₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
Oh yes it does and what a fantastic thread it is too!!  I believe it touches on aspects of christianity that are very relevant to the world we live in today and to the economic order.  Ie. Capitalism. 

It is my opinion that Capitalism is 99.99999999% evil.  The bible ban usury, christianity forbade usury, muslims forbade it too.  So tell me, how come it is the cornerstone of the world economic order today?  Why was it so frowned upon by God in the bible?  What does it do to societies that made it so detestible to God in the bible?

Now the meaning of Usury has been twisted to mean charging excessive interest on a loan, but in actual fact the meaning is the charging of interest, any interest, on a loan.

To me it shows one of the darker side of Judaism, as a religion.  The reason that Jews are the financiers of the world today, in fact they are probably the ones that really developed banking in Europe, is because though God forbid them to practice usury amongst themselves he said it is okay for them to practice usury on non-Jews. 

Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.

Deuteronomy 23:20 Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

Knowing how harmful it is to a social order why permit it to be done to anyone at all.  It is like saying, don't murder your neighbour but you can murder a foreigner. What kind of wickedness is that?!!

Since Jews could not practice usury on themselves but could practice usury on others, and Christians themselves were not permitted to practice usury to anybody (in fact usurers were amongst the most detested people in christian societies who were not even allowed to partake of the sacraments), then it followed that Jews became the source of capital in europe.  This is what created the European image of Jews as a money grubbing people.  Remember Shylock the Jew from Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare). 

    [Exodus 22:25] If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

    [Leviticus 25:36] Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

    [Leviticus 25:37] Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

    [Deuteronomy 23:19] Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

    [Deuteronomy 23:20] Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

Since it was once thought in Europe that Usurer were most definitely the highest candidates for Hell, (in fact Dante in his Inferno the 7th Circle of Hell is reserved for them amongst murderers and homosexuals), so the question is how did it rise to become the corner stone of European economy in the modern age? 
This is a long history that will take us back to Italy in the medieval ages and plenty of time to unravel, so I'll leave that for another day, and another post.

Your summary of the genesis of modern banking is largely correct. But going through your posts, I can see you are mixing up a number of things, like commercial banking and investment banking or primitive economies and modern economy. Moreover, christianity is not against lending and interest. Jesus, in the parable of the talents, which was about the Kingdom He came to establish, clearly endorsed receiving interest from money left in a bank. Where would the interest paid to the depositor come from, if the banker does not charge interest to those he lent the money to?

Matt. 25: 26-27: “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest."

seyibrown:
[b]
John 4:19-24
King James Version (KJV)


19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.



Today's churches have become business centres! It has resulted in MAN WORSHIP and MONEY WORSHIP! The amount of money wasted on building places of worship can be better spent bettering the lives of believers and non-believers. People are 'forced' to bring money they cannot spare for purposes that are not essential! The people are suffering but the Church building is covered in Gold (not literally)! Non-believers are already asking for churches to be taxed because of the corruption found in Churches, and it will happen!

When the Anti-Christ turns in full force on Christians and you cannot gather in a 'physical Church', you will have to not worship God at Christ Embassy or wherever but at home, in secret (underground), in spirit and in truth! The church is spiritual, not a brick building or a denomination![/b]

The level of waste going on in churches is shocking. In terms of time, energy and resources. That's what happens with the one-man founder churches of today where each person is interested in building an empire. You go to church and a lot of what you hear is how the church is growing or plans to grow. Of course, the growth is not real growth based primarily on conversion of souls. It's just recycling of members from Church A to Church B. Instead of churches in the same area combining to run programs, you have unnecessary repetition and competition. Each year, every minsistry proclaims huge success. Each year, things stay the same or worse in their vicinity.

"Firstly,At the time paul accosted Peter, James had become head of the Jerusalem church. That's one of the reason Peter, got scared when he saw the individuals who came from James . So Peter was not the head to paul. Secondly paul was an apostle with a mission. He had his own ministry. Peter visited him. It was pauls domain. He had right to correct issues in his own domain. As a matter of fact."

Correcting issues in his own domain is just your contrived justification for a one-man exclusive ministry. Peter did something wrong and Paul corrected him. Paul did not say it simply to protect his flock. He could protect them without even talking to Peter. He's just address them and let them know that christianity does not support segregation or some judaic practices. I guess, Peter was not a leader at that point. So, even the leadership approach you claim God supported has room for changing leaders and leaving former leaders without authority. Why are your one-man founder ministries not doing the same, since they're copying the style in the Bible? Instead, they stay in power till they die. Or you copy the aspect of Biblical practice that favors you and discard the rest?

"Why would brethren voice something inconsistent with that of the pastor. Is there anywhere brethren under paul voiced something that is contrary to paul? show me a verse."

In the area of revelation, Paul cannot be compared to any minister alive today. Paul got a revelation from God to set out certain principles for the Church. Every christian accepts them as directly from God and without error. Today's ministers, having no such revelation, and being human, make mistakes once in a while. They talk about how they used to preach one thing but found out it was wrong and corrected it. Even you argue here that the church is abandoning wrong teachings and practices to come to a unity of faith. So, it makes sense for Paul to demand absolute followership in revelation. The point I'm making is not about disagreement with pastors per se. But approaching them about something you think they're doing or teaching wrongly. How many people can do that today? Yet, the same thing God spoke to a member as being wrong, a pastor may wake up 5 years later to say that he has discovered is wrong. Yet, his flock suffered under 5 years of that error. If you had shared leadership, most likely they'd have been spared that.

[b"Without leadership there is no direction. Leadership is based on principles. The princilples of God transcends dispensations. They are constant. "

No question. The issue is what principle are we talking about: principle of leadership or principle of absolute one-man rule? The former is God's principle; the latter is not. Does not mean that God cannot appoint a one-man absolute head. But it is not an eternal principle of His. When He seems fit, He chooses a team of leaders. Like when through Paul, He instructed Timothy to ordain a team of elders in the local churches.

[b]"It is possible to feel that because one is not functioning in high office that such one is more inferior. But it is carnal to think that way. But there is heirachy  according to responsibility. It is not about the man but the office."

It is carnal to think that way. But a worse form of carnality to act that way. Which is exactly what happens in the churches today. There is no real hierarchy in the one-man founder churches. Angles had hierarchy, but Lucifer could not have woken up to disrobe an angel. Secular governments have hierarchy, but one man does not lord it over the rest. Because you have titles in churches does not mean it is really hierarchy.


"that voice alway claim equality with leadership."

There's no point twisting my words. I'm not claiming any equality. And please stop equating leadership with one-man absolute rule. My complaint here has never been about leadership but about a type of leadership - absolutism. And there's never a chance I'll want to compete with the absolutists. The life they have is one I'll run away from, not embrace. They live a cocooned life, without knowing who around them is real or just a plain hero-worshipper. I prefer a simple life where I can bike or walk on the streets of Abuja, stop by to get a suya, wash it down with a fanta, without hassles.  Unfortunatley, your absolutists are missing out on such simple things. If they had adhered to shared leadership in the church, life in that respect would be much easier for them. And the rest of the people.

"It's not about war. But the disorder.anarchy."

I agree that it is about disorder or anarchy. But you can't seriously be suggesting that the only way to stop disorder or anarchy is through a king or a one-man rule? Or are you? In Israel at that time, they needed a king to stop it. In many countries today, they do not need and do not have a king. Yet, there is no disorder or anarchy. They have shared leadership, not in any way resembling the one-man rule of a king. That's the point I'm making. So, to assume that the only way the church can be in order is to have a one-man pastor king is a baseless assumption. The erly church had a group of elders and functioned very well. Even when Peter and James were leaders, they were not one-man leaders. They functioned with others and took decisions together, even though one person was at the head.

"Democracy is not Gods idea of government. Even in democracy someone still has executive power . I agree there are checks and balances. But One man leads. It is a simple common sense."

How do you know God's idea of government? Do you realize that monarchy was not His idea for Israel but he permitted it? God is not for any particular form of government. That's man-made doctrine. That God permitted monarchy for Israel, which was the norm then and for a people coming out of theocracy, does not in any way suggest that that the only form of government that God endorses. More importantly, you're right that in a democracy, there's a head with executive power. But it's not just about checks and balances. It's that every branch of government has its sphere of authority that the other brach cannot legally encroach on. The president appoints ministers, but they MUST be confirmed by the Senate. So, president has limited powers, unlike a king, yet he's still the head. I do not dispute that an organization or society should have a head. The question has been what kind of head? A head like a king with absolute authoirity or a head like a president with shared powers? You tend to confuse headship with absolutism. You can be head without having too much power. The one-man founder pastors of today function like kings with absolute wuthority, not even constituional monarchs, let alone presidents and prime-ministers.

alaper:
You are even making this your God look worse. You are making him look like an ordinary man! What you are implying is that he may be omniscient, but he is not omnipotent. He can foresee the problem, but he cannot do anything about it. Or do you mean he can do something about it, but deliberately refuses to do anything?. He prefers to moan and groan afterwards like the 'truant student' or the 'helpless father' in your example. I thought it is God we are talking about, - who is suppossed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, omni-everything Maybe he doesnt have all the powers we think he has. A god who suffers heart break?? lol

Nice try. Running away from your illogic and moving to omnipotence. God is omnipotent but did not want to create 'plastic' people. He wanted human beings with a will who'll decide on their own how to relate to Him. So, correcting their misdeeds ahead of time defeats the purpose - both for the humans and for God Himself.

alaper:
Your biblical quote shows that your God is not omniscient _ he could not foresee the effects of his actions.

How illogical. You can foresee something and still feel pain. If you do not study for a difficult exam, you can 'foresee' that you'll fail. Won't lessen the pain when you see the results. Ditto, you can foresee that a wayward child will be in trouble. Not a guarantee against heart break.

frosbel:
^^

Thanks, never saw that before,another scripture in my Amory,

Good one. I must have missed it too.

Joagbaje:
Leadership is service and not kingship

1 Peter 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

So why do you keep brining up the Israelites King example into the leadership discussion?

Joagbaje:
Leadership is based on spiritual principles. On earth ,in heaven and even in hell. There is heirachy among angels and demons. There is headship in the home and in the society. Attack against spiritual leadership deasnt make bible sense.  

Judges 17:6
6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. . .

If you read the rest of this story you will understand why leadership is spiritual

I like your leadership in the home example (I've already addressed secular leadership elsewhere). The husband is the head, then the wife, the kids. The Bible tells the wife to submit to the husband but in the same breath says that the husband and wife should submit to each other. Where's the equivalent in the one-man ministry founder model? Is there a 2-way submission? Does any man rule his own household the way one-man pastors rule their ministries, speaking from an authority standpoint? Either such a man lives in the jungle or will not be married for long. That's the point. God can set up a leadership model, with a point man, but that in no way resembles the absolutism of today's ministries. Instead God's model in the NT resembles the family approach, where a leader governs with virtually equal authority with others. The same way a husband and wife govern the home.

Joagbaje:
Leadership is based on spiritual principles. On earth ,in heaven and even in hell. There is heirachy among angels and demons. There is headship in the home and in the society. Attack against spiritual leadership deasnt make bible sense.

Judges 17:6
6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. . .

If you read the rest of this story you will understand why leadership is spiritual

I know enough about leadership to write a book on it. You're comparing apples and oranges. God did not establish a church to make anybody king.

^^^

Again, hierarchy is not absolute authority. What obtains in one-man founder ministries is not true hierarchy. It is absolutism. Everybody in their ministry hierarchy is easily dispensable. Nothing like that exists in the NT.

Singing when in trouble or need is good. But singing when things are going well or after the manifestation of victory is even better. Looks like people remember God only when things are tight - a good reason why many people serve God while In Nigeria but largely ignore Him when they relocate abroad. God craves our fellowship and every successful minister I know is a big 'praiser and worshipper.'

Pastor AIO:
Joagbaje can never admit he is wrong lai lai. Unless it is to prove me wrong in this post.

May be it'll be cool to prove you wrong! But I know I'm on solid ground. I have a lot of his ministry materials and he and his wife constantly talk about their debt burden and how they got out of it.

"We should be more concerned about our own giving . What do we do with our money, it's not our place to dictate what another person does with his. Every real MOG put their monies into the ministry. And I believe every church has a helps plan for members that needs financial miracle. Besides,the best thing to do for people is not to give them kobo kobo. That has a place We ought to teach such people about finances. The poor needs teaching. There are principles of prosperity. I will rather empower a man and teach him to stand than giving him stipends. They should be taught on how to be productive. This is one of the benefit of prosperity teaching that some condemn in ignorance."

The above used to be my position. I'm happy with the results I've obtained, applying it. However, recent experience convinces me that it does not capture the whole truth. There are many people suffering in the church. I see people that have sat under a pastor's minstry for at least a decade. Some of them make announcements, head units and deputize for the pastor when he's not around. They've heard any word they can hear on the issue, but they do not seem to have enough. They wear the same clothes over and over when they're serving the ministry (Or God, if you prefer). The pastor seems to have way more than enough and talks about it. What's wrong in catering to the needs of these people, instead of hiding under "giving them fish for a day"? Worse still, these people are asked to give more and more, and given their visible position in the church cannot say No. Something is wrong with this picture.

^^^

No wahala.

God had always led and dealt with people through a triangular leadership. He never dealt with people in mass. He always lead people by one man. Even if there are groups of leaders at the base of the triangle,there is always a person on top to lead.

[quote][/quote]The nominal leadership in the early church is not comparable to the supreme leadership in today's churches. Neither Peter nor James wielded the kind of power that today's one-man ministry founders wield. You meander seamlessly from general principles to specific principles without basis. That would fail any basic test of logic. It's like saying that God has always dealt with educated people and using that as a basis for preaching that a church should only be led by Ph.D holders. While a Ph.D holder is educated (specific), there are also non-Ph.D holders that are educated (general).

I see a lot of this approach of moving from the general to the specific in the church. Like a minister spends one hour going through all the scriptures on giving and its benefits. In conclusion, he asks people to open their wallets and give to the church. But the scriptures he quoted were not ALL specific about giving to the church. So, why didn't he tell the people that giving carries benefits, including giving to the church, charity, relatives, etc.? Instead he equates giving to giving to the church and only mentions these other forms of giving once in a while.

Same thing with words. Bible talks about good and bad words. Pastor preaches about it, but limits ito to positive and negative confession, which is only one aspect of good and bad words. The rest are neglected or relegated to the background. Interestingly, you see little of this in the Catholic church, where priests undergo formal training in philosophy (which logic is a part of). Catholic priests have their own issues but illogic is rarely one of them.

Joagbaje:
Forgiveness is for all. There's no preference . An MOG is first a christian. He lives as a christian. His anointing as MOG is to minister to others. He is accountable for his life like every person.

I was thinking you'd provide some support for your assertion that Kenneth Copeland was a rich businessman and movie star when he got into the ministry. Or at least acknowledge that you're wrong.

Joagbaje:
The first three are offices, part of the 5 fold ministries. Apostles, Prophets, teachers,

Ephesians 4:11-12
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

So the first three are part of the 5 offices . So the rest mentioned are supportive gifts .They are not offices.

God has always dealth with people through leadership. Without leadership ,there will be chaos. God is God of order. It's a simple logic. He has never dealth with people without a man at the head on whom the anointing rests. When there was no king in israel, it led to war. Until God began to give them judges, even when there was no capable man, he led them by a woman. There must be a leader .

When Jesus left, the church had the apostles, but Peter had leadership among them. Later, James the brother of Jesus became leader.

When paul and Barnabas were sent forth, Barnabas had the leadership, but when he saw the grace on paul, he withrew and allowed paul to lead. There must be a leader.

I wish we can find support for your assertions; alas, it is lacking.

Israel fought wars not because they did not have a one-man rule. Even when they had kings, they still fought. So, that assertion lacks support. In the secular world today, we really do not have the kind of one-man government that exists in churches. For instance, in some advanced socieities, you have 3 equal branches of government, none of which has absolute control over the rest. Yet, we do not have the chaos you mention. In fact, they work better than absolute monarchies, dictatorships and church governments today.

You claim that God deals with leadership but somehow equates leadership with one-man rule. They're not one and the same. Peter headed the church, but his leadership was nothing compared to the one-man leadership we find in churches today. If he was that type of leader, how come Paul accosted him without consequences? Can anybody do that with any of the supreme leader-pastors we have today? Heck, nobody in their churches can even claim any revelation, prophecy or word that is inconsistent with that of the pastor. Again, such practice has no support in scriptures, where brethren expressed their gifts, without waiting for certification by one particular individual. Any certification was by the body of leaders or elders, not one man.

The idea that God has always dealt with one leader at a time, even if true, which it is not, does not provide sufficient ground for the one-man supreme rule in churches today. God can choose to structure the new testament church any way He desires. It does not have to accord with previous practice or logic. Logic and common sense only come in when God has not expressly spoken or His word does not appear clear enough. What He has said is that He gave gifts to the Church, not a clergy that is high above the rest of the people. Worse still, not a one-man government. The disorder in the churches today are partly attributabe to that. Because pastors assume a higher role, they have a higher responsibility. And spend every moment trying to maintain that, sometimes using underhanded tactics, hiding their sins because people already view them as demi-gods, when confession would be better for their spiritual health, etc. Instead of a body of believers, we have a segregated congregation. It's disgusting to see people cowering before their pastors, never able to call them by their names without adding a title, etc. No such thing exists in the Bible.

Finally, the fact that Helps and support gifts are mentioned in the same verse you quoted clearly suggest that they are all gifts without any sharp distinction in prestige or position. Today, an usher is way below in the totem pole to the evangelist in the church. Where in that scripture does it say so? The church is moving speedily back into the old testament, importing discarded doctrines and practices to fit into modern life. Makes the whole issue of Jesus bringing a new order virtually pointless.

Joagbaje:
Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Corinthians 12:28
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Nothing in the Scriptures you quoted establishes a clergy-laity distinction. So what part of the clergy is Helps? What office does diversity of tongues hold? Or we choose the ones that support our point - pastors, prophets, etc - and ignore the rest?Also, if God gave all these people to rule, why is that in most churches today, it is a one-man rule by the pastor or founder? I'm eager to see a Biblical basis for the sharp distinction between clergy and laity in born-again churches today.

Azibalua:
What proof do you have that they give mainly to their ministries?
And if you are not a giver ,don't think every one is like you,why do you feel other church members are MIT receiving gifts as well from other members?

I take it you're being silly. My time is too precious to respond to such silliness. But I'll humor you a bit. I can put my giving against yours any day and you'll fall very short. I see a church or two where the pastor wears all the best suits, while the pastoral assistants keep on repeating their clotyhes. I'm not even talking of the poor guy lost in the congregation that nobody notices. If you attend a church and you can't see that the bulk of the pastor's giving is within, or that people do not give substantially to those in the pews, you need some help with your perceptive abilities. But I take it you know the truth, but trying to act too clever by half.

dare2think:
@Joagbaje

Yes, people give them gifts and stuff. There is no crime in that. But don't you think it is ethically and morally right for those ministers to direct those "gifts" to poorer members of the church.

That's one thing that bothers me too. You see pastors bragging about how they have dozens of suiits, shoes and ties they have not worn, that were given to them by people. Yet, there are many people in that church wearing crappy clothes. Not only should the pastor re-distribute MOST of these gifts instead of living like a king, while the members live like paupers, but he should spend a lot of time preaching about giving to one another. Not just giving to ministers. Or the church. I keep on wondering: where's the love of Christ and the brethren in all of this?

You come to a church and you can easily tell the big difference between the pastor and the flock. He dresses well, looks well-fed, his children go the best schools, but the members look and live differently. When somebody complains, he's told to go and open his own church and see how easy it is to make it. I thought it was churches like the Catholic that had such sharp distinction between the clergy and laity. Today, virtually everything the boran again christians attacked the Catholics and Anglicans for, they now repeat, albeit in more polished fashion.

Azibalua:
One thing that baffles me is the fact that most people believe that men of god dwell on monies from the ministry to live by,and are not givers themselves.
This is strange,cos the easiest way for a leader in the body of christ to become poor is to not to pay his tithes and also not to give.

Not one person I know thinks that ministers do not 'give.' The point is that they mainly give to their ministries. If I give my money to my business, do you call that giving? Or it becomes giving because my business is a christian ministry? Right, they do not dwell on ministry money. They get gifts. But why is it that church members that also give do not become rich through gifts by other church members? Does that principle only work for ministers?

Joagbaje:
Nothing is wrong in a minister having money. That doesn't make them false. There is a difference between the ministry money and the ministers money. Even though many ministers put their personal money into ministry.

Different ministers have different gifts ,callings and abilities. Healings , miracles, etc. Before we condemn a man, we should be objective enough to understand his own side. Know his reasons,motives and revelation. Compare before conclude. Don't just judge from external perspective.

Some preachers believes they are anointed to cause people of God to prosper. People who prospered under such ministers will definitely reciprocate . By appreciating the minister who has been a blessing to them. If from poverty, I listen to a preacher and through the things I learned from him I become a millionaire . I will put some millions into his account also. If I had a terminal disease and doctors have given up on me, and a man of God minister to me and I get healed. I will send gift or money in appreciation.

Many ministers receive gifts and money from people. This is not offerings and tithes which belongs to the church. But personal gifts. If I see benny hinn today , I will write a cheque for him. Because he had been a blessing to the world . I first got to know about the person of the holy spirit by reading his book ."GOOD MORNING HOLY SPIRIT" . Some people who's life have been touched by a miniter give cars ,money etc. In appreciation. Some pastors are richer than the church account because those who's lives have been transformed blessed them back.

Some ministers are best selling authors, and several millions comes to them from sales of those books.

Some other ministers were already rich before God called them. Kenneth copeland had rich family business, he was also a Hollywood wild west actor before God called him. Apart from family business . He was known to be giving out planes to ministers. He once gave IdahOSA a jet but idahosa couldn't accept it because of maintenance .

We ought to hear from the people themselves before throwing stone. Besides God never call anyone of us to judge his servants. If anyone of his servants do wrong in his name ,God knows how to handle them. He has told us to leave them alone. There's no single scripture that says Christians should be hunting ministers . We find ourselves sinning against God in this error. There's no reward for it.

If an author, poet etc can have house by pacific, I don't think it is a sin if a minister who is a bet selling author in millions , who also receives personal gift from all over the world have a house by pacific . It's his money. No one can tell him how to spend it. But if it's church money. It's between him and God .

I accept some of your points, e.g., there is nothing wrong in a minister being rich and people sometimes give to ministers in appreciation of blessings.

But a few corrections and some counter-points.

Kenneth Copeland did not have a penny when he became a minister. He was no big movie star. I don't know where you got your story from. Not only did he not have money, but he and his wife were deeply in debt.

Only a few ministers like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren have true best sellers. A best-selling book means that many people, outside your congregation, buys the book. What really happens is that a minister writes a book, gets church members to each buy hundreds of copies, including allocating copies to church departments, and then claim it's a best seller. I agree that such practice makes money for the ministers, but that's an insult to best-sellers, which are books that many people evaluate as good and purchase on their own. That's why many ministers claim to be be best-selling authors, but nobody knows them outside their circles.

It's true that minsiters get rich because people blessed by their ministry give to them. But it's even truer that many ministers get rich because they sell the idea to people that the core of financial prosperity is to give, often to ministers, because they're sowing on a good soil.

So long as they continue to use some of these tactics - faux best sellers, seed to ministers - they'll continue to attract unwanted criticisms.

The best form of government is one tailored to the special circumstances and needs of the particular society. The American colonists figured that the parliamentary system supported by a (constitutional) monarchy was not suitable to their circumstances, they created a new form of government - presidential system under a democracy - that seems to work pretty well. What is unfortunate is when a people decide to copy what's going on elsewhere without adequately considering their own circumstances. E.g., Nigeria is about the only country that follows the American presidential system. Yet, it doesn't seem to be suitable for us.

I also agree that allowing God govern is an essential feature. In essence, you can have any system of government, so long as the people are God-fearing, it'll generally work. On the other hand, a society seeped in immorality or godlessness, as is today's Nigeria, is not likely to make much headway regardless of form of government. That's why I think churches have a major role in igniting a moral, ethical and spiritual rebirth.

Recycling foreign messages or preaching as though you're in Europe or America does not strike one as the best approach. A situation where millions flock to crusades and other church meetings, yet you can't see the difference in the society is lamentable. Yonggi Cho grew a church that hit the million mark. It's easier for me to respect him because if you step into South Korea, you'll meet a lot of honest people. But in Nigeria, churches claim large numbers on Sundays and on special occasions, but it is not reflected in the way people live. If you had 10,000 christians in any state in Nigeria that lived the life of a christian, Nigeria would be a very different place.

It looks like christians are agitated over this topic. But the high energy dissipated in proving who's right ot wrong is probably not worth it. If praying against your enemies is against the will of God, then God does not hear such prayers. If God accepts such prayers, those who make them will continue making them and nobody will be able to dissuade them.

Would be helpful if you explain what it means to worship in Spirit and Truth. That's actually the kind of discussions that I'm interested in here.

Joagbaje:
Same way, you’re that preventative power against evil today in your home, in your family and amongst your loved ones! The fact that you belong to Christ means His blood is marked on you, and His Name is named upon you! Therefore, when the evil one comes, he passes over you and those of your household. Your presence in a place prevents the devil from dominating and wielding wicked influence over the lives of men and women in the place, because you represent the Body of Christ there.

Isn't this different and directly contradictory to your earlier claim that what protects christians is a "force-field" of positive confession? And doesn't the quote tally with my point that every christian is already under the protection of God and should stay conscious of that fact?

Contrast the pastor's or minstry's giving to that of the members. A pastor that made 10 Million Naira in a year could give away 7 Million Naira easily. But most of that giving is strategic. You're not likely to hear that he secretly went to a remote village, identified missionary or a local pastor not affiliated to his minstry and give him a million Naira to help with his work. You're not likely to learn that he paid the school fees of people in another area or even country that do not know anything about him. No, you'll hear that he bought a car for a junior pastor, paid the school fees of a poor medical student in his church, donated with fanfare to a motherless babies home, etc.

Meanwhile the member that made 10 Million Naira profit in his business would pay a tithe. First fruit is interpreted in a number of ways and could mean his first deal in the year. If that deal was 5 Million Naira, he gives all of it to the church. He gives offerings. He gives to building projects. Crusades. Special seed into the pastor's and other minister's life. Even thoug he's a partner in the minsitry, if the pastor writes a book or produces materials (CD, DVD), this member is likely to "launch it" or pay for it. At the end of the day, he has poured about 30 - 60% of his income into that ministry. Guess, who comes out ahead: the member or the pastor/ministry? Then multiply with the number of members following teh same circle and it becomes readily apparent why we have so much socio-economic disparity in the church.

Imagine if that member had followed the pastor's approach: give only 5% as true or semi-true giving. Give the rest as an investment in himself or his business - travel abroad to study or make contacts, hire more people, open more branches, cultivate the friendships of those who'd help his business by bringing the gifts on their birthdays, etc. His business is likely to grow better. Send his kids to good schools so thay can come back to grow the business. If he's looking for a job, his prospects would be brighter with the better education. But it often does not happen.

Now, remember also that some members also give strategically. Often when they give to the pastor, they're buying closeness that would bring them benefits - using the pastor's contacts. Often, it's those members that prosper, that give the big testimonies. The poor guy that is fooled that it is all about giving, simpliciter, continues to wallow in poverty. Such person needs better knowledge.

As Isaiah says, God's people are led into captivity (e.g. unnecessary poverty) because of their lack of knowledge.

^^^^^^^^

I don't recall anybody saying that pastors do not give. Only that they give a small portion of their income away, as opposed to the congregation that gives a very large portion, yet do not in any way compare to the pastor in terms of financial success. Maybe, I should use this opportunity to elucidate and educate on giving.

There are several types of giving or activities that we refer to as giving.

1. True Giving. Here you give to people that have no chance of repaying you. As you're giving, there's zero expectation that the person will pay you back either because the person does not have the means or you may never see the person again or for sundry reasons. The Book of Proverbs says in at least 2 places that when you give to the poor you lend to the Lord and the Lord HIMSELF (not the poor) will repay you.

2. Semi-true giving. You give to people, who can repay you. However, your basis of giving is not that they'd repay you. E.g., you pay the school fees of a relative, neighbor, a fellow church member. Sure, there's a good chance that they'd graduate tomorrow to be rich, but your motivation is not that when they graduate they return the money you gave them (with interest).


3. Self-Giving. This is giving to yourself (not to be confused with giving yourself or giving of yourself, which are often sacrificial and not selfish). This is not truly giving. The correct term here is investment. You are investing in yourself. If you read one of the classics on personal finance, 'The Secrets of the Richest Man of Baylon', it takes about the time-tested principle of paying yourself first, even when you're owing others. You can invest in yourself by acquiring a good education, injecting profits back into your business, giving to people strategically to grow the business (paying to "area fathers", belonging to associations, training interns, employees, etc). Even make charitable contributions, that brings you goodwill in the community, that in turn brings you profits.

Virtually, every money a pastor or ministry "gives" falls in the third category. They buy cars, but mainly for members of the their church, which in turn ties the people to them and get them committed. They pay for the school fees of church members, again for the same purpose or result.They give to their spiritual fathers to maintain a beneficial relationship. They give to sponsor ministry projects, which yields more members. So, when a pastor claims to be the biggest giver in the congregation, he's not necessarily lying if you're thinking of Category 3, which is is really not giving.

Continued . . .

mabell:
He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30).

This is a very powerful expression in the Scriptures credited to John the Baptist. He was talking about the Lord Jesus, and he said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” If only you’d catch this vision with your spirit and become more of Him and less of yourself.

Remember, the Father said of Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matthew 17:5). Jesus is the fulfillment of the Father’s dream; He is our chief example. So if we’re going to please the Father, we’ve got to be like Jesus. We’ve got to copy Him and let our character sink into His character so much that people will begin to say we look like Him.

John declared that “as He (Jesus) is so are we in this world (1 John 4:17). The question is, Who is He? Jesus is the living Word. He’s the absolute personification of Wisdom. When He walked this earth, He forgave, blessed, healed, raised the dead, embraced sinners, and changed lives. He was such a marvel, and He hasn’t changed (Hebrews 13:. Our knowledge of who Jesus is helps us know who we are and how we ought to live.

When the Holy Ghost reveals Jesus to you from the Word and you get to know Him more, you’d love Him more, and become more like Him. Then you can think, talk and act like Him, because you’ve got His Word in you.

You know, sometimes in my prayer, I tell God, “I don’t just want to be a “preacher”; I want to be like Jesus. I want to do what He did, think like Him and love people the way He did.” This should be your desire too – to see the real value of people and love them for who they really are. Some don’t know who Jesus is and who they are in Him, but you can help them discover themselves and realize their true worth. As you help others discover who Jesus is to fall in love with Him and become like Him, you also become more like Him

So let Jesus be your example in everything. Copy him and you’ll be an outstanding success anytime, anywhere!

Amen!

[quote author=Omo_Tier1 link=topic=687866.msg8501808#msg8501808 date=1307822652]That was where the trap was set and you fell for it! God wasn't asking Isaac to till the ground because He wanted Him to learn how to work hard!-in your wisdom, you forgot that Isaac was a trained farmer and a rearer-!

All God wanted to see was Isaac's trust in His word! And same goes with you lots that cry over money money being given to churches. Most of you that cry out louder are inwardly money conscious but openly wanting to denounce it!

Let me tell you this; there yet more people who sacrifice than they who offer offerings and if you do not know, God accepts offerings But He savours sacrifices! so step up and leave mere issues of offerings behind,we have move on from that,as there is a bigger and greater part -THE SACRIFICE- Hope you will grasp this! Try study the story of cain and Abel again to get more insight.

Again as God is concerned, so am I and I ask, how will chasing Pastors whose members give offerings and tithe bring the souls to God? My gent - Preach the Gospel as Peter and John did![/quote]Well, that was a childish, ineffective trap. It soundly failed.

I'm glad you said Isaac was a farmer. He had skills. And God told him to use those skills, when natural ciircumstances stood to the contrary. That's the nature of our God. What do people like you preach? When situations are tough, instead of developing skills, or using the one you have and depending on God to supernaturally intervene, you tell people to give and give some more. Again, why didn't God tell Isaac to give?

I'm glad you give sacrificially. Anything we contribute to expanding God's Kingdom is commendable. But if you're suggesting that your so-called sacrificial giving, which may be just your way of buying what your pastor is selling or trying to please him, is helping you prosper financially, then it's obvious that you're either foolish or lying. I know a guy that speaks exactly like you about sacrificial giving. In the past 2 years, I've seen him publicly give about 1 million Naira. If I add first fruits and tithes, we're talking of several millions more.I'm not counting the ones he didn't announce, (that is outside of pastor's book launch, special projects, etc. ) Yet, this guy wears the exact 3 suits to church all this while. He could use about half of that 1 million Naira to get 3 good suits or 6 decent suits that are even better than the ones he's wearing. I'm sure one day, he'll come with a testimony about how he got a 100,000 Naira gift or a new suit, not realizing he could have given those things to himself and still given to the work of the gospel.

Oh, btw, I'm not chasing any pastors. I have a number of good friends who are pastors. And I respect them tremendously, having known them from the time they were nothing. The problem is not primarily with the pastors. It is with the congregation. A situation a pastor has 150 pairs of quality shoes, 100 suits, tons of shirts and ties, virtually all given to him and people are still falling over themselves to give him some more, while neglecting their poor brethren and relatives is not exactly the pastor's fault.

mabell:
how did you come by this information?

From personal observation, reading ministry materials and receiving information from or about pastors and ministries. I'd be happy to hear just one counter-example of a pastor truly giving more than 5% of his income. You do not even need to mention his or her name. Simply tell me: Pastor X gave 1 Million Naira but his income was 5 Million Naira. As for members, there's no question about their percentages, when they pay tithes, give first fruit offerings, regular offerings, building funds, launching the pastors' books, etc.