A Message For Those Who Mourn

Weekly Message

March 30, 2014

Hope In The Lord

It’s always hard to lose someone close to you and it’s even harder when there is a question as to whether or not that person had accepted the Lord. We know that Paul says in Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. But what happens when someone passes who, to your knowledge, hadn’t believed upon Jesus?

I lost one of my dearest friends this week. He had the maddening habit of alternately saying that he thought perhaps there was something to this faith in God and later making it clear that he really didn’t believe. Which was it? That was important to me. But I never knew for sure. I would, as we all would in a similar situation, like to think that my friend had some measure of faith. But I’m just not sure.

There are comforting words in scripture that we may apply to these times. Peter said in 1 Peter 4:8, “Above all maintain constant love for one another because love covers a multitude of sins.”

Also, I find solace in 1 Corinthians 7:14, which says “For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband.” And then in 1 Corinthians 7:16, “Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know you might save your wife.”

So unbelievers, or those who may have some measure of belief, may be saved through the prayers of others. This is a difficult concept and I can barely get my hands around. It is useless for me to comment further, but I did want to share these thoughts with readers.

Those of you who have friends and loved ones who may not have accepted God’s grace through Christ, know that they may yet gain admission to the holy city through your intercession. And that gives me a great deal of comfort. 

Prayer Works

Weekly Message

Tom Seymour

March 23, 2014

Prayer Works – But Why?

I’ve heard it so many times. People tell me that prayer works. Many doctors even say to pray, because it works. Studies show that prayer works and these studies sometimes measure changes within people’s bodies who pray.

But rarely do we hear a doctor say that prayer works because God hears our prayers. Most doctors are concerned with only the clinical aspects of prayer. Even atheists, observing the data, conclude that prayer works. But they don’t attribute these life-saving results of prayer to the Lord hearing and acting.

In fact, some of the professional people who attest to the power of prayer view our prayers to God as misguided faith that just happens to trigger some kind of inherent healing mechanism in our bodies. We believers are just simple types, clinging to a myth. And while we attribute answer to prayers as a direct gift from God, the professionals attribute it to us accidentally tapping into some physical reaction.

There is only one God, the triune person, the three-in-one who created the universe. And that universe includes us, and our bodies. And when we offer prayers to God, he always hears. But sometimes his answers are not immediately apparent.

On the other hand, sometimes God’s answer to prayer comes so quickly that it is quite frightening. For instance, I’ve been praying for God to bless my work as a foraging teacher. His answer came within hours and was so dead-on that it could only have come from God.

The Lord knows my name. He knows your name, your thoughts, joys, fears and every feeling you possess. God is the almighty and he is almighty. And when we pray, God hears us.

So the next time someone suggests to you that you should pray because prayer works, tell them that you do pray because you know that God hears prayers.

And don’t forget that a prayer without Jesus in it is like a letter without a postage stamp; it isn’t going anywhere. 

The Slave Returns

Weekly Message

Sunday, March 15, 2014

The Slave Returns

Monday, March 17, is St. Patrick’s Day. Scarce a one among us is unaware of the patron saint of Ireland. But how many know how he achieved that distinction?

Patrick was not Irish. He lived on the mainland in the fifth century A.D. and was kidnapped by seagoing raiders and forcibly taken to Ireland to serve as a slave. So Patrick was a slave, but his unfortunate position did not necessarily instill a great hatred for his captors. Patrick was a brilliant observer and studied the Irish people and their culture. He became a student of the Irish, as it were.

But still, he was a slave and when he found opportunity to escape, he seized it. In time, though, back in Britain, Patrick heard in a dream, the voices of his former captors calling to him. He determined to return to Ireland and do what he could to assist the people. Among other things, he brought to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In time, Ireland came to love this humble of humblest men. And so it was that the former slave, Padraig, or as per the anglicized version, “Patrick,” became the patron saint of Ireland. And now people around the world celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

This celebration has a more commercial tone in America than it does in Ireland. Here, “St. Paddy’s Day” is for celebrating, carousing and drinking far too much. In Ireland, the people take a more demure approach in observing the day.

St. Patrick died in 461. He was not only the church’s missionary to Ireland, he also served as bishop. Patrick was the first westerner to condemn slavery.

Now here’s my thought on this, followed by a question, a rhetorical one. Patrick didn’t have to return to Ireland. After all, they did hold him in slavery. He could have ignored his dream voices and served the church credibly by remaining in Britain. But instead he chose to put himself in danger for the sake of others. Does that sound familiar?

Who else put himself in danger in order that others might be saved? Jesus did. The first 30 years of his life was spent in relative anonymity. But Jesus knew he was on this earth for a mission from God and he did not falter in taking up the ministry that would eventually see his death, resurrection and ascension.

My question. If you were faced with doing something that went against the grain, even something that could possibly lead to your death, but you knew for a certainty that God was calling you in this matter, what would you do? Would you hop aboard a boat and return to Ireland, as St. Patrick did, or would you simply ignore the calling and continue on as always?

We don’t all get called to such potentially dangerous and life-changing situations. But most of us from time to time hear that tiny, still voice calling us to do something that we might not want to do. For many, the answer can only come through continual and diligent prayer.

So this St. Patrick’s Day, try and set aside a moment to reflect upon the great self-sacrifice of St. Patrick. His life is a model for us and it shows us that there are good people in this world.

Amen.

Jesus Movies

Weekly Message

Tom Seymour

March 9, 2014

Lent Begins

Jesus Movies

The current popularity of bible-based themes for Hollywood movies raises some interesting questions. Is it a good thing to portray events as related in scripture in a for-profit format? Do these movies help to draw people to God? And what about the accuracy of such films?

Regarding the first question, the answer is a tough one and there may well be more than one answer. First, we must recall that Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. Filled with righteous anger, Jesus told those there that they had turned his Father’s house into a den of thieves. Clearly, Jesus wanted for us to see the distinction between true religion and religion-for-money such as the moneychangers and sacrificial animal sellers practiced.

But before that event, Jesus’ disciples wanted to prosecute a man who was casting out demons in the name of Jesus. And Jesus told them to let the man be, that those who were not against them (Jesus and his followers) were for them. Might we tie this into moviemakers who produce what some lump into the category of “Jesus movies?” Perhaps. But in the case of certain movies, certainly not. 

The second question is equally as perplexing. Do these movies draw people to God? Well, few people in the modern era are unaware of the gospel. Religious television shows abound and in towns and cities, church steeples are often the highest manmade structures around. Except for primitive peoples living away from modern civilizations, everyone has heard about Jesus.

On the other hand, many have heard of Jesus, but have only a shallow, passing notion of what and who he is. Jesus movies may well serve to enlighten such viewers.

The last question brings up a point that a great many viewers of these movies may miss. Biblical accuracy as portrayed not just in movies but in the bible itself is in question by bible scholars. Many of these scholars have an ax to grind, too. The “in” thing now among biblical academia is to discredit scripture and Jesus in particular. The unearthing of ancient texts at Nag Hammadi was instrumental in this anti-Jesus movement among scholars. These texts contained many writings, supposed "gospels" from after the time of Jesus. These were from the Gnostics. One modern scholar and noted disputer of our canonical scripture, Marvin Meyer, considers these texts as valuable and perhaps even more valuable than the accepted gospel texts. 

Many, not all, modern bible scholars accept Gnostic (the Gnostics were a group that felt spiritual matters must be experienced physically, among other things. They also wrote their own gospels, many of them fanciful and all of them written long after the four, synoptic gospels, those being the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) teaching and writing but reject the synoptic gospels.

This is not a new movement. It began over 100 years ago, but only lately, in our “enlightened” age, has it become so universally popular among mainstream scholars. An example of this mode of thinking begins with bible authorship, particularly New Testament authorship.

Scholars, analyzing writing styles, have determined that none of the four gospels were actually written by the authors for whom they are named. For instance, the Gospel of John, according to our modern lights, was not written by the apostle John, but by an anonymous author, a Greek-speaking Christian. And the Gospel of Luke? Not a result of the Luke of scripture, but by an unknown person who had access to a large collection of sayings called “Q,” or “Quelle,” German for “source.” From these, scholars say, the false Luke composed his gospels.

The repudiation of what most of us know, believe and cherish continues. Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, but rather, some unknown did. The author of Mark wrote, like Luke, from existing sources.

The trouble with all this is that authors, with the exception of Luke who was always supposed to be the Apostle Paul’s traveling companion, claimed to have walked and talked with Jesus. They testify that they have seen the word (Jesus is the "word") with their own eyes and touched with their own hands.

This is best stated in the first letter of John: We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-this life was revealed and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you that eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us-we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

John is talking of himself and the other apostles and gospel authors being with Jesus. So if John is lying and all the other authors are also telling made-up stories rather than factual accounts, all our belief and faith in eternal life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross is in vain. But John wasn't lying. The only lies are from those who seek to discredit scripture and so steal away our faith.

Getting back to Jesus movies, the Christ-deniers have worked their way into television versions of such movies. People like Dominic Crossan, a de-frocked Roman Catholic priest, and Elaine Pagels, a non-believer and prolific author of pro-Gnostic books, are part of something called “The Jesus Seminar.” You may remember a television “documentary” called “The Search For Jesus.” Rather than working from established scripture, these people presented a Gnostic point of view and took every opportunity during station breaks to point out that nothing in the bible was true as presented.

Satan is alive and well and he loves The Jesus Movement.

It seems the lowest of low, vile acts to use the time of Lent, leading up to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as a time to try and turn people’s minds against the truths of scripture. But that is exactly what these people do.

So regarding Jesus movies and indeed, any bible-based movies, I must say, “Viewer beware.”

Some of these movies were produced by bible-based people. The current movie Son Of God is such a one, as was Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of The Christ. But not all are bible based and because of that I say again, beware.

John The Baptist Was A Forager

Weekly Message

Tom Seymour

March 2, 2014

John The Baptist Was A Forager

John the Baptist lived in the desert and ate locusts and honey. No doubt, John consumed other foods too, probably plant products. But scripture concentrates upon locusts and honey.

References to food occur throughout the bible. Herbs, fish and olives all come to mind. Drink, too, gets more than ample mention. Wine is used again and again throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Today we know that grapes and wine made from grapes have some health benefits. We know that through science, but in biblical times, people knew simply because they were aware that God had provided grapes for them. The wine Jesus drank at weddings and banquets did not come in a bottle, bought in a store.

I am particularly interested in references to herbs. Herbs, in a biblical context, are not only pleasant seasonings and spices, but actual foods, main-dish foods. In bible times, people depended upon the local flora as a significant portion of their diets. Today, we have largely gotten away from personal involvement in procuring our food directly from the source.

In addition to preaching the word of God, I am a naturalist and as such, concentrate upon wild plant foods. The term “foraging” describes what I do. In fact, I have written several books on the subject and continue to host seminars and plant walks. And guess what? The level of interest in foraging increases each year. It seems that most everyone wants to get in touch with the land, to re-establish their connection to the natural world.

When preaching from the pulpit, I frequently brought in samples of newly-picked plants. I would explain the uses and benefits of these plants and often used the last phrase of the last sentence of Genesis 1:30 to drive my point home: I have given every green plant for food.

Just because we have largely become supermarket-dependent for our physical sustenance doesn't mean that we must continue in that walk. I’m beginning to see that part of my own personal ministry is to expand upon Genesis 1:30 and in a way that not only helps people to become more self-sufficient regarding their diets, but also shows people, even people who do not look to the Lord and have no relationship with Jesus Christ, how much God loves them.

And my plant talks and walks are available for all. If you have a church and wish for a substitute or fill-in pastor with a down-to-earth program, I am available.