Monday, December 24, 2007

New Year Goals

Of course, they would not be restricted to happening in 2008, though I doubt there is enough time left in 2007. Oh me of little faith.

I don't think I can put God on the clock, I can only tell you what he has placed in front of me. As always, I pray that I am a vessel for sacred use in all that I do, not a vessel of profane use. God has use for me always. I fit perfectly into his plan. Even Peter did when Jesus said to him, "Get thee behind me Satan".

There is a need for a New Denomination. It is still possible that an existing one can be revived. As I have maintained, the reformation stalled shortly after it started and clung to vestiges of Romanism that it should have discarded.

The Reformation largely embraces unsupportable doctrines such as the tithe, infant baptism and marriage as monogamy only and Sunday Sabbath observance. The error seems really the same one. If one doubts whether or not to tithe, isn't it safe to do so? Well yes, but to teach others to do so? The error is primarily that of playing it safe.

If there is doubt that Polygyny should still be an extant practice, and if it offends the world, isn't it safe to be monogamous? Yes, personally that would be a safe choice. There is no need even to be married, much less married to more than one. There is however no mandate to refrain from marriage and in fact Paul teaches it is wrong to teach that, yet we have taught for many centuries that one form of marriage which was never condemned, is in fact wrong. Is it safe to teach the "safe path" as the only path?

Where is it that scripture teaches Sunday Sabbath observance? I know of no place yet we have only the documentation of scripture that the followers met on the first day of the week in Solomon's portico. We do not have the claim this is a new Sabbath, to be observed. Again, is it safe to meet on Sunday? Certainly, I would imagine that early believers met on all days of the week as was possible for them. The notion that early Rome allowed them all a day off so they could observe their Sabbath is silly. Just as today, I'm sure there were some then that couldn't make it on Sundays. Do we think they were barred from fellowship as a result. Surely, for safety that comes with early examples of worship it is good to meet on the first day of the week, but should we teach this as the "New Sabbath"? Should we even TEACH Sabbath observance of any kind?

And the tithe. Certainly giving is good, and asked of believers in the New Testament. But tithing? This is an entitlement to the priesthood of Israel, given out of an entitlement of Land given to Israel by God. An entitlement he said they did not work for, that he took from unbelievers to give to his chosen people. Who can show me the deed to their land, given by God as part of a Covenant? Who can then show me who God has chosen as priests to then give the tithe to as an obligation, out of an inheritance? Is it good to tithe to our Churches because it is safe to do so? Certainly. It is good to teach this as an obligation? No, that would be evil.

There is a need to defend marriage in the public sector. For this I propose marriage contracts. We have given ground to the state so much in the arena of marriage that we now have them supposing they may define what marriage is. We need to be able to formulate agreements that are based on our religious freedoms. Agreements that are not "egalitarian" in nature, but Godly. We then need to be able to register them with the state, and use them in the unfortunate case of divorce. If we marry with no contract, and the stay together, there is no problem. Even God's people though were given provision for divorce because marital destruction does occur. Today, I could father children in a marriage and live my life before God, and my wife (no matter how Godly and the outset) could still stray from me, take from me the children we have together and plunder my estate thereby impoverishing other children and wives I might have.

To create a legal context for marriage contracts we need to have a legislative agenda. To do that we need to elect someone or several someones to office. To do that we need a base. For that reason this new denomination needs a home. A place where many of us claim legal residence, for the purpose of voting, for the purpose of electing officials, for the purpose of advancing a legislative agenda.

I have found such a place, and I am sure there are many other great locations that I have not thought of. I will be trying over the next several months to buy land in a rather remote area. If I accomplish that, provided God is willing, I will then ask those of like mind to establish legal residence if not actual residence in that area. I am certainly open to other suggestions for an ideal spot but Montana and a few other states have the low overall population necessary for a few people to have the greatest impact. Other states would be Alaska, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. It is easier to get elected to state office in Wyoming or Montana than California or South Carolina.

I am an amateur in all these things, and I am not by any stretch, a wealthy man. Anyone reading my rather obscure blog, and seeing the same things I see is welcome to contact me, and welcome to propose their help. Right now I could use the help of a real lawyer or two. A wealthy man, and a strong theologian with a reformation background who sees the need for continuing reformation, not compromise with the world, or with the religious errors of the past.

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: