Freedom’s Deadliest Enemy

One great writer has said that “Freedom’s deadliest enemy is irresponsibility.” Sometime back I was watching Joyce Meyer talking about the death of her younger brother on God TV as part of her message on the life of self-pity compared to a life of diligence and faith.

She said that she learned about her brother’s death after Los Angeles authorities called her in December about a week after Christmas, to inform her that they found him dead in an abandoned building in the city. He had been dead 30 days and his body was so badly decomposed that in order for the authorities to identify him, they had to have his dental records.

After a few days she received his cremated ashes and a few personal effects that included a pocket knife, empty wallet, key chain and broken watch. She imagined that he must have been filled with regret during the last days of his life for not making the right choices.

My personal effects and his are sadly different. What are your personal effects going to be when your time here is up?” she asked the congregants at the meeting. During her address, she compared her life with that of her brother’s to illustrate the point that it’s up to the person’s determination to follow God’s plan, not his circumstances, that allow him to reap God’s promises.

How one’s life turns out is not dependent on what people do to us or what they don’t do for us, there is no man on earth or devil in hell who can keep you from the very best God put in you.

Joyce Meyer preached on the story of a man in John 5 who laid by a pool for 38 years; then  Jesus asked this man; “Would you like to get well?” The man didn’t respond with a clear yes, but with self-pity. He said “for I have no one to put me into the pool when the water bubbles up. Someone else always gets there ahead of me.”

Joyce then related her story to her own life and that of her brother’s. For many years, Meyer had suffered from sexual abuse from her father, which led to her to become controlling, manipulative and rebellious.

She was saved at the age of 9 but didn’t live out her faith. It was later in her life that she heard the voice and calling of God to preach. Today, she is a world known preacher, selling millions of books and making a difference in other people’s lives.

Meanwhile, her brother David joined the Marine Corp and started taking prescription drugs. He married young and had a baby. He left his wife and refused to pay child support.

Meyer said she tried several times to help her brother but kept running away. During one point in his life, he received employment under Joyce Meyer and worked there for a few years until he was asked to pay $ 60,000 in unpaid child support.

He quit his job and went through a string of girlfriends and drug habits. Another time she helped him receive drug rehabilitation at the Dream Centre in Los Angeles, but after a few months into the program, he said it wasn’t for him.

Joyce Meyer said that both she and her brother came from the same bloodline, same family, in some aspects, both went through their own struggles. However, while she eventually took responsibility for her behaviour, her brother always ran away from his.

Joyce Meyer continued her message by saying that “even though the crippled man in the gospel story couldn’t move much, but during the 38 years, he could at least wiggle to the edge of the pool, whereas David just wanted to lay by the pool another year, feel sorry for himself, blame somebody and remain crippled, I got tired of laying by the pool and I decided to wiggle.”Joyce said.

Joyce said she wasn’t bringing up the story of her brother to be disrespect, but she believed he would have wanted her to speak about him to teach all of us a lesson.” She said there was a time she and her husband considered paying off his overdue child support, but she wanted her brother to show his commitment to working and not quitting the Job.

This story is similar to many stories of families around the world. We don’t want to take responsibility for our actions and worse still we blame everyone for our sins and mistakes.

The Lord God Will Restore The Years

The Lord is God is the meaning of Joel’s name. No matter what has happened in the past, the Lord is able to restore. In Joel 2: 18-27, the Lord urges the people to be glad rather than afraid. He promises Israel that if they really repent from their hearts, God will restore the years that the locusts have eaten.

This is a principle that applies today. Many of us regret the wasted years in our lives, but God says he will restore those years to us. But He will only restore the years that the locusts have eaten if there is true repentance.

The root of repentance is that we ‘change our minds’. So it is appropriate to say that if we repent, God will change His mind.

So as we look at this irresponsibility, we are seeing an escalation of breakdown in the family, communities, cities, and all the nations of the world. The whole world is reaping the consequences of an irresponsible humanity.

Almost every one of us are where we are today because that is where we have chosen, either subconsciously or consciously, to be. We are all good at blaming our mistakes on someone else since the fall of our first parents Adam and Eve.

As a man, Adam became the first spiritual leader in human history. He was given the responsibility of overseeing the garden and providing direction for his family. He was to be a steward over his resources and relationships. Unfortunately, he failed. Adam also mismanaged his God-given responsibility by remaining passive when he should have refused to eat the fruit which led to both of them sinning against God.

When God confronted him with this sin, he blamed Eve and the spirit of irresponsibility and blame entered the human race. Adam should have risked, stood up, and took responsibility by commanding the serpent to leave him and his wife alone.

When Eve picked the fruit, ate it and swallowed it, nothing immediately happened. But the Bible says she took the fruit and gave it her husband, who had received the original instructions from God, and when he ate of it, suddenly everything changed.

Death came, and the purity and holiness of our first parents was gone: “At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves” (Genesis 3: 7).

After sinning, Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame because of their nakedness. Because God planted eternity in the hearts of all men (see Ecclesiastes 3: 10), Adam and Eve also had consciences God had placed in their hearts, and this is what goes off when any one of us has done wrong.

When God came, He didn’t ask for the woman because of her sin; rather, He asked the man. It was at this time that Adam started blaming Eve and thereby forfeiting his God-given responsibility which led to a spirit of irresponsibility and blame entering the human race.

The Bible says: “The man replied, ‘It was the woman You gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it’” (Genesis 3: 12).  Not only did Adam neglect to establish and uphold God’s instructions, but he, transferred the responsibility for his fruit-eating decision to the woman, who had offered the fruit.

“God the woman You gave me… In other words, Adam was suggesting that God was responsible for the choice and decision that he made. If Eve had used other means of force to give the fruit to Adam, then the woman would have been responsible, but she didn’t force him in any way; it was Adam’s choice.

Where was Adam when the devil was tempting Eve? The Bible says he was standing right there beside her. “The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too” (Genesis 3: 6).

Men and women have the ultimate responsibility for their decisions. But since the fall, every one of us doesn’t want to take responsibility for our own choices, actions, decisions, situations, or circumstances. Instead, we find it easy to hide and blame others for our sins.

Maturity does not necessarily come with age; it comes by the acceptance of responsibility in every area of our lives.

Accepting responsibility for our failures is the substance on which success rests. No one can be responsible for success unless he is willing to accept responsibility for failure as well. This is true in business and marriage, as well in all other aspects of life.

Today is a new season of responsibility in which God is saying to each of us, whether your are poor, rich, Black White, Indian –no matter who or where you are-“Stop blaming the system, your parents your pastor, your former girlfriend or boyfriend and stop blaming your past. Get your act together, and accept responsibility.

We can’t change the past, but by God’s grace we can determine the quality of our future. We might not like the family into which were born, but we sure can by God’s grace determine the kind of home in which we rear our children.




Prophetic Word for Great Britain: Lance Lambert

The following is a prophetic word for Great Britain given through Lance Lambert, who had a great love for the UK as his adopted country after he escaped here from the Nazis as a child. Please read and weigh this prayerfully.

Saturday 6 August 2011

Hear the voice of the Lord, O Isles that I have so greatly loved and favoured. I the Lord the Almighty, I took you when you were nothing, clothed with skins and woad, and through My saving power, I made you great. When you were nothing, through My Word and your faith in Me, I lifted you and made you Great Britain.

Through many awakenings and many revivals, stage by stage, I took you until you became a great power with the greatest Empire in the history of the nations.

From you My Gospel and My Word went throughout the world, and tens of thousands came into an experience of saving faith! That Empire with all its many failings and weaknesses was still one of the most just and righteous Empires of history.

Those Isles of yours were soaked with the blood of My faithful martyrs and its soil received the burnt ashes of those who would not renounce My Name, My Truth, and My Word. I, the Lord have not forgotten those who gave their all for Me!

But now the whole nation that I created and sustained has turned from Me. They paganise their land, state and institutions; there is no voice heard to warn the nation.

False religion, the work of world rulers of darkness, cover your Isles; A Laodicean church, neither hot nor cold, rumbles on like machinery. It is a church where I am outside of its routine; its organisation and its methodology. It is Christianity without Me: Religion without Me!

My being is seared with pain, for judgement is determined against your land. I can do no other. I will destroy the vestiges of her greatness; I will return her to her first estate.

I will wreck her economy, destabilise her in every way. I will change her climate, even her weather. I will prove to her that the way of the transgressor is hard and terrible.

I will allow demonic forces held in check erstwhile by My Word and Gospel, and the living faith of so many, to become rampant in her social life, to the destruction of her society.

Will you who know Me and love Me go blind and dumb and deaf into this judgement?

It is time for you who love Me, who are faithful to Me, to take action! Stand before Me and plead The Finished Work of My Son. At least cry out to Me, that there will be those who turn from darkness, from sin, and be saved. For whosoever shall call upon My Name in the midst of these judgements, I will save!

It will cost you everything to stand in the gap, but you will enter into My heart, and know deep fellowship with Me. Such travail conceived in your heart by My Spirit will cost your deeply, but it will end in My Throne and Glory.

Copyright © 2019 Lance Lambert Ministries-All rights reserved.




Challenge To Christian Feminism

The Garden of Eden has disappeared and, with it, the original order of creation. The Fall from innocence distorted all relationships, particularly between men and women, destroying the harmony.

Chronologically, Eve was the first to sin. That is because Satan (who is masculine) approached her first. Why did he do so? Divide to conquer; one is easier to tackle than two. The New Testament teaches us that it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression (2 Timothy 2:14).

Eve thought she was doing right because she was more vulnerable to being seduced in mind, whereas Adam knew he was doing wrong. So Paul’s practice of prohibiting instruction by women; however uncomfortable we may feel with his line of thought, seems to saying: Eve, as a typical woman, was liable to be misled and therefore more likely to mislead.

That Adam followed her with neither argument nor protest put him in the feminine role, which may explain why, theologically, Adam was the first to sin!

The New Testament holds Adam responsible for introducing sin and death to the human race (Romans 5:12), rather than Eve. This doesn’t mean that Adam is regarded as basically responsible for the whole situation, for her as well for himself.

He could and should have rebuked her and interceded for her. But instead Adam took a feminine role, and abdicated his position. Because of space and time we cannot debate whether God’s punishment fitted their crime.

The Fall introduced struggle into their respective spheres of activity. This word struggle became the watchword of men like Darwin, Karl Marx, Nietsche, Hitler and more recently those who advocate socialist and communist ideals.

Adam will be affected in his daily work, Eve in her family relationships. Note that the Fall did not introduce this differentiation, it merely damaged it:

And to Adam He said, because you have listened and given heed to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it, the ground is under a curse because of you; in sorrow and toil shall you eat of the fruits of it all the days of your life.

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you shall return (Genesis 3:17-19).

Adam is addressed first, since he carries prime responsibility in the partnership. Banished from the garden to the field, he will only survive with great effort against opposing factors. The Bible doesn’t mention anything of his marital relations, nor is he told to rule his wife.

Eve is also punished, but in relation to her family. In childbearing (birth process rather than upbringing) her pain (physical rather than mental, and not menstrual) is to be increased (not introduced).  In relation to her husband her ‘desire will be to him,’ which means to control, manipulate, posses someone.

Having led her husband into sin, she must now live with a continuing urge to subordinate him to her wish and will.   His reaction will be not only to resist this takeover, but to use his greater strength to ‘rule’ her. Male domination is the inevitable result of this struggle for supremacy of wills. In Genesis 3:16 we read:

To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

In these verses above lies the real explanation for the centuries of exploitation and suppression of women, against which feminism has been validly protesting for years to the point that feminist beliefs had led some people to seek to abolish gender distinctions. But do feminists seek power or principle?

The advent of rule to describe marriage was not the introduction of subordination but the exaggeration of it (in much the same was as pain in child-bearing increased). Responsibility for direction in the male became a reaction into domination.

The male-dominated garden is now a male-dominated jungle. Each sex sees the other as an object rather than a subject, to serve their own purposes. This situation can only be remedied by divine grace, by redemption rather than legislation or a feminist revolution.

God’s strategy is to plant on earth a community of men and women who will live as Adam and Eve did, in His creation order (except for their nudity, which will never recur, even in heaven).

The Woman was Made From Man..After Man and For Man

Woman was made from man, not dust. This might be thought to indicate the incompleteness of the man (and the reason he seeks union with a wife rather than parents in (1 Corinthians 11:24); but Paul uses this to support the headship of the man: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man” (1 Corinthians 11:8), possibly recalling that she came from his side.

Woman was made for man; the reserve is not true (1 Corinthians 11:9). Her primary function is in relation to him; his was already established without reference to her ( (1 Corinthians 11:15).

And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and guard and keep it….Now the Lord God said, It is not good (sufficient, satisfactory) that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him (Genesis 2: 15,18).

The word help in no way implies inferiority, since it is often used of God’s assistance. Neither does it imply identity, since God’s help is in terms of support, sympathy and strength-rather than substituting for man in his task.

The woman was made after man. His priority in time has other implications. The firstborn carries responsibility for and authority over later arrivals as Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2:13.  “For Adam was first formed, then Eve; God names man (Genesis 5:2) and the stars. Man names the animals when God brought them to him.

He is not rebuked for taking this authority. Nor is it valid to object that woman is not a name since it is generic rather than specific. Adam called her Eve; a legacy of his action is to be found in a wife taking her husband’s surname after marriage.

God and man can relate face-to-face because they bear the same image, yet man is subordinate to God. The same dual aspect applies to men and women.

The underlying principle is that in Christ we are still male and female. We are still what God created us to be, so when we worship God we do so not as persons, but as men and women, willing to accept how God made us.

So transvestism is condemned in the Bible, for when men want to be like women and women like to be like men, there is a rebellion against how God made us. When we worship God as Creator, we come to him as his creatures, and so we need to let that difference be clearly seen.

Western culture is generally saying the exact opposite. It argues for the removal of many differences between men and women, and this belief is creeping into the Church. But men and women are different. We are complementary, of equal value and dignity and status in God’s sight, but with different roles, responsibilities and functions before God.

Controversial Teaching in Paul’s Epistles

Perhaps the most controversial teaching in Paul’s epistles concerns women. Paul apparently imposes strict limitations on the ministry of women. And that’s why Feminist theologians dislike Paul’s letters and according to David Pawson they make some of these claims:

Pseudepigraphical. Some say the letters are not by Paul but are a second-century forgery in his name. Thus they should not be part of the canon.

Rabbinical.Others argue that if these letters are from Paul, the teaching on women is a throwback to his rabbinical days before his conversion. As an old man he is returning to prejudices from his Jewish childhood.

Cultural.They argue that this teaching is purely cultural. If Jesus were alive today, he would have chosen six men and six women as apostles. The favourite phrase that sums up this position is to say that Paul was culturally conditioned. So Jesus’ choice of 12 men to be his apostles was tactful, because in his day it would have been offensive to have women apostles – an argument which fails to realize that Jesus never did anything merely because it was ‘diplomatic’! One of the compliments that the Pharisees paid him was, ‘You pay no attention to any man.’ If it had been right for him to do it, then he would have done it.

Heretical. Others claim that women were barred from teaching because women led many of the cults. The Church needed to distance itself from these practices, so it barred women from teaching. There is, however, no evidence to support this theory.

Educational.The next argument suggests that the lack of education for women in Paul’s day made it unwise for them to be in a teaching/ leadership role. But if this was true, Paul should not have let uneducated men lead the Church. In Acts, the Sanhedrin describe the 12 apostles as uneducated men, and so they were.

But when you read Paul’s letters carefully, he teaches that the gender differences between men and women still apply in the Church. We cannot deny that 1 Corinthians 14:33-38 is one of the most difficult passages to understand and 1 Timothy 1:11-15 is widely considered to be the passage most offensive to Christian women in the writings of Paul.

However, Paul’s prohibition relates to gender, not ignorance; and this is based on creation, not culture. The gift of teaching Christians requires spiritual rather than intellectual qualifications and is quite unrelated to academic ability or opportunity. We need to remember that Jewish Rabbis wouldn’t even let a woman learn at all, even though they had no Scriptural justification for doing so.

The church started from a handful of people around AD 52. Paul’s strategy for evangelizing an area was to begin his work in the Jewish synagogue in the city he was visiting. But there was no synagogue in Philippi, for there were less than the required 10 male Jews to form one, and so Paul met with a Jewish ladies’ prayer group instead.

Among the women was one who was to be instrumental in the work of the Philippian church – a businesswoman named Lydia. Originally from Asia, she sold purple cloth for a living. Acts tells us that she had slaves and a household and that the whole household was baptized.

In 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, Paul is taking a Christian, not a Jewish, position, in teaching both sexes as Jesus did before him.  Women were not allowed to teach at all in the mixed congregation but in his letter to Titus, he encouraged them to do this on other occasions when men were not present.

Bid the older women similarly to be reverent and devout in their deportment as becomes those engaged in sacred service, not slanderers or slaves to drink. They are to give good counsel and be teachers of what is right and noble (Titus 2:3).

We also need to understand that preaching in those days was primarily announcing the gospel to unbelievers whereas teaching was addressed to believers something we call preaching in New Testament terms.

The general prohibition in 1 Timothy 1:12 to allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men is translated as to usurp authority. For a woman to direct a man was seen as an act of violence, because it violated the order of creation.  For that is the background on which Paul bases his prohibitions. They express quite literally the order in which Adam and Eve were created:

For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression (1 Timothy 1:13-14).

Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. Her assuming role of leadership had disastrous consequences and must not be followed by other women.

Though he excludes women from any activity involving leadership of men, he encourages women in many forms of ministry. Though his qualifications for eldership are male:

  • Husband of one wife…
  • Able to manage his own household…
  • Temperate and self-controlled….
  • Not given to wine…
  • And not a lover of money insatiable for wealth and ready to obtain it by questionable means…..

Yet the ministry of deacons is open to all.  This is mentioned in the very next chapter 1 Timothy 3:11 and is confirmed by Deaconess Phoebe, Romans 16:1.

As a matter of fact, the whole chapter in Romans 16, he commends mostly women who have acquitted themselves in the work of the Lord. They bear the title ‘fellow’ worker colleagues of Paul (as were Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2; which means they shared in his mission of evangelism and church planting.

Conclusion

Woman is made from man. She therefore derives her being from him. Indeed, as the Bible indicates, woman is named by man just as he named the animals. Woman is made after man. He therefore carries the responsibility of the first-born. The significance of that will become clear in Genesis 3, where Adam is blamed for the sin not Eve, since he was responsible for her.

Woman is made for man. Adam had a job before he had a wife and man is made primarily for his work, while woman is made primarily for relationships.

This does not mean that a man must not have relationships or that a woman must not go out to work, but rather that this is the primary purpose for which God made male and female.

The fact that man named woman also shows how the partnership is to work: not as a democracy, but with the responsibility of leadership falling to the male. The emphasis is upon cooperation, not competition.

God made us men and women, and we need each other. He made us for different roles and responsibilities. In Genesis 2 we learn that the functions of men and women are different.

The Bible talks of the responsibilities of the man to provide and protect, and of the woman to uphold, encourage, assist and accept.

When men behave like women and women behave like men, we are distorting God’s creative beauty. So men are given the responsibility of leading. Although this is not popular teaching today, it’s there in Scripture. We can’t get round it.

Recommended Reading:

J. David Pawson, Leadership is Male

Derek Prince, Husbands and Fathers, The Marriage Covenant

 




History Shouldn’t Repeat Itself!

When the thirteen colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburg, wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic some 2000 years prior:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, followed by a dictatorship.

The authenticity of this quote is often disputed and cannot be verified, but the words of the original author are still relevant to what is going on in the West today.

The author noted that the average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years (the comparative data cannot prove this span of years).

During those 200 years, however, these nations have always progressed

  • From bondage to spiritual faith;
  • From spiritual faith to great courage;
  • From courage to liberty;
  • From liberty to abundance;
  • From abundance to complacency;
  • From complacency to apathy;
  • From apathy two dependence;
  • From dependence back into bondage.

This progression can be seen throughout the historical books of the Bible, as well as in Greece, Persia, Babylon, and in Rome. Each of these Empires passed through the above series of stages from their inception to their decline. Where are we today on the scale?

Today we have a deteriorating form of government, no matter what party is elected or who is president. Politicians criticize each other, but they both play for the same team; the losers are always the people who vote for them.

In 1776 America supposedly came out of bondage with faith, understanding, and courage. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, they battled their way to achieve liberty.

Liberty is that delicate area between the force of government and the free will of man.

Liberty brings freedom of choice to work, to trade, to go and live wherever one wishes. In fact, liberty leads to abundance.

Abundance, if made an end in itself, will result in complacency, which in turn leads to apathy.

Apathy is the “let someone do it” philosophy that always brings dependency. For a period of time, dependents are often not aware they are in fact dependent.

Rather, they delude themselves by thinking that they are still free—“We can still vote, can’t we?” they ask themselves.

Eventually abundance diminishes and dependency becomes bondage once again.

We’re right now in the “apathy” stage, and we’ve possibly moved beyond the “dependence” stage, but apathy and indifference are perhaps the most negative traits of mankind.

If man had the knowledge he could see which timeline his future was headed down and reverse it before it was too late. History shouldn’t repeat itself!