J. Randal Matheny

The other day I was reading about a plant in Brazil, which forest-dwellers call the "matador," or "murderer."

The matador works this way: when the matador's vine meets a vigorous tree, it clamps on and climbs up. As the plant grows larger, it shoots out tendrils that surround the tree, grow thicker, and clasp tighter.

The matador grows beautifully, but it does so at the cost of killing its host.

Then, when the matador has reached maturity, it puts forth a huge, flowery head above the strangled tree's top. Soon the murderous plant scatters its seeds on the rainforest floor and the process of death begins again.

I've seen peoples' sins and problems do the same thing.

Being a Brazilian plant, it caught my eye. But the application is good, too. Read it all, always aware, of course, that it's a denominational website.

Artur Rubinstein had let his technique get sloppy. But the appearance of Vladimir Horowitz on the scene woke him up (I believe). Though a long-established world star, he decided to devote himself to practice. He had what became known as his “summer of practice."

Do we not reach points at which we need to be awakened and challenged, either to reestablish our expertise or to make new progress to a higher level of service and integrity? Any time, be it spring, summer, autumn or winter, might be our "summer of practice," that period in which we devote ourselves intensely, anew, to wholesome habits or learn new techniques or skills, or develop new tools for our work. If the challenge ceases to come from within, let God send us one from without.

Jesus sent out the Twelve on what we call a limited commission. A practice run, really, for the Great Commission. And with it a warning, that his sending would not be all cake and ice cream. The sending puts his followers in vulnerable positions. So they must take every precaution to make sure the message was heard in its simplicity and purity.

Read the whole devotional thought by clicking on the little link above.

Do we value acceptance above faithfulness, so that we fail to speak to avoid rejection?

I'm reminded of a pamphlet published in 1916 by an outspoken advocate for Liberty, William J. H. Boetcker. He entitled his tract "The Ten Cannots," and it fittingly contrasts the competing political and economic agendas of the right and left in this era: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves."

What insight! I would have thought the author lived in our time. But the tendency of government, apparently, is the same in most places and times.

Word Cue: Follow (Gr., akoloutheo). The NLT translates Jesus’ call to Matthew, “Follow me and be my disciple.” This paraphrase rightly recognizes that the call is not for a lark, but for a lifetime; not an impulse, but an informed decision; not from curiosity, but as a commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Read the whole devotional bu clicking on the link immediately above.

When you ask about how the church that is emerging differs from the "New Testament Church," it raises a number of questions for me. Do you mean the church in the New Testament era? My sense is that there was nothing like uniformity among early churches - one gets the feeling that the Jesus movement in Jerusalem was very different from its counterpart in Antioch, that the early church in Corinth would have differed greatly from that of Ephesus, etc. There weren't any creeds beyond "Jesus is Lord" (which probably had a meaning for its original confessors that differs from what we might assume, by the way). There was diversity in structure and practice - as evidenced by the fact that Paul was trying to build some harmony at least, if not uniformity.

If by "New Testament Church," you mean an approach to church that exists today, that would also raise some questions for me. Churches claiming to be based on the New Testament today differ widely from one another: some allow women to lead, some don't. Some speak in tongues, some don't. Some believe in 6-day-creationism, some don't.

McLaren can't see the proper approach to becoming the New Testament church. Like some brethren we know who wrote a book about several approaches to "primitivism" (to say, perhaps, that all approaches are valid?), McLaren cites different approaches to restorationism and finds the sum lacking. He's fallen for the old saw about the diversity that existed, failing to see the uniformity, yes, uniformity, among first-century churches, and the insistence of Paul to get back in line when churches like the one at Corinth leave the pattern. The apostle berates the Corinthians severely for that. See 1 Cor 4:6-7; 7:17b; 11:16; 14:33b-34; 16:1. Paul even talks a lot about condemnation for those who don't eat the Lord's supper according to the instructions that he had received and passed on to them (1 Cor. 11:23-34).

However, he does seem to think it possible to "ask some primary questions such as "What was Jesus about in the first place? What was his message, his mission? How can we realign ourselves with that original message and mission in our own context today?" But the lens he uses is far different to study the issue about realignment, as he puts it, and he comes out ta a very different place than those of us who see the NT as a pattern for the gospel and the church.

There really isn't any way to reconcile the restoration plea and the emerging church philosophy. They are diverging paths and one must give up one to follow the other.

The military is a hierarchy. Boot camp ensures that the recruit obeys his superiors immediately, without question.

The centurion, an important officer in the Roman army, knew that his authority over his soldiers came from his own obedience to his superiors. He saw this same truth in Jesus. He knew that Jesus had the power to heal his servant with a word, because he saw the same rigorous submission in Christ to the Father that he had to his superiors.

Read the whole devotional at the tiny link above.

We live in a region with a lot of military installations. I'm supported by a number of churches near military bases, Abilene TX and North Little Rock AR among them. And, of course, we know friends and family members who serve or have served in the military. So this thought with a military background comes at a good time.

There appears to be little Biblical evidence for an age accountability outside of David's comments in 2 Samuel 12:21-23.  After the death of his son born out of adultery to Bathsheba he says, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David appears to understand that he will be with his infant son once again.

This is the best paragraph of the dictionary entry on "Age of Accountability." The article is weak, has several editorial errors, and tries to please everyone, it seems, in the last paragraph. Not terribly satisfying.

How would you approach this subject?

you must R.S.V.P. In the parable, Jesus said about those invited, “But they paid no attention and went off…” (v. 5). The height of ingratitude! A king’s invitation should not fall on deaf ears. When God invites, it demands proper response. After all, the invitation also brings obligation. “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

Weylan draws great lessons from the parable of the king who throws a wedding feast for his son, in Matt. 22. God's invitation differs from the one we extend, to "drop in sometime." It has a time, place, and address, because full preparations have been made. Don't stand him up!

The Word of God describes this transformation as  changing  kingdoms. We  have been  brought out of  darkness into the marvelous light of the Gospel.  The  terminology used  here  by Paul is a  military  illustration.  It  pictures Rome  going  into a  free  country and as a  result of waging  war and winning they subdue that  nation and  take them into captivity.  But  in the  spiritual realm, we are the ones in bondage and when  we accept The Lord Jesus and  obey the Gospel, we are “transferred” (NASV) or “translated” (KJV)  or are  “conveyed” (NKJV)  out of that  bondage into  the light of the Gospel.   But  it does  not  end there.

I like that phrase, "changing kingdoms." And Larry reminds us that this change of kingdoms implies in lifestyle change as well. Good thought to start the day.