clean your life up (Luke 12:25) because it could  be too late. Come on and accept Him and secure your place in heaven (John 3:16).

Your sins are probably not much different than those of many others, including those that Jesus has already saved (1 John 1:8, Colossians 3:5-8) . Come and join the family of God and let those help you as well as help each other. Everyone sins and will continue to sin (Romans 3:23). What should separate those that have Jesus in their life is they try to not sin. They acknowledge their sin nature, not nurture it, and try to be more Christ like.

Jesus calls for everyone to come and repent (Acts 3:19). He can and will forgive anyone. The Church likewise is called to do the same (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is called to accept the individual but not the sin. Accepting the individual doesn’t mean that the sin is condoned. Discernment is needed for a healthy family (Philippians 1:9-10). For those with serious sins, some oversight is needed but don’t confuse this with judgment. God accepts us as we are when we come, but He expects us to grow and become more like Him (2 Peter 3:18). And Jesus shows us what He looks like (John 14:9~).

A quick Google search will tell you that there are 7 types of genders. No wait, if you look at another hit return, there are 10 types. Whoops, I typed to soon. There are 12 types. I certainly am not the end knowledge, but Google, and many others the world over, are wrong. There are two genders and they are male and female.

Now there are many clubs out there that want to perverse this, and not only that but they won’t be satisfied until everyone is as perverse as them. To prove the point, special laws are being made that supposedly equalizes the wants of those holding to these previsions at the expense of people with normal mental cognizant. The people in the LGBTQC community have the exact same rights as any other person. They can eat anywhere, go anywhere, drive cars, shop, use the internet, etc, etc etc. the same as you or I. They have those rights right now.

But that isn’t good enough. In order to not look like the exception to the norm, in order to not have to feel disgusted with their demented lives, to keep their twisted lives, they have to wreck and dement everyone else; and it won’t stop until everyone is is as sick and immoral as they are so that it looks like they are the norm that everyone else should be judged.

Here’s the deal, short an quick. LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and now a ‘+’ has been added for those questioning) or as I call the syndrome, LGBTQC for LGBTQConfused, ether have a mental condition need medical attention or are willfully sinning and giving into debauchery. Whoo, did I really say willfully sinning? Yep. For those that didn’t know me before, you now know that I am a Judaeo-Christian God Follower.

What right do I have to try to impress my beliefs onto you? Well, besides the fact that trying to please God, instead of looking for ways to tick him off, would go well for you, the science is on the Biblical side. Again, no matter what you do, DNA is going to give your true gender away; that which you were born with. Well, you don’t want to follow God you say and you want to be perverse and live a lie of being something else? Well, I can’t stop you but what right do you have, or believe you have, that says I have to go along with anything you dream up? But why does your insane and sick happiness trump (I used a lower case ‘t’ because I didn’t want anyone’s head to explode that may be reading this though a capital T or even the entire word spelled out in caps would provide better emphasis) what normal people want?

You have the rights I have. You can wear whatever you want, wear a dress if your a man or a cup if your a woman. There’s nothing stopping you. You want to mess your body and take harmful and often irreversible hormone drugs, you can do that also. You want to go out and cut your wanger off or deflate your fun bags, go right ahead. You have the right. I have the right to do so also. I also have the right to stay just as I am; the way a normal human wants.

Many people accept you now. We recognize that your messed up and need help; either mentally or sinfully. But understand this, and this goes for Christians as well, we sometimes sin and sometimes we need mental help. But it would be wrong for us to try to force others to accept our unnatural mental conditions as normal or to try to get everyone else to sin the way normal people sin.

For those of you that getting upset at me for throwing out the God card, let me reassure that it isn’t done lightly. Christians have given God a very black eye themselves over the years. But I feel there are two different Christians. Those that try and those that don’t. Unfortunately, with the exception of death and the way they show their lives, there’s no test that one takes to prove their Christianity. No points awarded, no litmus test. Anyone can claim to be one, but unlike a DNA test for gender, there is no way to prove or disprove the claim.

Every Christian IS going t miss the mark. The mark or bar is Jesus Christ. However, a true Christian will try to obtain that goal; They’ll avoid sinning. The other type Christians will make the claim but will practice harm, plan deceit, rob their neighbor, and kill the orphan. Occasionally, every Christian does these but a true Christian will avoid them and more.

Christians should be ready to help anyone overcome their sin or to get medical assistance. They should be welcoming of the individual but not tolerant of the sin. Christians should not even accept a little bit of perversion or immortality believing that by allowing a little they can reach someone or the masses. As is seen in our society today, a little allowance, besides being wrong, leads to a full collapse of morality and society.

A take-a-way I can offer from my Creation and Evolution knowledge is to not acknowledge the terms that LGBTQC people are lavishing themselves with. For instance, when a creationist refers to the ‘missing-link’, it infers that there could be a missing link, though there is no such thing. Don’t refer to anyone except by proper gender terms; male/female, boy/girl, man/woman, sir/ma'am, etc.

Unless a man or woman, that falsely believes they are changing from their birth gender, places themselves in the public eye, never make their problem personal a joke or demean the individual. Even if by their action they show that they deserve no respect, give it to them anyway. Although God calls it perverse, their sin is just a different sin than yours and everyone has intrinsic value in God’s eyes and for that reason, hey should in the Christian eye as well.

Dr. Kent Hovind, has been a teacher, pastor and is currently the operator of Dinoland; as sort of Creation themed learning center and park. Kent is a Christian and believes that everything was created from nothing by God roughly 6,000 tears ago. Kent has participated in many debates over the years.

Jordan Karim studied Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering at VCU and has a reoccurring Podcast entitled Reasons2Doubt. Jordan is currently an atheist but had been a follower of Kent’s when he was younger. Jordan now believes the atheist montage that everything came from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago.

Most Creation vs Evolution debates usually degrade into shouting matches within about the first 3 minutes and because of poor to inept if not down right non-existent moderation, continues that way until either the viewers quit watching or the shouting match finally reaches the allotted amount of time. The Standing For Truth moderator (sorry, I haven’t caught his name) did an excellent job though for the most part, his duties was regulated to just giving time warnings because of the civil nature for the debaters. Moderators should clamp down on the debaters when they exceed their time or when they interrupt their counterpart. Unfortunately this really happens and not just in Creation/Evolution debates but in political ones as well; that’s part of why this debate was such a nice change fo pace. Kudos to the moderator and the debaters.

One thing I noticed in this debate, that I hadn’t thought of or recognized in myself as doing, is making the same assertion that both Christian and Evolutionists\Atheists do, and that is that if they don't know the answer, they just assume or assert that it happens they way that fits their narrative. As a young creation Christian (or Young Earth Creationist), I believe (know) that God created everything about 6,000 years ago out of nothing. So when asked something that a YEC can’t answer, a YEC will usually either either give an answer of ‘God just done it (yes it did happen but it isn’t a very good debate answer). Of course an evolutionist/atheists does the same with their narrative, it just happened in the Bang.

Often times, Creationists (not just debaters) will just high-lite or emphasize the bad science (really it isn’t bad science but bad interpretations or poor starting assumptions) to show that evolution, whether cosmetic or biological (I left out the other 4), doesn’t and can’t work as proof that it didn’t happen. However, the sometimes the same happens from the Creationists. Typically, both sides will employ the God done it/Big Bang done it and choose the tidbits of data that support their claim while rejecting others.

Evolutionists/atheists are bad about stating that every credible scientist this believes in their take. If you doubt it or question it then that person can’t be a real scientist. Instead of listening to an opposing idea their character is questioned, their educational degree belittled and they are silenced. This happens often if even the proposed differentiating view is still of evolutionary form and not an introduction of God into the fray. And YEC often do something similar.

If I may digress once more from my Debate Review, I have heard Christians argue, not discuss or debate, over whether or not God finished creating on day 6. One standing fast to nothing else was created while the other had very valid reasons to believe that He did not stop creating on day 6.

For instance, where did the manna come from? If God didn’t create anything after day 6, then God had to bring the manna in from somewhere else. But manna is described as something that was never before seen and never saw again after the Israelite's entered the promise land. Did He pull it up out of someone’s garden in a far off land? How about the oil that kept coming out of the ladies pot? If He didn’t create it then, then God had to take it from someone else pot (God would have had to stole it). How about the wine that Jesus made? If He didn’t create it, then He stole someone else wine to put into the vases. What bout when Jesus feed all those people with just a little bit of fish? Did he just perform a slight of hand magic trick to entertain people while the disciples caught fish out of the lake or pulled them from under tables? Clearly, God can and does still create from time to time; it’s just not at our whim. And we surely shouldn’t argue with other Christians about such things but should find a manner that we can disagree without damaging the Church.

And evolutionists/atheists prey on each other as well. A few years back a cosmologists was looking at compiled data of red shift and noticed something unusual about the red shifts of pulsars; a type of star. Red Shift data, used to measure the astronomical distances, was showing that some pulsars that were in front of galaxies, thus closer, were showing that they were farther away than the galaxies. If a person (P) was sitting in a chair in their living room measured a couch (C) in the same room as being 20 feet away, but then their pet dog (D) came in and sat in between them and the couch and they measured the dog (D) as being 30 feet away, I think a lot of people would question something. Either the data, the measuring apparatuses, the objects being measured and/or their placements and perhaps even the person that brought all of this to light. It sounds like the scientific community questioned the person in this case but they didn’t. Because an acknowledgment that the methodology in which everything s measured, which is what the entire Big Bang is based on was questioned, not that evolution didn’t happen or that God done it, his telescope time and associated lab things were removed, he was let go from his place of employment and no one would look at his papers or works. I have to ask, is this science? Is your theory or model so flimsy that it can’t handle alternative data?

OK, digress number 2 done.

The Kent and Jordan debate was primarily limited to the age of the Earth. Kent, having done so many of thee debates over the years , comes super prepared for any, and has a kazillion power point slides to counter nearly topic or sub topic that comes up. He also has a rhetoric that he is known for, for instance, evolutionists believe that we all come from a rock. I like it but it doesn’t sit well with everyone. Jordan is one and critiqued Kent on a Podcast sometime before the debate (I don’t even think there was a debate planned at that time). Although Kent would like for people t come to the Lord through his debates and videos, I’m not sure that is his target audience. I believe his target audience are Christians, and though humor and science, he does present the topics and data necessary to converse (which often devolves into a shouting match), debate and defend much of the creationist view point against evolutionists and atheists.

And unlike the dull supposed debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham, both very entertaining and humorous people, this debate was humorous, lively, spirited, mostly on topic and cordial.

At one part of the debate, while discussing nuclear half-life's and thermoradiadic (if that isn't a real word, it should be) temperatures and how that would have to have affected Noah and the Ark crew, Jordan mentioned the naturally occurring nuclear fission reactor that was located in Africa. It isn’t to surprising that I hadn’t heard of it before but Kent hadn’t either. Jordan went on to make his point and Kent said he needed to study up on it. I really can’t recall Kent not being up on a topic or even a location, especially like this; often his debaters will spew something that they hard from someone about a place or incident and that is understandable that Kent or anyone else on either side wouldn’t know about it. But Kent said he would study up on it, Usually, debaters on ether side never actually study up n anything and just com back to the table and vomit the same stuff. Although Kent does say the same things, because they are appropriate, he also does his homework.

Jordan had several reasonable questions with reasonable examples that Kent was unable to answer. And Kent had the same for Jordan. As many like to say of their man (or woman) against the opposition, ‘They Got Owned’; I can’t say that for either. If I were truly a person using this debate to make my determination of whether or not there was a God, or if I was truly open minded and would this debate to decide to become an atheist, I would still be on the fence. Often times, in my opinion, the Christian says well your science doesn’t answer this so you have to believe in God. It is the same argument that the evolutionist/atheist employees except they use a different god; that god being time. Evolutionists need more time to find eh answer or state that their science says it happened ions ago and thus science can’t be used on it; you just have to believe it.

The ‘win’ of most these debates, or rather any debate, often goes to the person that yelled the most or interrupted the other debater the most. But these aren’t good qualifiers for the win. Reasonable arguments presented with sound data with as few presumptions as possible usually dictates the winner. As the topic of this debate was the age of the earth and more specifically, ‘determining the age of the earth’ using primarily one method, I have to say that Jordan did a very good job presenting his view. In fact, if I just took everything from this debate and left all my other knowledge out, I would give Jordan the win, though I wouldn’t say he ‘owned’ Kent.

Where I give Kent the loss is in his not countering Jordan on the same level as the data presented him. Jordan made what is probably a valid claim concerning the amount of the daughter element lead left in a crystal was to great to allow for a young earth. Kent replied with information about potential or loss or gain in the whole rock, a valid objection or point for a different radiometric age determination. So the score goes to Jordan. A tactic that I feel would have been served by Kent would to have pointed out the amount of the daughter element helium that is left in these crystals; there is far to much helium in there for the earth to be old as most of it should have escaped.

The left has been pushing an ever more liberal set of policies that strike at the very heart of conservatism and traditional religion, especially Christianity. For years, the right and conservatives, have not really resisted; this includes the church. The church by and large has taken a stance that it isn’t going to get involved in politics. But it, as well as the American people and the American government has never made a distinction between what is political and what is not. And indifference has led to anything that can be pushed to a politician is political.

Indecision lack of courage has taken parenting away from us. Now, surgeries can be performed on underage children to allow for such major life decisions as abortion. Another example, inaction let the government make gender into a political issue. If it isn’t obvious at birth what gender an individual is (and there are a rare instances that this could occur), genetic testing will reveal it. But our government is dictation that children can seek out the attempt to change their gender, get medicines irreversibly alter their bodies and even mutilate their own bodies. Besides taking the decisions and even counseling away from the parents and allowing the child to make choices that they are not mature enough to understand, the child or an adult, never actually and truly change their gender. They will always, no matter the medications and no matter the mutilating surgeries be the gender they were born as.

But the church sat on their hands and let these and other travesties happen. Sure, maybe there will be a small mention of how abortion is evil and a Christian shouldn’t be for it and maybe there will be the crazy over zealous person in Sunday school that hands out an anti-abortion track but that’s about it. The church doesn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. The church doesn’t correct the Christian when the Christian wont take a side (which is really taking the pro-choice, or rather pro-murder, position). The church won’t spend a Sunday morning taking about the horrors, showing the science that a fetus is a life, not just a stage of pregnancy. The church leaves it up to it is between the mother and God if they want to kill the baby.

The church has done the same with marriage. It hasn’t placed an emphasis on not only for a man and a woman to stay together, but hasn’t really condemned same sex partnerships and marriages. The church will rarely stated that God hates divorce and it certainly doesn’t teach it. The same goes for the LBGT issues. The church may say that it isn't normal and its a sin but it doesn’t teach it. It doesn’t take a strong stance on condemning it. It’s shameful but it seems to be the norm for the church.

By the church not teaching how these and other topics are wrong has empowered the Christian to be lackluster in their actions, indecisive when they need to make decisions and utterly shameful in their knowledge of Biblical matters. But at least the church didn’t step on any toes.

And of course while all this was and is occurring, the left is making fun of the traditional family and it’s values and organized religion. And the congregations, taking the lead from it’s elders and preachers, sit back and take it. The opening prayer by this session of the House is a good example. Invoking the name of a god never before mentioned n congress (and not by a person that has a religion affiliation toward that god) and to the man god and the woman god. This wasn’t a prayer but a deliberate insult to the Jews and Christians of this country (well, actually not just of this country but anywhere).

Whether they intend to, the elders, preachers and teachers of our churches are encouraging this; by their example. They aren’t doing much to make a difference in the church so how can the church make a difference in the world?

Let’s look at the ping pong meme. The premise is that the church actually gets very little time to teach and influence kids, so the children's parents need to supplement and/or step up the teaching at home. What the church doesn’t understand is that thy are teaching children much more than they realize in that 40 hours; and much f it is negative.

For example, the church teaches our children that they are second hand citizens. In many congregations, children are actually in classrooms and their own sanctuaries more than adults. But they are giving the second hand equipment that the adults find undesirable, like audio and video equipment. The kids get the crap that the adults are no longer satisfied with. What does that teach them of their worth?

Children are told how much Jesus loves them at Sunday School, maybe even with the Bible verse of they will know that you are my disciple by your love, but the teacher and perhaps no one never makes contact with them outside of Sunday School. Would a child think that they are loved? Or at the end of VBS, they are told by their group leader that they are loved and that they will see them next year at VBS. Would a child mistake this as love? Why aren’t we loving them outside of Sunday morning or VBS? Why aren’t we visiting them and their families afterward? Truth is in most cases, this si the love that the adults were shown as kids and they don’t know better. And the church doesn’t teach our children’s teachers or critique them. Heck, truth be told, the church is lucky to get someone to fill the roles let alone get people that are actually capable, competent, adequate and the right people for the tasks. And what does that teach, this is the best we got?

So even if the church does have the right people to work with the kids, how many parents are really up to the challenge, or what should be a pleasure, to teach their children in Biblical truths? Parents aren’t even getting the most basic effective teaching themselves. Why should we expect that parents can then extrapolate the soft, unchallenged lessons from the sermons, and from Sunday School, assuming they themselves attend. No. Most people don’t have the confidence to teach or tell anyone about Christ and the same goes for their family. And the church hasn’t been effective, and often times hasn’t even tried, to teach parents how to be Godly parents to share Jesus with their family.

So should the church be surprised when children do actually learn from the church? They’ve learned what they thing love looks like and how important they are to the church. Either by conversation or by casual listening, they’ve learned that there is no reason to stand up for anyone or anything because everything is between another person and God; they aren’t to gt involved. They’ve been taught by false preachers, whom no one corrects, the things that go against God and it sounds authoritative and reasonable; because no one teaches them differently.

If you do a study of preachers in the Bible, you’ll find that only a few were effective; the rest were totally ineffective and others were false preachers. I mention this because if you also do a study of standing before God, form an observer view, there are vasts numbers there, but when you zoom in to an individual, you see that there is only 3 persons; you, Jesus and God. Your preachers/elders/teachers are not there. You are before God and Christ alone. You will not be able to point a finger at anyone, not your preacher/elder/teacher/spouse/etc, and lay any blame for yourself or anyone you misled. It’s all on you.

The Bible tells us that to mislead one even as a child, that it would be better to place a milestone around your neck and throw yourself into the sea. The reference to a child isn’t a reference to an age but to one’s spiritual maturity. And to mislead someone isn’t limited to just a purposeful miss-teaching or misleading. One’s failure to correct another, one’s failure to get another the proper education and one’s immoral and hypocritical lifestyle are ways to mislead someone.

If those posing as leaders of your congregation are not effectively teaching you and your family, if the preacher makes a good performance but doesn’t challenge the church, if your church is virtually indistinguishable from a club that meets on Sunday, you better get out of there. Get the training you need for you and to train your children. Don;t let the books in Revelation show any sins against you that are not common to everyone. Don’t the words read allowed say that you held someone back, that you falsely taught, that you remained silent. Don;t let it be sad that it would have been better if you had thrown yourself into the sea.

Many people either ignored the signs or just didn’t see them, but Covid really exposed how ineffective our congregations are. The Church has preached of the end times, but the church has treated the end-times as a time to start to do things right. Covid isn’t the end times but seeing how people and governments the world over have acted because of it, it is a sign that Christians are not ready for te return of Christ.

When the governments shut down our places of worship, the church was taken by surprise. And for the most part, the church still doesn’t know what to do. It hasn’t taken care of it’s own congregations let alone make an impact on the world. The new Equality Bill will likely pass. Besides such things that shouldn’t be political that the church allowed to become so, like allowing men to play on women's teams and vice versa, the gender neutral safe places of bathrooms, locker rooms and such, and minors the ability to choose their gender, churches are loosing their ability to even be able to hire/not-hire based on non-conforming beliefs and besides having to accept same sex marriages, will be forced to not even suggest a family unit consist of a male and female parent as a viable alternative.

I often want to differentiate myself from a Christian and I do so by calling my self a Christ-follower. It means the same thing but I probably incorrectly think that it will get me out from an under the bad name that a lot of Christians have given it. One reason is for the 86% poll. 86% of Americans claim to be Christian, supposedly. Certainly their actions show otherwise. If it were true, and if they were educated properly by our preachers, elders and teachers, would any of this have occurred; they wouldn’t let these happen by their vote.

Instead, we talk after church about wrong it is for men to play against women in sports. A little talk may be about how the “Sex Change” thing is wrong, but they are really more appealed that the girls might miss out on trophy’s to men. But the women and girls that are complaining aren’t stating that they men aren’t women, just that they are missing out on their trophy. Of course, I’m for you can’t have it both ways; if you believe that people can change genders, then I think they can play on whatever team they want and I have no sympathy that they are missing out on an award.

But where is the church and their preachers, elders and teachers? Taking the same lame approach of well it’s wrong and that’s all were going to say about that. These people should not be teaching, they shouldn't be elders and they certainly shouldn't be preachers. If they aren’t stepping on toes at least sometimes, then they are just ineffective weekly cheerleaders standing in the way of the congregation getting the real instruction they need to grow in Christ and to be an effective difference in their family and the community.