From Mark Copeland... "EQUIPPING THE SAINTS FOR MINISTRY" Organizing For Service In The Body

                  "EQUIPPING THE SAINTS FOR MINISTRY"

                   Organizing For Service In The Body

INTRODUCTION

1. In "Equipping The Saints For Ministry", the problem is not one of
   having enough things for people to do

2. We saw in our last lesson that there are many different things to be
   done, many different ways to serve as members of the body...
   a. In the area of public worship
   b. In the area of edification, evangelism and benevolence
   c. In areas of individual service, in roles that are not the work of
      the local congregation per se

3. Even in large churches, the problem is not a lack of roles for the
   members, as Flavil Yeakley wrote in his book ("WHY CHURCHES GROW")
   in reference to large churches:

   "Actually, the real problem was not always the ACTUAL roles-to-
   members ratio, but was sometimes the PERCEIVED roles-to-member 
   ratio. In other words, a larger congregation might actually have 
   more than enough specific task assignments to go around, but the
   members might not be aware of the many ways in which they could
   get involved." (p. 43)

3. As further suggested by Flavil Yeakley, the problem is one of 
   communication and organization...
   a. "If a congregation has a good actual roles-to-member ratio but a
      low perceived roles-to-members ratio, the problem is one of 
      communication..."
   b. "A congregation can have a high involvement level no matter how
      large it becomes--if..."
      1) "...that congregation will do the necessary organizational 
         work so as to have a high actual roles-to-member ratio..."
      2) "...the congregation's leaders will communicate in the right
         way so as to have a high perceived roles-to-members ratio." (p. 44, 45)

4. Somehow, therefore, there needs to be in any congregation that 
   desires to equip its saints for ministry...
   a. A means of communicating to the members what roles are available
   b. An organized method of encouraging the members to offer their 
      service and coordinating their efforts

5. One tool that can help accomplish this goal is the "Member 
   Involvement Survey"...

[Please note:  I am simply offering suggestions for communicating with
the members and organizing efforts to involve all who desire to serve.
These suggestions are not "set in stone" and should be implemented only
with the approval of the congregation and it's leaders...]

I. THE "MEMBER INVOLVEMENT SURVEY"

   A. A FORM FOR MEMBERS TO FILL IN...
      1. With space for their name, address, phone number
      2. With a list of roles available to members of the congregation
      3. With an option to indicate...
         a. What they are willing to do now
         b. What they think they would like to do in the future
      -- See sample "Member Involvement Survey"

   B. MEMBERS COULD FILL IN THIS FORM...
      1. When they first place membership, or when converted to Christ
      2. On an annual basis,  so as to...
         a. Keep the members apprised as to the work that is available
            to be done (available roles may change in the course of a
            year)
         b. Keep the elders apprised as to the work that the members 
            are willing to do (people may be willing to try new roles
            as time goes on)

   C. THE BENEFITS OF A "MEMBER INVOLVEMENT SURVEY"...
      1. It lets the members know what different things are available
         for them to do
      2. It lets the elders or leaders of the congregation know what
         people are willing to do
      3. It provides the preacher with some input that may help him 
         focus his efforts
         a. E.g., if there is an area in which no one is willing to 
            offer their service, perhaps some teaching or preaching on
            that need may be in order
         b. E.g., if several have indicated a desire to serve in a 
            particular role in the present or future, then a special
            class for training might accommodate those desires

[Even if nothing else is done with a "Member Involvement Survey", I 
know that it would help me in my efforts as an evangelist to do what I
can to stimulate others to love and good works.

But with the information taken from the survey, a little organization
can go a long way to provide many opportunities for service.  For 
example, consider another form...]

II. THE "LIST OF ROLES AND AVAILABLE VOLUNTEERS"

   A. A FORM FOR EACH AREA OF SERVICE AND ITS ROLES...
      1. Different forms for the areas of public worship, edification,
         evangelism benevolence, etc.
      2. Each form listing the various roles available in that area of
         service
      3. With a place for names of those who indicated their 
         willingness to serve in the "Member Involvement Survey"
      -- See the following samples:
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Public Worship I
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Public Worship II
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Edification
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Evangelism
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Benevolence I
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Benevolence II
         - "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers" - Miscellaneous Areas

   B. WITH THESE FORMS...
      1. Those charged with coordinating efforts in a particular area
         of service would know who is willing to do what
      2. Some examples...
         a. The person(s) preparing the schedule for public worship 
            could use it to plan the services
         b. The person(s) preparing the class curriculum would know who
            was available for teaching different classes
         c. If a need for benevolence arose, the person(s) coordinating
            efforts in that area could know who to call on for help

[By taking information gathered from the "Member Involvement Survey" 
and using it to complete the "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers"
for each area of service, a congregation can be a step closer to 
involving all its members.

But collecting this information alone is not going to get the work 
done.  There is a need for those to coordinate efforts in the different
areas, and to report the progress of such efforts to those with the 
proper oversight.  To aid in this, there is yet one more form...]

III. THE "MEMBER INVOLVEMENT REPORT"

   A. THIS "REPORT" IS BASED UPON AN IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION...
      1. That the responsibility of coordinating member involvement in
         a particular area has been delegated; for example...
         a. That someone is responsible for coordinating those involved
            in the area of public worship
         b. That similar responsibilities have been given to other 
            people in other areas
      2. In a congregation with elders and deacons...
         a. This responsibility might be given to deacons
         b. Who in turn might enlist the help of responsible men and 
            women, in those activities deemed appropriate
      3. In a congregation without elders, responsible individuals 
         might be appointed to help coordinate efforts in various areas

   B. WITH THIS "REPORT"...
      1. Information can be given on progress in fulfilling roles,
         accomplishing their functions, etc.
      2. Problems encountered in finding volunteers, accomplishing 
         tasks, etc., can be reported to the leaders of the church
      -- See sample "Member Involvement Report"

CONCLUSION

1. With such information provided by...
   a. The "Member Involvement Survey"
   b. The "List Of Roles And Available Volunteers"
   c. The "Member Involvement Report"
   ...the congregation can be kept apprised of the involvement of any member

2. Indeed, the use of such forms can tell a lot about the members of a congregation...
   a. Their desire (via the "survey")
   b. Their potential (via the "list")
   c. The opportunities they had to serve (via the "report")

3. Again, let me stress that these are simply suggestions on how a 
   congregation might...
   a. Communicate with its members who desire to serve
   b. Provide some sort of systematic method of seeing that those who
      desire to serve are given their opportunities

4. However one chooses to do it, let each congregation meet its design
   and purpose in some way by working toward having every member do
   their part in the body of Christ!

I hope that I have stimulated your thinking in this area with these lessons...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

Finding Nebo-Sarsekim by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2222

Finding Nebo-Sarsekim

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Critics of the Bible attack every facet of its credibility. These critics claim that the books were not written at the time they profess to have been written, that the men whose names the books bear are not the actual writers, and that the biblical characters are mental fabrications of the authors. Such criticism, however, is impossible to maintain rationally and honestly in the face of the vast amount of evidence that verifies the validity and authenticity of the 66 books of the Bible. Archaeological findings provide one line of evidence that continues to add credence to the biblical text. Tablets, seals, papyri, pottery, and a host of other ancient artifacts have surfaced that document the lives of characters mentioned in the Bible. These finds often show that the biblical texts under discussion were written at the time they claim to have been written, and that the biblical characters were historic and real.

Cuneiform tablet containing name of Nebo-Sarsekim

Image courtesy of Ian Jones

One such archaeological find recently came to light. In 1920, the British Museum acquired a small stone tablet about two inches wide and one inch high. This stone tablet went into a large cache of tablets with ancient cuneiform writing on them. Since few people have the skill and knowledge to translate cuneiform, the tablet sat untranslated in the British Museum for about eight decades. Recently, however, Dr. Michael Jursa of the University of Vienna, one of the few people who can read cuneiform, translated the small stone tablet (Alberge, 2007).

The information on the tablet is nothing inherently spectacular. The tablet is dated to 595B.C. and simply states that a Babylonian official named Nebo-Sarsekim dedicated a large gift of gold to the temple of Esangila in Babylon (Reynolds, 2007). While this inscription is unremarkable by itself, it provides an exciting link to the biblical text.

In Jeremiah 39, the prophet described Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar’s successful attack on the city of Jerusalem. Jeremiah wrote that Nebuchadnezzar penetrated the walls of Jerusalem in the 11^thyear of King Zedekiah, which corresponds to 587 B.C. Upon infiltrating the walls, Nebuchadnezzar and several of his Babylonian princes sat at the Middle Gate. One of the princes listed as sitting with Nebuchadnezzar was Sarsechim (Jeremiah 39:3). The name “Sarsechim” is recognized as the same name as Nebo-Sarsekim. Thus, the small stone tablet mentions a Babylonian official alive in 595 B.C.and less than 10 years later Jeremiah mentioned an official by the same name. One member of the British Museum’s staff, Dr. Irving Finkel, who works in the Department of the Middle East, said: “A mundane commercial transaction takes its place as a primary witness to one of the turning points in Old Testament history. This is a tablet that deserves to be famous” (as quoted in Alberge, 2007).

Skeptics already have begun to attack the find. They suggest that the Nebo-Sarsekim on the tablet could be a different Sarsekim from the one mentioned by Jeremiah. While there is always the possibility that they are not the same person, the circumstantial evidence linking the two names establishes a strong case that the names refer to the same person. They both mention a Babylonian official, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, in a time frame that would be expected if the same person is under discussion. In fact, besides a few “ultra-skeptics,” the find seems to be accepted by the majority of scholars as extrabiblical evidence for the existence of the official mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3.

Concerning the significance of the find, Dr. Finkel stated: “If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power” (as quoted in Reynolds, 2007).

The biblical documents have more than archaeological evidence to commend them. Their internal consistency, unity, predictive prophecy, and scientific accuracy combine to produce an irrefutable case for the Bible’s divine inspiration. Archaeological finds such as the tablet inscription, do, however, add cumulative weight to the overall case for the Bible’s factual accuracy. As renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck observed: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (1959, p. 31).

REFERENCES

Alberge, Dalya (2007), “Museum’s Tablet Lends New Weight to Biblical Truth,” The Times, July 11, [On-line], URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056362.ece.

Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy).

Reynolds, Nigel (2007), “Tiny Tablet Provides Proof for Old Testament,” Telegraph, July 13, [On-line],URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ ntablet111.xml.

Dawkins Can’t See the Forest for the Trees by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3590

Dawkins Can’t See the Forest for the Trees

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Richard Dawkins recently penned The Greatest Show on Earth that he believes sets forth overwhelming evidence to establish the “fact” of evolution. He wrote the book because he admitted that in his previous works, he “realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap” that he “needed to close” (2009, p. vii). This self-acknowledged gap remains open, however, because the text of his newest book fails completely to state explicitly anything resembling “the evidence for evolution.”

Confirmation of the book’s failure to provide a rational case for evolution can be clearly seen in Dawkins’ discussion about trees (pp. 377-380). In his assessment of trees, Dawkins suggests that tall tree trunks are simply a waste of energy that could be disposed of “if only all the trees in the forest could come to some agreement” not to grow past a certain height. He states:

And this brings us face to face with the difference between a designed economy and an evolutionary economy. In a designed economy there would be no trees, or certainly no very tall trees: no forests, no canopy. Trees are a waste. Trees are extravagant. Tree trunks are standing monuments to futile competition—futile if we think in terms of planned economy. But the natural economy is not planned. Individual plants compete with other plants, of the same and other species, and the result is that they grow taller and taller, far taller than any planner would recommend (p. 379).

According to Dawkins, tall tree trunks are the squandered natural resources of plants that must constantly compete with other plants to capture the precious rays of sunshine that drive their nutrition production. In fact, he states that massive tree trunks “have no purpose apart from competing with other trees” (p. 379). He concludes that “the forest would look very different if its economy had been designed for the benefit of the forest as a whole” (p. 380, italics in orig.). He believes that only the idea of competition between individual trees can account for the look of a forest with massive-trunked trees filling it. In summarizing his “evidence” about trees, he states: “Everything about trees is compatible with the view that they were not designed—unless, of course, they were designed to supply us with timber, or to delight our eyes and flatter our cameras in the new England Fall” (p. 380, emp. added).

In assessing Dawkins’ conclusion about trees, it must be stressed that he has not provided any evidence by which one could conclude that “everything about trees is compatible with the view that they were not designed.” He has not shown how genetic information could spontaneously assemble itself through any known natural process that would give rise to a tree. He has not shown how genetic mutations could change one tree into another kind of tree, say an apple tree into an oak. Nor has he shown how trees could possibly share any type of ancestral relationship with animals, which he would have to do in order to defend evolution and refute creation. All Dawkins has shown is that trees have the genetic ability to grow trunks that eventually reach a certain limit of height and breadth that they cannot exceed.

Furthermore, Dawkins admits defeat, at least in his discussion of trees, when he acknowledges that a Creator could have in mind other things besides forest economy. Dawkins acknowledges that tree trunks would make perfect sense if they were designed to provide humans with timber or beauty. Yet that is precisely why the Bible explains God created the world—to be inhabited by man: “For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). Not only that, but also to show the glory of God (cf. Psalm 19:1 and Isaiah 6:3). Dawkins’ obvious mistake is that he refuses to accept that the Creator of the world might have a more involved agenda than Dawkins is willing to allow or can even conceptualize. Why would Dawkins waste at least three pages of his book on “explicit evidence” supposedly proving evolution, only to admit that everything he just said about trees is not evidence of evolution “if” the Designer had humans in mind? Simply because this is the only kind of “evidence” that can be marshaled for evolution—the kind that can rationally be refuted when a correct interpretation of the facts is made available.

REFERENCE

Dawkins, Richard (2009), The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).

Another Living Fossil by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1348

Another Living Fossil

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

For nearly 100 years (1839-1938), evolutionists were under the impression that fish known as coelacanths were “close ancestors of the first vertebrates to walk on land” (Perkins, 2001, 159[18]:282). Coelacanths allegedly evolved 380 million years ago and became extinct about 70 million years ago (Raven and Johnson, 1989, p. 857). But then, in December 1938, the scientific community was “rocked” when a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of South Africa (“Diver Finds...,” 2006).

In 2006, a team of French scientists found a shrimp-like crustacean (Neoglyphea neocaledonica) in the Coral Sea. It previously was thought to have died out 60 million years ago (“‘Living Fossil’...,” 2006). Its discovery in modern times, as well as the discovery of the coelacanth, is comparable to finding a living dinosaur, which evolutionists believe went extinct 65 million years ago.

The latest “living fossil” caught on tape is the “prehistoric” frilled shark (see “Rare ‘Prehistoric’...,” 2007). Sometimes caught in fishermen’s nets, but rarely seen alive, this creature (named Chlamydoselachus anguineus) supposedly can be traced back 95 million years in the fossil record (Schmiedekampf, 2007)—thus, the designation “pre-historic” shark. The problem is, it is anything but pre-historic. It is a living fossil (see Butt, 2006, 5[7]:28-R). Even though it looks like a terrifying creature from an evolutionary propaganda painting depicting “pre-historic” times, it is as contemporary as iPods and LASIK surgery.

Once again, a “monster” that evolutionists once did not expect to see in modern times is found in modern times. And, once again, another free pass is given to the evolutionary timetable. One wonders what living fossil (if any) could be found to persuade evolutionists to discard their beloved—but flawed—billion-year geologic timetable.

The Bible still says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11). Truly, frilled sharks, shrimp, and coelacanths are only one day older than man (Genesis 1:20-28).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2006), “What is a Living Fossil?” Reason & Revelation, 5[7]:28-R, July, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2975.

“Diver Finds Living Fossil” (2006), Science Now, California Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/ coelacanth_010601.php.

“‘Living Fossil’ Found in Coral Sea” (2006), The Associated Press, May 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/.

Perkins, Sid (2001), “The Latest Pisces of an Evolutionary Puzzle,” Science News Online, 159[18]:282, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.

“Rare ‘Prehistoric’ Shark Photographed Alive” (2007), National Geographic News, [On-line], URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070124-sharks-photo.html.

Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson (1989), Biology (St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing), second edition.

Schmiedekampf, Katrin (2007), “Japanese Marine Biologists Discover a Pre-Historic Shark,” Spiegel Online, January 29, [On-line], URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462817,00.html.

Are Christians Guilty of “Brainwashing” Their Children? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=694

Are Christians Guilty of “Brainwashing” Their Children?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The more worldly and ungodly American society becomes, the more devout Christians will be criticized and persecuted for their beliefs and actions. One popular criticism that has been levied against Christians in recent years involves the Christian home. Allegedly, Christian parents are guilty of brainwashing their kids. Before children are old enough to digest for themselves all of the evidence for God’s existence, the Bible’s inspiration, or Jesus’ deity, some Christians (though sadly not near enough) are ingraining these beliefs into their children. Faithful Christian parents regularly and systematically teach their children fundamental Christian teachings without apology. Is this not a form of brainwashing? Is it not “forcible indoctrination”? How do Christians respond to the “brainwash” accusation?

First, we freely and unashamedly admit that we instruct our children in the ways of God from the time that they are born until they leave home. We sing to them about God. We talk to them about Jesus. We read to them from the Holy Spirit’s inspired Word. Moses instructed the Israelites:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deuteronomy 6:5-9).

Just as “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52), so the children of Jesus’ followers should be brought up “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

But is this really the right thing to do? Is it not arrogant to teach kids that atheists and agnostics are wrong and that theists are right? Should we not let kids decide on their own if they want to believe in God? Is it not cultish to say Jesus “is the way, the truth, and the life”—that no one will live eternally in heaven except through Him (John 14:6)? Shouldn’t children be allowed to think for themselves?

The fact is, all parents (even atheistic and agnostic parents) teach their children that certain things are true and certain things are false; that some things are right and other things are wrong. Think about it: Can parents teach their children that 2 + 2 = 4, or must they allow their children to learn this for themselves? Can a mother teach her children that they are not ever to crawl into a freezer and close the door, or must she allow her children to risk suffocation and “learn on their own”? Can a father forbid his son from touching his guns and knives, or should he just leave them on the floor for the child to discover on his own what he should or should not do with such things? Can parents teach their children that they are to be kind to one another, and if they bite and hit each other they will be punished? Can parents teach their children that lying is wrong? Or, must parents simply allow the children to lie whenever they want, and to make up their own minds if lying is wrong for them when they become 18? Most rational adults would never sanction such foolish “parenting.” All parents “brainwash” their children about certain things. [Furthermore, we also understand that children grow up and ultimately decide for themselves what they want to believe and how they want to act, regardless of past influences (cf. Joshua 24:15; Revelation 22:17).]

In truth, Christians teaching their children that God exists or that the Bible is God’s Word is as logical, truthful, and fundamental as teaching them that 2 + 2 = 4. If parents can teach their children laws of science, such as the Law of Causality, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Biogenesis, then they are implicitly teaching their children that God exists, because all of these laws point to a Creator. If parents can teach children that no mere man knows the future, and then read from the Bible dozens of examples of fulfilled prophecies, they have simply taught the fundamental fact that the Bible is a book of Supernatural origin. Indeed, God exists and the Bible is His Word.

God wants us to teach our children about Him and His Word because it is the right thing to do. If it is acceptable to teach our kids about reading, writing, and arithmetic, about the laws of science, and about how bad lying and murder are, it most certainly is rational to teach children about the evidence for God’s existence and the reliability of His Word. After all, we would not even have reading, writing, arithmetic, laws of science, truth, the value of human life, etc. without God. He is the foundation of every good and true thing. He “is true” (John 3:33). His “Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6). His “word istruth” (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). And the truth will set men free (John 8:32). Nothing is more important to teach children.

*If Apologetics Press may help you effectively “brainwash” (i.e., instruct) your children in the ways of God, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

From Gary... Racist????

My answer is YES; I am a RACIST- I am prejudiced towards the HUMAN race!!!! News flash- so is God!!!!  He sent his son to die for HUMAN beings, not angels!!!  And, please tell me, what animal was created in the image of God?  Every member of the HUMAN race is important, no matter where they come from or what they look like!!!  The truth is that some people are just hard to get along with because they have attitudes that cause division. Constant reference to ones own race (alias, playing the race card) may seem like a great way to advance yourself among others, but in the long run, all it does is alienate them.  If the world really wants unity, be united by Christ, not pride in your outward appearance or station in life. Wake up, America!!! Get over yourself and learn to love God and one another!!

Acts, Chapter 10 (WEB)
 34  Peter opened his mouth and said, “Truly I perceive that God doesn’t show favoritism;  35 but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. 

 John, Chapter 13 (WEB)
34  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another.   35  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” 

God doesn't show favoritism, neither should we!!! Jesus commanded that we love one another; so listen to him and OBEY!!!  

Enough said!!! Reread the post and do it!!!