Why do Christians worship on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath?.
This is a great (small) article from the Christian Research Institute.
Why do Christians worship on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath?
Filed under Church, Doctrine/Theology
8 Reasons Why People Aren’t Coming Back by Greg Atkinson
Here is a great article I read today by Greg Atkinson:
Today, I’m flying back from San Diego, CA after doing a secret shopper visit for the Rock Church. As a secret shopper or mystery worshiper of churches around the country, I’ve found there are some reasons that I will tell a church I would not return for a second visit and some may be news to you. Whether I’m working with a church plant of 60 people or a mega-church of over 15,000, some things are universal and should be present regardless of church size. Throughout this post we’ll look at actions and areas every church needs to address.
The Front Door
Before a guest ever steps foot on your church’s physical campus, he or she has probably already checked out your church website. What every church should have clearly visible on their homepage is a section or button for first-time guests. Once clicked on, this should take you to a page that addresses FAQ’s, service times, directions, parking instructions (Is there a side of the building that is better to park on if one has kids?), what to expect (upbeat music and relevant, practical, Biblical preaching in a come as you are atmosphere, etc.), what to wear (Are jeans okay? Are shorts okay?), and encouragement for them to be sure to stop by Guest Central or your church’s Information Booth to pick up a first-time guest packet.
What Stinks?
It’s important that no church ever underestimates the sense of smell. While sight is the strongest sense for short term memory, the sense of smell is the strongest and most vivid for long-term memories. If you’ve ever smelled something and had memories you hadn’t thought of in years come flooding back, that’s your sense of smell in action. Every church has the potential for positive or negative smells. Mold is a bad smell. Coffee is a good smell. Bleach is a bad smell. Citrus is a good smell. Many churches have restrooms that are disgusting and smell bad. This lack of attention to detail can be costly and discourage many from ever returning. As best you can, try to walk into the lobby or entrance of your church with a new nose.
Park Here
One of Tim Stevens’ three “growth lids” that he thinks every growing church should have someone who is constantly watching is parking. Tim says, “This is why Visitor Parking is so crucial. If it’s difficult for newcomers to go to your church, they won’t go.” Some would argue that guests want to remain anonymous and don’t want special parking. Of course some want to go unnoticed and will choose to park in regular parking (a minority), but for the rest of newcomers, they are appreciative for a close parking space; it’s a kind gesture in an already intimidating and nerve-racking experience of attending a church for the first time, especially a large one with a huge campus.
This Way Parents
One way to assure guests will not return is to have a confusing, long or hard to find process for getting their kids registered and in the right classroom. Wise churches have signs for first-time guest kids’ check-in and make the process quick and painless. Regular attendees may know to go up to the check-in kiosk and enter their phone number or swipe their card, but guests will be clueless and need a manned station that is clearly marked for guests and have a volunteer walk them through the registration. Then have that person or another helper walk you to your kid’s class explaining what will be going on and how to go about picking their kids back up. If they must have a sticker with corresponding numbers on it to get their kids, this needs to be explained to them. Signage for the kids check-in should start in the entryway of the guest parking. Do not assume people know where to go once they enter the building.
Give It Away
Something subtle, but powerful is a church that has a generous spirit. Chris Hodges at Church of the Highlands in Birmingham, AL is big on this. They have a coffee shop, but they also have a designated area where people can get free coffee and not pay anything. They also give away their message CDs. Too many churches charge for everything and wonder why no one buys CDs of the message. If you want to bless people and create a generous spirit throughout your church, give away free coffee and message CDs (and other surprises throughout the year). Chris Hodges will have ice cream trucks pull up outside the church doors and give away free ice cream to congregants leaving on a hot, summer day.
Security Counts
One issue that is huge to a secret shopper and visiting families is security. If a parent is worried about their child’s safety, they will not enjoy the service and will likely not return. A children’s classroom must be clean, safe and secure. Security also includes the check-out process. If anyone can walk into a classroom and pick up a kid, you’re asking for trouble and will turn off potential newcomers. It’s important that your kids’ volunteers are trained well and know to ask for the parent’s sticker when picking up their kids. This is vital and goes a long way to ensuring a tragedy doesn’t occur and a parent has peace of mind.
The Visible Pastor
Accessibility of the senior pastor is another subtle and powerful statement of a church. Even pastors of the largest churches in America make an intentional and strategic effort to be seen, greeted and hugged after a service. They may have a body guard present for security reasons, but they are available and willing to pray with people that need to speak to their pastor. Some churches have a designated “Guest Central”, like Steve Stroope at Lake Pointe in Rockwall, TX or Brady Body at New Life in Colorado Springs. Some have a “Meet and Greet” like Charles Hill in Utah. Some pastors stand down at the altar and meet and pray with people like Kevin Myers at 12Stone in Atlanta. Some walk around the campus shaking hands like Don Wilson at Christ’s Church of the Valley in Phoenix. Erwin McManus at Mosaic LA has an “After Party”, at which the pastor is present and available to meet with newcomers. This, especially in a large church, goes a long way toward countering the rock star or unavailable pastor stigma that so many guests walk into the church expecting.
Finish Strong
It’s simply not enough for greeters and parking lot attendants to say “Hello” or “Welcome” when one walks into their church. To go to another level, have your first impressions team stationed at their posts when the service ends to say “Goodbye” or “Have a nice week”. This goes a long way to wrapping a bow around the entire morning experience and will send them off with a lasting positive impression.
Do these 8 things and you’ll see a greater return and higher percentage of second and third-time guests.
Greg Atkinson has been writing, speaking and training Church leaders since 2000. In late 2003, Greg launched MultisensoryWorship.com (mSw) – a website geared to encourage, network, resource, and equip Christian pastors, media ministers, artists and worship leaders – after having served the previous 11 years as a worship pastor himself in the Carolinas and Washington DC. Greg produced ARC’s online church planter training (http://churchplanter.tv/) and now travels the country as a secret shopper/mystery worshiper for churches of all sizes. Find out more about Greg’s ministry here: http://worshipimpressions.com.
Filed under Church
Essay 3: The Future of Evangelicals in Mission
I was concerned at first by how far back Winter began his look at the future of Missions. I would say that about three-quarters of his essay is related to missions past instead of the future of missions. I will also state that by the end of his work, I get it. It was his desire to lay the foundation for understanding where missions have been to describe what needs to happen in a meaningful way. I think he does a good job of relating this information.
Primarily, Winter’s concern is that the reader understand the beginning of the evangelical movements and that many directions were traveled in pursuing the understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and how He expected the church to respond to His kingdom work.
Is it social responsibility or spreading the understanding of salvation through Jesus Christ? The direction of the evangelical movement has clearly taken either one of the other of these paths. I believe Winter used the history of faith and his own mission work to show these two are not mutually exclusive. As he discussed the future of missions, he clearly points to a continued work that harmonizes the areas of meeting both physical, social, emotional, and spiritual need.
Response to Winter’s Essay by Moreau
Moreau provides a basic review of the major foci of Winter’s essay. I didn’t see the need for this basic review as Winter was very clear in his writing. While Moreau did provide some additional areas to consider in the future of missions, they were so brief I did not see the relevance of the inclusion of his response in this overall work.
Response to Winter’s Essay by Little
Little has an extensive interaction with Winter’s essay. This is how I prefer to see responses to essays, as a writing that interacts with the original subject matter and not just rewrites the points again.
Little includes some additional points from other missiologists relating to this point. He also includes some recent statistics that clarify his point well. I appreciated the current perspective he brought into the conversation by including the celebrities turned social reform philanthropists, and their work as compared to the commands of Scripture.
Little also asks the question of the social ministry of Jesus and the apostles. He points to the fact that Jesus considered the proclamation of the gospel to be the primary. This was a good point and one I am still reflecting upon.
There was a section and diagram attempting to describe the “doxophany in mission theology” that only confused this reader. That was followed by a section on science s a missionary method that I found very thought provoking. It relates directly back to the greater social work we are attempting to do and exactly how that relates to the primary role of proclamation of the gospel.
Response to Winter’s Essay by Barnett
Barnett asks critical questions of Winter’s essay. He addresses historical interpretations, intuition, the donor myth, and the relief and development myth. I felt that he responded to the essay in such a way that it really added to my understanding of the future of missions.
Barnett stresses his disagreement with Winter’s prediction that parachurch and mission agencies are the future. Barnett says the future must remain with the church. He says, “But regardless of how and when we serve, we have not fulfilled the Great Commission unless and until we proclaim.”
Response to Winter’s Essay by Terry
Terry began by critiquing Winter some for his emphasis on the history of missions when his essay was to cover the future of missions. I have already addressed that early in this review. However, Terry’s response is so well written, the simple answer is to combine Winter’s essay with Terry’s response.
Terry says, “This teaching aspect is often forgotten and neglected by Evangelicals in their zeal to ‘make disciples of all nations.’” He points out that there really is so much more than save ‘em and move on thought. In fact, Terry adds that the apostle Paul speaks of both the good works we are called to do and the fact that it is salvation is not about doing those works in the same chapter of Ephesians. He makes a great point that salvation, while strictly of grace, is not an end in itself. God saves us to carry out His work.
This response has been my favorite of the entire book. It is also the best look into the future of missions.
Filed under Church, Doctrine/Theology, What I'm Reading Now
Essay 2: The Gospel in Human Contexts
Hiebert’s essay began very slow for me and it took a couple pages to get close to his train of thought. As I have a heart for missions work abroad, I think I have developed a joy of studying other cultures and learning how to live, as a Christian, within them. The interesting thing to me is that we need to function in this manner in our own neighborhoods. Even when our neighbor is native to our same culture, so many influences effect their worldview.
I have served in other cultures with godly men and women who just didn’t get it. Just like Hiebert discusses in his essay, they didn’t grasp the culture difference and preferred imposing their culture upon others as the “biblical” standard. Americans especially seem to have a tough time moving between cultures. We get upset when doing missionary work in Haiti and these people won’t speak English. So, we speak slower and louder so they will then understand.
I was beyond lost in understanding Hiebert’s uncritical contextualization section. I have no clue what Saussurian semiotics and instrumental epistemology are, but I think I have seen an advertisement on late night TV that cures these problems. I felt unworthy to even continue in reading this essay without understanding the value of his comments.
I feel bad for some of my thoughts on this author and this essay. I flipped ahead and read some of the introductions to this essay’s responses. Hiebert is obviously a tremendous scholar in this field, however, his thoughts come across too scholarly. The topic concerns contextualization and Hiebert isolates the majority of believers, calling them ordinary Christians as compared to the theologians and scholars. I just saw a huge disconnect in the idea and the choice of words used to express that idea.
One thing I clearly remember form my hermeneutics class in seminary is “Context IS King.” That is what I hear Hiebert agreeing with in his section on Ontology. “The gospel is not equated with human theologies (p. 95).”
The first step in doing missional theology should be praying for the people group, not studying humans.
I really like his point that “God starts with us where we are.” Hiebert also had a great point in what he calls community hermeneutics. The best point being that transformational theology should focus on mission.
Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Michael Pocock
I appreciated Pocock’s response to this essay. It really did help me gain a better understanding of Hiebert’s thought process. However, this response was much like the original essay in that it was an insider’s perspective. They both reference other works and concepts that lost me.
See, my understanding of contextualization is that it is real-world Christianity. A believer is called to reach this world with the truth of God’s Word. Contextualization is a way that must happen. How is each culture, really each person going to best understand the life changing message God has for them? Yet, when I read these essays from the “heavy hitters” in this league, I struggle to understand the concepts and words they use; even with my seminary degree. Maybe it is just a personal issue I have about most people being able to pickup an article and follow along with the idea at some level.
Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Darrell L. Whiteman
Whiteman does a much better job of relating Hiebert’s writing to my capability to understand and apply. When external references are used, Whiteman points to them and provides a summary.
Whiteman discusses the areas of contextualization as Hiebert breaks them down in the original article. He uses an example of Muslims in an Insider’s Movement of following Christ. I was unfamiliar with Travis’ C1-C6 tool before reading these writings, but have become more comfortable in understanding the concept after Whiteman’s explanation.
I appreciate so much how Whiteman discusses what Christian first meant in Antioch as compared to it’s meaning today. Even as a pastor, my Facebook info says that I am a follower of Christ, because I too see the disconnect in our society on the term “Christian.”
The world truly has become flat. We have to interact with other cultures. I mean pick up the phone and dial technical support sometime. However, I continue to point to the fact that we can’t ignore those living right next door. This isn’t just about those in foreign lands with foreign believe systems. This is about my neighbor, born here, raised here, considers himself a Christian. How do we reach them with the Gospel?
Whiteman uses the example of Muslim’s following Jesus Christ (Isa) yet continue with normal Islamic practices (mosque, prayer, ect..). Is this contextualized Christianity? Let me bring this question home. How about my neighbor – my good person neighbor – who grew up in the Roman Catholic church and is very active there today? How about that person? They sure understand who Jesus is. They understand the history of the Gospel and the church. They just don’t understand that salvation is completely a matter of grace and doesn’t involve being good enough. How about that contextualization?
A Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Norman L. Geisler
I found myself tracking right along with Geisler in his introduction and points of agreement with Hiebert. However, my ability to enjoy the response was hinder once Geisler began discussing his points of disagreement. Once again, I am reading the prose of uber academia theologica. Is this a book about the shift that needs to happen in Christianity in an effort to effectively reach a lost world? Or is this about justifying the best academic argument to defend a micro-theology?
In the conclusion of his response, including his sections on hermeneutics and apologetics, Geisler got me back on track with him. I appreciated his words here and the way he said them.
A Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Avery T. Willis, Jr.
Hallelujah! Willis was speaking the language that I was desiring to hear in this discussion. First, and for most, the discussion needs to have a foundation in God’s Word. The example of Jesus Christ is the perfect example of contextualization.
Willis’ description of bridges, barriers, and gaps was very insightful on categories that help our missions efforts. The power of the Gospel is incredible and Willis makes a statement that I can so identify with in understanding this power. He says, “The people on both sides of the communicational bridge are transformed by the reality of what they are studying!”
Filed under Church, Doctrine/Theology, What I'm Reading Now
Missionshift – essay one
I am participating in a conversation based upon the book Missionshift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium. The book is published by B&H Academic and edited by David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer.
Missionshift takes a look at missions in the past, present, and future. Each topic has a main essay followed by several responses. Several of us have been asked to reflect upon each of these essays along with their respondents.
The official description of the book is as follows:
“Veteran missionary David Hesselgrave and rising missional expert Ed Stetzer edit this engaging set of conversational essays addressing global mission issues in the third millennium. Key contributors are Charles E. Van Engen (“Mission Described and Defined”), the late Paul Hiebert (“The Gospel in Human Contexts: Changing Perspectives on Contextualization”), and the late Ralph Winter (“The Future of Evangelicals in Mission”). Those offering written responses to these essays include: (Van Engen) Keith Eitel, Enoch Wan, Darrell Guder, Andreas J. Köstenberger; (Hiebert) Michael Pocock, Darrell Whiteman, Norman L. Geisler, Avery Willis; (Winter) Scott Moreau, Christopher Little, Michael Barnett, and Mark Terry.
Thoughts on Charles Van Engen’s essay entitled “’Mission’ Defined and Described”
Van Engen says (p. 12), “The authority of the mission enterprise is not the denomination, mission agency, self-proclaimed apostle, large relief agency, or a more advanced culture. The Sender is Jesus Christ, whose authority defines, circumscribes, limits, and propels Christian mission.” I understand the foundation of what Van Engen is trying to say, I think, yet it reminds me of Physics class – all these facts are true in a vacuum. How many times am I doing anything in a vacuum? In the mission opportunities I have been involved in, I felt the way Van Engen described, but I felt alone in that understanding. You aren’t getting very far without agency and denomination support.
Van Engen mentions Neill’s warning several times: “when everything is mission, nothing is mission.” The confusing part is that our mindset should be all about mission. Or is it all about missional. I loved the description provided on pages 24-25 describing a missional church. This are things the church should be all the time. So is that making everything mission?
His definition of mission on page 27 is too much. K.I.S.S. is what I was taught in journalism. This definition must be simplified if doing mission is to be practical.
Eitel’s response to Van Engen:
Eitel helped me to better understand Van Engen’s points of the source of the sending out. I appreciated his explanation. I felt that he provided a good understanding of Van Engen’s points, while knocking him a little for overgeneralization.
Eitel said (p.34), “Creative tensions without biblically firm boundaries will result in compromises that undermine the message we have to offer to the world.” What a valid statement in a world of emerging and emergent churches.
Eitel treats likens current trends to distance for ecclesiastical authority with the counterculture movements of the 60s and 70s. Nice idea. Big Brother = Demonization. That melting pot of inclusivism we see in current thinking I believe leads Eitel to state (p. 35-36), “Highly individualized theological opinions are considered valid and real even if they may conflict with the Bible.”
My concerns I feel are echoed in Eitel’s words concerning the modern churches seeming embarrassment of the Gospel message to the point of watering it down to acceptable levels.
Wan’s response to Van Engen:
I appreciated Van Engen’s word studies of the Greek foundation of “mission” in the New Testament. I also agree with Wan in wishing Van Engen hadn’t stopped before unpacking the full Trinitarian aspects of his word studies. He provided the foundation and never built the rest of the structure. Wan picks this up and runs with it.
I appreciate the length Wan goes to in describing the Trinitarian relationships found in Van Engen’s references. However, his illustration borders on confusing in itself.
Wan brings up the point (p. 45) I was trying to make earlier about everything we do should be with a focus on mission. He says not to focus everything on the career missionary when a major portion of Christ’s calling is towards the individual believer and their daily walk.
Wan’s definition of “mission” is getting closer.
Guder’s response to Van Engen, Eitel, and Wan:
I think I would appreciate Guder’s coments under his heading “The Promise of Missional Hermeneutics” if I could actually understand what he said. I guess my M.Div. is not sufficient to follow his dialog.
Guder agrees with Wan’s emphasis of Trinitarian thought. I appreciate the way he connects that Trinitarian emphasis with the fact that God works in individuals but it is the body of those individuals that make up the church and corporate mission. Guder says that Paul did not say the toes carried out their mission and the elbows carried out their. No, the body carried out its purpose.
The remainder of Guder’s response seems to have some great points that were weighed to heavily down by academic defense. The conclusion of his response turns to a argument for the inclusion of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics which I never saw the importance in the argument here.
Köstenberger’s response to Van Engen, Eitel, and Wan:
I love the way Köstenberger interacts in this conversation by listing twelve theses as guideposts in the discussion. While I may not agree 100 percent one each one of them, they sure provide great groundwork for understanding mission.
- The church’s mission – in both belief and practice – should be grounded in the biblical theology of mission.
- Reflection on the church’s mission should be predicted on the affirmation of the full and sole authority of Scripture.
- The church’s mission should be conceived primarily in terms of the church’s faithfulness and responsiveness to the missionary mandate given by the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in Scripture.
- The church’s understanding of its mission should be hermeneutically sound.
- The church’s mission is to be conceived ultimately in theocentric rather than anthropocentric terms.
- The church’s mission, properly and biblically conceived, is to be Trinitarian in its orientation but not at the expense of neglecting the distinct roles of the three Persons within the Godhead.
- The contemporary context of the church’s mission, while important, ought not to override the church’s commitment to the authority of Scripture, its need to be grounded in the biblical theology of mission, and the understanding of its task in terms of faithfulness to the gospel.
- The church is the God-ordained agent of His mission in this world today.
- The way the kingdom of God is extended in this world today is through regenerate believers acting out their Christian faith in their God-assigned spheres of life: the church, their families, their workplaces, the societies in which they live.
10. There is no true lasting social transformation apart from personal conversion through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
11. Human organization is perfectly compatible with an acknowledgment of God and his initiative in mission.
12. The church’s task today is to nurture, renew, and plant churches composed of a spiritually regenerate membership and constituted in keeping with the biblical teaching regarding church leadership.
Stetzer’s response to Van Engen, Eitel, Wan, and Köstenberger:
Stetzer adds significantly to the discussion in bringing out why even defining “mission” is important to begin with. Believers need to work together to complete the work God has given us to do in this world. Can we work together in doing that?
I understand where Stetzer is coming from in his responds to Eitel. I agree that Eitel seems to have a “thorn in his side.” But I also feel that the warning Eitel proclaims is definitely a warning and should not be taken too lightly.
Stetzer spends some “quality” time dealing with Köstenberger. Just like I indicated in my review of Köstenberger’s comments above, I don’t agree 100 percent, but I like the guideposts he provides. Stetzer, however, seems to take issue with what lies beneath those guidepost statements. My concern is that Stetzer wants to open the door a little wider than is acceptable. His focus seems to be on the freedom or “creative” aspects of modern missions. This is where I see the need to keep the warnings provided by many of these reviewers close at hand.
I don’t’ know why, but the picture of the middle age guy who uses hair gel to look cool, when the real goal is to cover thinning hair. I just had that image in my mind when I read and reread Stetzer comments on Köstenberger. It is a let the young guys do their thing. We have to interact with the current generation in different ways, practical ways, but not at the expense of the gospel. I never felt Stetzer going there, but I did feel him dancing close a time or two.
I agree with Stetzer’s closing comments about Van Engen original essay. Stetzer makes a very valid point, of which I am most guilty, of the need to recognize that someone can be right on one point and wrong on another. I tend to through the baby out with the bath water most of the time.
Filed under Church, Doctrine/Theology
Thanksgiving 2010
We had a great time with family for Thanksgiving 2010. We try to alternate each year between spending time with my extended family in Oklahoma and Tammy’s family. This year we decided to get away and head to the family place down in Southeast Texas. The Deep Piney Woods.
We missed being with my dad as he headed north to Oklahoma. And since I don’t get to spend much time with all my aunts, uncles, and cousins in Oklahoma, I always miss not catching up with them as well.
It was beautiful out in the country. I went deer hunting for the first time in about four years. Maybe I should say I went sight seeing with a rifle as I never saw any deer. It was beautiful though. I was able to read some and get my sermon prepared. Yes, I had the MacBook in the deer blind with me 
Shot my compound bow a lot. Feel it in my shoulder now. I would like to get back into shooting my bow regularly.
Preached on Daniel 6 this morning and had a wonderful testimony from Lori Douglas. I will be working on our church’s new website this week. Also continue the search for a new church location and working on our parade entry in this Saturday’s City of Richardson Christmas Parade.
Filed under Uncategorized
Thinkin’ Out Loud
We have had many things going on at church for the last couple months. Many blessings and many struggles. They both have been hidden somewhat by daily life. We have been studying the Book of Job on Wednesday nights. God pulls back the top layer of life to show us what is really going on in Job’s life. I have seen such a parallel in our ministry and my life through this study.
Thank you God for walking alongside of me in Your Word.
I am struggling with where I need to be leading our church. I have no desire to entertain the saved. God has called me to reach the lost with His love. I feel that we are getting comfortable in our faith and we need to make some changes to get out of that comfort. To trust in Him and step out.
I have been praying real hard about joining the Nelson Searcy Tele-Coaching Network for about a year now. I need the encouragement and fellowship of other pastors seeking to move in the same direction. Haven’t been offered anything like this through our state convention – even though it seems like that would be a major resource.
Even as I was writing this entry, I stopped and emailed the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention and asked if they offer any coaching networks. It seems like I meet other small church pastors struggling with the same issues, yet the resources that might help minister to our need for networking all seem to be funneled elsewhere.
The Nelson Searcy Tele-Coaching is a major expense for me. We don’t have that in our budget. But I am willing to find ways to cover the cost if the benefits are there. I keep fighting a concern that this particular coaching network is more about selling the network than supporting the kingdom. Church Leader Insights (Nelson Searcy’s ministry resources company) has some great resources and I highly recommend them. However, when I have left messages about needing to speak with someone I never get s phone call back. This makes me wonder about how much I would be cared for in their network.
I would love to hear from anyone who has been part of the Tele-Coaching Network. I would really love to hear form other pastors dealing with some of the same issues. I like to take charge of problems and deal with them. So, if you can’t find the networking group, start one.
Filed under Church
Pets and heaven
We began talking about this not to long ago at church. Then, yesterday, I saw this article on Focus on the Family’s website. It is titled Do Pets Go to Heaven? and was posted by Jim Daly.
What prompted him to write the article was an email he received from a friend – mostly as a joke. Seems there is a company called Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA. This is legit – here is their website. This is from that website:
You’ve committed your life to Jesus. You know you’re saved. But when the Rapture comes what’s to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.
They charge about $100 per household and promise to take care of your pets after the Rapture.
The article returns to the question at hand and many of us have asked / been asked that question – “Do our pets go to heaven?”
I would have to say that I am firmly in the ‘God will do whatever God so chooses to do’ category. My issue is, do animals have souls? Can they make a decision to accept Jesus? I don’t think either of those are true. I do know there will be animals in heaven, because the Bible says there will be. But, it is of God’s choosing.
A couple of the quotes the article mentions include:
A man once asked Dr. Billy Graham whether his dog would go to heaven. The great evangelist answered:
“God will prepare everything for our perfect happiness in heaven, and if it takes my dog being there, I believe he’ll be there.”
Hank Hanegraff references areas where he feels the Bible describes that animals have souls. However, the Scripture referenced doesn’t imply anything of the sorts (Genesis 1:20, 24; Revelation 8:9). Once again, if the only way to heaven is accepting Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior…..
C.S. Lewis had an opinion, too.
“It seems to me possible,” he once wrote, “that certain animals may have immortality, not in themselves, but in the immortality of their masters.”
Filed under Doctrine/Theology, Recent Reads
There is unrest in the forest, There is trouble with the trees
Wright Tree Service is going back through Richardson, Texas again clearing power lines. This Spring they climbed into my pecan in the backyard and started an overly aggressive trimming. I stopped them and asked for a supervisor to talk with me before they proceeded cutting anymore.
A few days later a representative from Oncor and Wright Tree Service came to my house. I told them my concerning about the proper trimming of the tree. I have three trees that have died after the aggressive “utility easement clearing.” We talked about what needed to be trimmed and have best to do that. The Oncor man had a laser pointer and we actually spoke of specific cuts. They returned three days later to do the work. I had deployed to Haiti to do disaster relief work with the SBTC. When I got home, they had cut much more than we agreed upon, plus the latch to my gate had been damaged.
About a month ago, I found another door hanger saving Oncor would be sending contractors to my house to clear the power line easement of vegetation. I called the number listed and shared my concerns. I asked that they only enter my yard and begin work after I have been consulted on what they would be doing.
This morning was round two of Wright Tree Service pruning. I talked with several of the crew members. We discussed what needed to be cut back and I asked repeatedly that they keep in mind the health and appearance of this pecan tree. I gave them their space and they proceeded to “hack” away. I am once again very disappointed. Now the crew does a good job and they clean up the work area perfectly, but they know where their bread is being buttered and they are working for Oncor – not the homeowner.
Filed under Uncategorized
Back….
So it has only been a year since my last post…. 
Facebook, our church webiste, ect, ect, ect…
So today Dad and I tried out a new Lebanese restaurant in Richardson. Olive (formerly Peace Pipe Cafe) is located on Arapaho Road just west of Custer Road. It was great and I highly recommend it.
I also started back on my P90X workouts after stopping in week 8. So three quarters of the way through the program I stopped for about two weeks. I have a toe that was really hurting. Maybe turf toe – I don’t know for sure. Mainly, just needed more time in my day to get some stuff done.
So I decided it would be easier to start over. Back to workout one, day one, and week one. Here we go – Keep Pushing Play. Tony Horton is really starting to get on my nerves though, especially when you hear the same “cute” comments – identically, over and over. But the workout rocks. I just need to maintain the discipline.
My diet has been at 1700 calories or under during the P90X plan. I am thinking about dropping that down to 1600 this round.
“Prison Break” is my new TV addiction. I starting watching the episodes, starting at number one of season one, on NetFlix.
There is an update of what is going on.
Filed under Uncategorized
-
Recent Comments
lynda on Paul’s Use of Foreknowledge an… Sean Pease on Pets and heaven bet365 on Pets and heaven lymphoma on About: Sean Pease Joe on Great article on cultural rele… Library Thing
Recent Reads
What I'm Reading Now
Wish List
