GandalfTheWise

It took a bit of work, but using bing I tracked him and his fellowship down based on the info in the various posts. I looked through the fellowship's site and it seems legit to me. It's a Christian men's group with chapters all around the US. I read through some of the testimonies and they sound like other testimonies I've heard over the years. With regard to the testimony in the OP, it took me a long time to track it down buried in one paragraph of a 12 page PDF file (which is the chapter from the book mentioned in another post). It sounds more like this is being shared as part of his personal testimony in person rather than front page bragging rights. If not for the OP and the reference to the book it appears in, I probably couldn't have found it. In a short 2 minute testimony talking about what the fellowship did for him, he doesn't mention it. In his 30 minute testimony (which I admittedly skipped through at about 30 to 60 second intervals), I couldn't find any reference to it. If he spent all his time talking about this and he was a one trick pony speaker and this was plastered in prominent places on the site, I'd question things. Given that most of his focus (at least that I could see online) is on the men around him and the testimony of God's change in his life and family, I think it sounds credible. Given a few of the other testimonies I looked at and the various resources on the main fellowship site, this seems on the up and up to me. This seems to be a group through which many men are coming to Christ and seeing tangible changes in their lives. It also seems to be a group catching men falling through the cracks who don't want to go into a church. If they had a chapter near where I live, I'd check them out.

There's also the chance of a failure in any mechanical operation. A racking failure followed by grunts and expletives and the sounds of mechanical clicking and clacking trying to ready the weapon would be counterproductive. As someone somewhere said, it depends on the person breaking into your house. A petty thief might run at top speed out of the house at the sound of a shotgun being racked. A person set on personal harm and violation now knows your location, what type of weapon you have, and that you are the type of person who'd rather give a warning than actually shoot.

I've observed that some places, people, and objects just seem to have a bad spiritual presence about them that prayer and spiritual warfare seem to affect. I've had instances in my life where I've observed such things firsthand. I've heard similar testimonies from others and seen enough things I cannot simply chalk up to chance, random feelings, and the like. I also take into account the testimonies of missionaries in some areas. Now having said that, not everything we see is spiritual. One missionary family I knew to a native American reservation starting having severe health problems that seemed to ebb and rise in various family members at various times. They had ruled out medical causes and other things (with multiple trips to doctors) and assumed it was some sort of spiritual attack because there were other things going on. It turns out they had carbon monoxide problems with their old furnace. I don't say this to disprove spiritual things but rather to point out there can be more mundane causes of things at times. Scripturally speaking, direct NT explanation of this is somewhat sparse. The OT support of there being places and things that are blessed and cursed seems consistent with things like this but not in a way to give clear guidance for regular Christian practice. There are a few places in Acts (and other parts of the NT) which do seem to give some support for this idea that bad spiritual influences can be associated with people and objects and places but not enough to be definitive one way or another as to practice and explanation. But there are practices in the church today that have scant NT directions that we take for granted such as the details of how our particular church conducts worship services. The "experts" I've heard often engage in a lot of conjecture and I'm not convinced of their explanations. Some strike me as thoughtful and others as being overzealous. I just listen to testimonies from people I consider most credible and try to learn from those. The course of action I usually follow is to just go as I feel lead to do things. As a couple of broad categories, there are times I pray (and explicitly out loud claim the blood of Christ) over places, people, and things to break negative spiritual things, and then there are times of prayers of blessing and anointing of a place for God's use. There are times I've observed tangible changes coming from this or heard others (who I never mentioned anything to) comment on tangible changes they've seen. I don't go around looking for such things, but I keep it in the back of my mind as a possibility in some situations.

I'll post one as an example using Peter's use of a sword in Gethsemane. What follows below is what I consider a starting point for considering if something is universal truth and a command for all Christians. This is a parallel passage which occurs in Matt 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18. Here are some excerpts from these passages. Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” Matt 26:5ob-54 NIV 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Mark 14:46-47 NIV 35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied. Luke 22:35-38 NIV 49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:49-51 NIV 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.” 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) 11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” John 18:8-11 NIV A few observations on these passages which all describe the same event: 1. This occurs in a unique situation in human history where Jesus was going to die for the sins of the world. It was as wrong for the disciples to try to prevent it by force as it was when Peter earlier had tried to talk Jesus out of it. (e.g. 21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Matt 16:21-23 NIV along with Mark 8:33) 2. The individual sentence "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" is more likely a general observation of life than an absolute statement of universal fact. The sheer number of individuals who have used weapons for reasons of force and violence (including soldiers, law enforcement, or criminals) who have died of old age of natural causes argues more for this being a general observation that people who live by the sword are more likely to die by it. The sentence "Put your sword back in its place" was a definite historical command to Peter in that place and time and not part of a teaching session addressing the disciples or crowds. 3. Historically speaking, to some degree there was a messianic expectation that the anointed one (i.e. Christ or Messiah) was to be the king of Israel and bring freedom and liberation. The OT passages dealing with anointing associate it with the high priest and various kings. In Acts 1 (6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restorethe kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:6-8 NIV), the disciples are still fixated on the restoration of the kingdom. It's too long to get into here, but there is a pattern of Jesus' teachings in the gospels along with passages in Acts which show the gradual change of the disciples seeing God's Kingdom from being the restoration of Israel to the body of Christ being individuals in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. A part of Jesus' teaching to them was that His kingdom was not to be established by force but by God's transformation and adoption of individuals. 4. These are just some obvious observations off the top of my head. I'm sure more can be made. How do these passages apply to us? I think that there are two aspects to these verses. There is first the historical aspect that Jesus was in the appointed place from the Father to die for the sins of the world and that his disciples did not understand that. They still needed to learn that the Kingdom they were part of was not a restored physical kingdom of Israel with Jesus being a better version of King David but rather a spiritual kingdom of individuals changed in their hearts by God Himself. The disciples' (or rather Peter's) use of force to try to prevent Jesus' appointed task was not right. As the verses stand, this aspect alone can completely describe their meaning. These verses are a clear historical narrative of events that happened. There is a possible second aspect that there might be something universal to learn here that applies to all situations, but there might not be given the uniqueness of Jesus' atoning work. This is where Christians' opinions on this passage start to diverge. Anyway, this is what I consider "context" to mean relative to any particular passage. It includes finding all possible parallel passages, fitting them with other relevant ones, bringing in relevant historical context, and figuring out which were situational things for particular times and places and which things are universal for all times and places. I'm under no illusions that this post does little more than start to lay the groundwork for considering a wide number of scriptural passages which might address the issue of whether or not Christians should ever use weapons or force and what situations it is or is not something to be done. Then there are related issues such as when Christians should ask for or allow weapons or force to be used on their behalf or when Christians should flee or remain in particular situations, if situations can be split into explicit persecution for the gospel versus generic violence or warfare. All I've really done is try to organize a handful of related passages to figure out how to start studying them. There are many more passages that have bearing on this that need to be considered in a similar manner. I see two types of scriptural authority that Christians throughout the ages have used. There is first God speaking to an individual (or localized group) through particular passages to give guidance and direction. This is the Christian pondering in their heart if they should buy a gun and God brings Matt 26:52 to their heart to convict them not to. This is God telling one Christian that this is not a path for them. The second is God's universal truth and commands to all Christians in all times and places. My opinion is such universal commands will be attested to in a wide range of passages and virtually impossible to miss. For example, it is widely attested that Christians should bear witness to others of what God has done in their life. (I'm distinguishing this as separate from organized evangelism of various forms and just referring to talking about our own lives.) However, it is not widely attested as to what exactly worship in the early church looks like though it's clear it was a universal practice of the early church. Few Christians ever fight and split from each other over how best to share their testimony but many argue about how best to worship and run a service and many choose which church to go to based on this. Most churches have a list of verses "proving" why their way of worship is best. Anyway, this is how I approach such an issue and various passages addressing such issues. There's first discerning directly what God's path is for me and then there's determining how much of that is my path alone and how much is it a path for all Christians.

This is a rather ironic statement seeing the content which followed with its lack of hermeneutics and incomplete coverage of passages potentially addressing the topic and subsequent application as a universal truth for all Christians in all places and times. I was a pacifist for a time and was convinced that was what the Bible taught for all Christians. Since then, I've reconsidered that position. At its core, my belief in Christian pacifism was essentially the belief that everything bad that happens is God's will for me to passively accept and that it would never be His will for me to take action to stop it. To always sit back and do nothing is to assume that God's will in every such situation is completely being done through the actions and choices of an evil violent person and that His total and complete will for every Christian is to always allow that to happen. Pushed to its natural conclusion, this mindset means that Christians should never stop bullying or stop anyone abusing or harming someone else except via use of verbal persuasion or calling someone in a uniform and a gun to use force and violence instead of us. It's one thing to suffer for the gospel ourselves and not use violence to defend ourselves. It's another to stand by and let someone violate another person and assume it's God's will to stand by when it's in our power to stop something. In the future, there will be a world where the lion and lamb are buddies and no weapons will be found. That is not today however. A few years ago, my state started allowing concealed carry of weapons. I've given thought to this and I've given thought as to what reasons I would ever resort to violence. I'd not shoot or threaten anyone to stop a robbery or similar things. Money or things are not a good enough reason for me. However, in a situation where harm or death was imminent, I decided I'd like to have the capability of affecting the outcome. I decided I'd be willing to take the responsibility for trying to make sure it was the evil violent person who suffered the harm or death rather than several bystanders or my family. In addition, the capability of being able to exert lethal force has the potential for being a deterrent which might stop someone else from doing something. I also live in a part of the country where you are not at the top of the food chain when you are out in nature. There've been wolves killing pets and livestock for sport rather than food not too far away. Up to this point, I've not had the inclination to spend the time and resources necessary to be a responsible gun owner, but I've not ruled it out. There are a wide range of situations in the world in which Christians find themselves. I'm not convinced that sitting back and passively letting things happen is always God's plan for us. I'm also not convinced that armed force is always the correct response. I'm currently of the mind to leave this as a matter of conscience for each believer as to how much force they are comfortable using in various situations that they may be in.

@Figure of eighty The first thing to do is to forget every scene from TV or movies with a gun or weapon or self-defense that you have ever seen. The majority are misleading or dead wrong. If someone is attacking you, you probably won't have time to warn them off nor is it likely they'd change their mind. About all you can do is immediately use your weapon as effectively as possible. You probably won't have time to think or aim, you'll only have time to react in the way you have practiced. Find a good instructor to learn from and then practice. A big part of that will be learning what is legal and not legal in your location (which can vary city to city and state to state). As some people say, every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it. If you use a weapon incorrectly or in the wrong situation, you could find yourself a felon and in jail and separated from your son for a long time. If it's a home break-in type of situation where you perhaps have some time to think, you still need to practice this and know what you should and shouldn't do. There are lot more ways to use weapons ineffectively than there are to use them effectively. Here are a serious set of questions you should consider. How do you react in emergency and high stress situations? Do you scream and panic? Does your mind sharpen and focus? Does your mind go blank? Do you get frantic and your mind starts racing and you freak out? What happens to your physical coordination? Do you fumble with things and freeze up, or would you have the fine motor skills to correctly operate a weapon? Now consider this, if you have an emergency situation, are you capable of handling a deadly weapon without hurting yourself or your son? If you were holding your son in one arm or had him in a stroller, could you properly draw a weapon with one hand and not accidentally discharge it while it is pointing at some part of your body or your son? If you were in your house during a break-in while it is dark and you are half asleep, could you keep track of where a gun is pointing as you move around and realize everything a bullet might hit as it goes through walls into the next room? or through a window or outside wall to your neighbor's house? If you were half-asleep, would you clearly know the difference between an intruder and your parents or brother stumbling around the house while visiting for the night? In a few years, if you are woken out of a sound sleep by a crashing dish in the kitchen, could you safely tell the difference between the shadowy figure of your 5 YO son standing on a chair in the kitchen trying to sneak a cookie from a tall cabinet from an intruder? Would you tend to panic and shoot first or could you calmly identify your target before pulling the trigger? Having said this, the most important part of personal security is situational awareness and common sense. If you avoid sketchy situations and sketchy people and learn common sense ways of increasing your security, the odds of ever being in a situation where a weapon might prevent harm drop a lot. If you live in a high crime area that scares you, consider moving somewhere else. There are many nice places with a reasonable cost of living that are relatively crime free. I've spent most of my life in medium to small size towns in the midwest US and rarely have felt unsafe. We raised our kids for about 20 years in such a place and I never thought twice about my kids walking to school by themselves.

There are two questions every Christian couple should consider. 1. Is this the person I should marry? 2. When should we get married? It's ironic that most Christian advice centers around identifying the right person but rarely addresses the timing of marriage. Back in my generation (married in the early 80s), it was common Christian "wisdom" to wait until you graduated from college (or got a good job, or were financially stable, or whatever) before you got married. Often, this would be years down the line. In hindsight, that was silly. The net result was usually a couple planning to get married who after months of falling more and more in love started having more and more issues with keeping their hands off each other before the honeymoon. At a stage in their relationship when they should naturally become more intimate, they were instead conflicted over what was and was not appropriate to do before marriage. Why wait for arbitrary financial or educational milestones? Most Christian couples our age who've been married for decades would now give the advice, why wait to get married if you are going to? If you are not sure you should marry someone, don't get heavily involved with them. If you are sure you are going to marry someone, just get married and start your life together as a married couple. One of the best things my wife and I did as a couple was get married 2 years before I graduated college instead of waiting until after. The memories of those last two years of college (struggling financially in a tiny 1 BR apartment) are good ones. I too do see a difference in consequences between physical intimacy and romance and love in multiple casual relationships and a deep serious one likely to end up as lifelong one. However, while being in a deep relationship which ends in a break up before marriage might prevent a messy divorce, it will still likely cause some degree of emotional hurt and baggage that makes the next relationship harder. The reality is that almost all long term relationships go through 3 general stages: infatuation/passion, disillusionment, and then contentment. You start out deeply and passionately in love, the infatuation dies and you start to see the person for who they really are, and then you get to the real work of becoming an indispensable part of the other's life without depending on strong hormones. Without a lifelong commitment of marriage, most couples hit the disillusionment phase, think it means that this is the wrong person, and go their separate ways and try again. Some marriages end because couples don't realize the natural progression a relationship goes through and they give up at the disillusionment stage. These people often sadly end up in a cycle of multiple serious relationships which start off strongly with passion and infatuation and then leave when that is gone. Some learn from their first mistakes, but others keep on making the same mistakes, and others give up. I just think Christians need to set an example of how to do relationships effectively. When two Christians clearly are cohabiting sans marriage, it sends a message and sets an example that marriage is optional in a relationship. This is NOT a message Christians should be sending to other Christians or the world. We should be setting an example of setting solid high standards of selecting a future mate and then showing how to make that work for life in a way that both partners are much better off having been married for life.

I've known solid mature Christians who come down on both sides of this issue. Those who hold to eternal life being immortality which can come only through participation in Christ's atonement are definitely in a minority. However, those Christians I know who do hold this are not people I can dismiss easily because of their character, knowledge of the Bible, and the amount of fruit in their lives. In the last church I was at, the head pastor had this view. He made it clear most of the staff disagreed and that every member was free to disagree. This was a church in which people were regularly coming to Christ in most services and through most ministries and there were several dozen baptisms per year. The pastor wanted to foster an environment of unity on essentials and freedom in non-essentials. This was one of the more peaceful and spiritually vibrant churches I've been in. There were definitely some heavy duty biblical and theological debates, but these always took second place to fruit and behavior and ministry. The only reason we left that church was because we moved hours away from there. My own opinion is that this is a non-essential. I think it's one of those things that simply has the weight of so much theological inertia behind it that no one ever bothers to even question it and it sounds shocking when someone hears it for the first time. In the grand scheme of things, it's probably a blessing that so few people ever think about this or it would be one more non-essential that churches and denominations split over.

A poor story is just a morality lecture that is little different than quoting scripture to someone who does not believe in biblical authority. A good story will draw in the listener, strong feelings will arise in agreement with the main point, and then perhaps the story might flip a mirror back on them. This is not just pointing out something is wrong. It is drawing someone in so that they agree that it is wrong. I think many parables in the Bible are solid examples of good stories that express biblical values. The use of parables goes back at least as far as Nathan with King David. Various prophets used them and Jesus used them extensively. If you write morality plays, people will probably just ignore them or dislike them. If you write effective parables, people will learn and see things differently. It's the difference between telling someone what to think and leading them along a path to where they naturally come to that conclusion on their own.

Anytime anyone forms a serious relationship with someone (including sexual relations, living together, and legally sharing assets), they are fully exposed to most of the pitfalls of a bad marriage even if they haven't had a wedding or formally married. STDs, unplanned pregnancy, emotional baggage if the partner turns out to be abusive, exposure to illegal activities of the partner, fraud, and pretty much anything else can hit you with long term consequences that can hinder subsequent relationships and change your quality of life for a long time. Planning on using living together as a test run for marriage simply increases the odds of having more baggage in your life before you find a person you do want to spend the rest of your life with. When push comes to shove, the Christian perspective is to do your due diligence before getting involved in sex, romance, and love and marriage. Get to know their friends, family, listen to your friends and family, watch them closely, and take any red flags very seriously. Unless one is so emotionally shallow that sex, romance, and love can be turned on and off like choosing what TV show to watch, having sex, romance, and love with someone is a large part of the emotional and spiritual union aspect of a marriage. It is something that ties us deeply to another person and it is usually only with a great deal of pain that we untie ourselves from that other person. Forming such a bond with sex, romance, and love is NOT the way to determine if someone is good marriage material. Indeed, that initial infatuation of romance and love causes many people to overlook a lot of red flags and get heavily involved with people that they'd never think twice about if they weren't in a hormone induced drunkenness of lovey-dovey feelings. The main effect of the Christian perspective of due diligence before getting involved is that it increases the odds of having a lifetime happy marriage which will be a blessing to both partners, their friends, and families. It doesn't guarantee things will be great, but it improves the odds by immediately eliminating poor choices for a mate without consequence and reducing the baggage you carry into marriage. I'm now in my late 50s and married for over 30 years. I've observed a lot of marriages in my life. Those that end typically fit two categories. The first is that due diligence was not done and one partner married someone with several red flags that their friends and family tried to warn them about or they ignored those red flags thinking love would make it all work out. The second is partners that didn't take care of their marriage and failed to continually nourish and care for it. All of us change over time and our marriage must adapt and change with it. One of my biggest frustrations in western culture is the level of generational isolation I see. I often do figurative face-palms whenever I hear or read relationship "advice" from teens and young adults given to their peers. It's basically the blind leading the blind setting themselves up for heartbreak and failure. If you want to learn about how to make a relationship work, go to a senior center, find a widow or widower with prominent pictures of their family, their wedding picture, and pictures of their spouse, and ask them about their marriage and family. Find people who made it work for decades and learn from them. They'll love to talk about those things because they were such a huge and fulfilling part of their lives. They'll be able to give you a complete and detailed rundown of every annoying and frustrating and stupid thing that person ever did, and they'd give anything to just have them back to hold and hug for one day. That's what a good marriage is about. It's about two imperfect people that somehow manage not to strangle each other and yet become an indispensable part of each other's lives.

This is one of those sections of scripture I've never really heard an explanation I'm completely content with.

It would probably be prudent to talk to someone who could give you good legal advice valid for your state with regard to the father's rights and obligations. Such things vary state to state in the US. Child support, visitation rights, custody, adoption procedures, etc. can be tricky legal things and you need to get information accurate for your state. There may be future legal ramifications depending on whether birth certificates carry one or two names as well as what legal obligation you have to disclose the father's name. Simply not telling the father may or may not change various legal things. For example, if your son's father and his family find out about your son, they might have legal rights for visitation or potentially custody. I don't know if adoption would require the father's legal approval as well. A pastor or Christian counselor might be able to point you to some free legal services that would give guidance on these things. In addition, there's the consideration that years down the line that your son might want to meet and consider having a relationship with his biological father. It might be worth considering what type of impact having to say "your biological father does not know you even exist" will have on a boy or a young man. In my opinion, one of the most important considerations for raising a boy into a man is the presence of solid consistent men in his life. This is something few people ever really talk about in this day and age. The men he sees the most of are going to affect how he views becoming a man. If he sees a family where men do not have a serious role, he'll learn that men don't have a serious role to play in a family. It's what a boy sees in his father, his grandfathers, his uncles, and their circle of friends that will play a huge role in what he sees masculinity and manhood to be about. My anecdotal observations are the sons of single mothers do a lot better when they have a close relative such as a grandfather or uncle who takes them under their wing and models how to be a man for them. This also matches most of the studies I've read on delinquency and gang involvement. This is something that no amount of money or government programs or loving mothers, grandmothers, and aunts can be an adequate substitute for. I know that this is not a popular opinion nowadays but I stand by it. I've known Christians who were adopted into Christian families when they were infants or children for various reasons. Some started off as foster children (who were removed from parents or family for various reasons) and were later adopted. A few were orphans. Some of these situations started off as teen pregnancies or single parents. Some knew their birth parents and kept in contact and others did not. The usual attitude I heard was that they were thankful for having been adopted and raised by a Christian family. I'm not sure how such things work, but there are Christian adoption services that work to pair an infant or child with a Christian family looking to adopt a child. Here's a link to one agency (https://www.christianadopt.org) to give an idea of what services such agencies offer. I am NOT endorsing this particular one but pointing it out as an example of the types of services various agencies and ministries might offer.

This is an interesting observation and helpful to read. One of the challenges on a global site like this is knowing what region comments apply to. This is a good example of me making an error by thinking purely in terms of US schools. I've been starting to increasingly add the phrase "in the US" to some of my posts. I think it's a fair question to ask where the profit is going.

It seems that Christians often think of sin exclusively in a legal sense of breaking God's rules and that it is our job to learn the rules and follow them the best we can. I think a more comprehensive view of sin is any falling short of God's ideal intent for our life. I think God created us (looking back at Eden) to live in a clean atmosphere which isn't going to cause health problems and shorten our life. Is smoking falling short? I think yes. Is living in an area with unhealthy pollution in the air falling short? I think yes. Is choosing to share an apartment with a smoker falling short? I think yes. Is living in a house with severe radon gas problems falling short? I think yes. Is failing to test for radon and continuing to live in a house with radon problems falling short? I think yes. Is having a job working with dusty particulates without adequate masks falling short? I think so. Is painting or using chemicals without appropriate masks falling short? I think so. Christians often get hung up on whether there is guilt, rule breaking, and punishment involved rather than the condition of our lungs. I'll call it out that all of the things mentioned fall short of God's plan for human beings to freely breathe without shortening their lives or causing health problems. I think that this is a more complete view of sin because all of these things are doing the same thing to us, causing health problems and shortening our life. Which is worse? Being addicted to smoking or choosing to work in a high paying job that exposes one to dangerous inhalants? In one sense, this is arguing over whether addiction or conscious choices cause more guilt. In another sense, each is falling short and doing similar damage. There are two aspects to something like smoking (or in more general breathing unhealthy air). The first is mitigating the effects simply to improve our health. The second is finding freedom from it. First, it is simply prudent to take practical steps to reduce the amount of damage to our lungs. If that is a nicotine patch, fine. If that is wearing a mask at work, fine. The second is finding freedom from the cause of lung damage. Sometimes this might be a simple choice (i.e. quitting a job). Other times it might be something that requires God to do healing or deliverance in our lives.

The biggest thing I learn from is reading testimonies and what people share about their lives. From a theological standpoint, there's little new I haven't heard before though I'll read something insightful at times. The most growth for me is in what I've gained from researching and meditating on how to respond to various questions and comments. It's clarified my thoughts on some things. [Edit: I've been here for almost 2 years now.]

@Lois Martin I thought I'd heard it all... My initial reaction is that communion is meant to be celebrated together. However, I have been in communion services where it was an extended time of prayer and reflection where everyone had the elements but partook at their own timing rather than together. The last church I was in would do that on occasion instead of the typical doing it all at the same time. In one sense, we were all in the same room but doing it separately. What is described might not be all that different from that. Do they do this all the time or was this a one time thing? Was a reason given for this?

I think biblical context is important in this one. 6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matt 6:1-6 NIV) I think verse 6:1 speaks to the heart of the matter which is motivation. I think the key is the phrase "to be seen by them". If 6:1 read only "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others", this would point mainly to the act being seen and not the motivation. The phrase "to be seen by them" adds a motive. If we practice righteousness primarily for the purpose of impressing others, that's all we'll get out of it. I think the verses following are meant to be concrete examples illustrating 6:1. Note that the English word hypocrite is basically a transliteration of the Greek word whose original meaning referred to acting in plays and later took on derived meanings related to pretending and lying. Show up at a homeless shelter to do volunteer work so you can post selfies online and make your college application look better, you've got your reward in full. You'll get some upvotes and fawning compliments and an increased chance of admittance. Show up at a homeless shelter to do volunteer work because of compassion and a desire to minister and you'll get a spiritual blessing from it.

I've heard similar testimonies over the years. I'd also second @Jayne in that I've heard testimonies from missionaries at our old church about Muslims coming to Christ as a result of dreams and visions. These were first hand testimonies of it being a specific person that missionary had talked to. One common factor in these testimonies is that such dreams and visions are ultimately life-changing and lead people to Christ. I can tell you confidently that most Christians will simply rejoice at your testimony including the dream. I can also tell you confidently that there are some Christians who will never be convinced that it was from God and that it was either a normal dream based on stress in your life or some type of demonic deception from past new-age involvement or that you are lying for some self-seeking reason. I know one person who publicly shared a similar testimony and the next week a sermon from the pulpit specifically addressed how no one today could ever see Jesus. I was in that church and heard both the testimony and sermon. The pastor didn't specifically name them but repeatedly made a number of comments on the order of "I've never met anyone who has actually seen Jesus" basically repudiating the testimony as being false. I see from other threads that you've been a Christian for a short time. One of the things you'll learn is that there is a core set of essential beliefs that all Christians pretty much agree on. Those are such things as Jesus' death and resurrection as being the only way to God, the Bible as our authoritative source for belief and practice, and that part of being a Christian is that we are new creations in Christ which will lead to changes in our life. Then there are things that born-again Christians have been disagreeing about for centuries; sometimes to the extent of having nothing to do with other Christians who disagree on those things. The reality is that there are Bible-believing churches full of born-again Christians who will have nothing to do with a Bible-believing church full of born-again Christians across the street over some of these issues. As you grow spiritually and meet more and more solid mature Christians with a range of different views on various issues, you will start to learn which things are important to all Christians and which things are not. For a few groups of Christians, it is an essential belief that the *only* way God speaks to Christians today is through the Bible; hence your testimony will fly in the face of what they believe. Most groups of Christians have the view that God speaks and communicates today in various ways which will be consistent with scripture and will produce positive spiritual changes.

We're coming up on one year in the new location after about 20 years in our previous one. We moved here so my wife could be close to her mom (in assisted care). That's going very good and we have great neighbors. We're going to my MIL's church since we are her ride. It's a solid growing church with good people. I'm just not sure how well I fit in. I found a Spanish speaking service nearby that I started attending alone which I enjoy (even though I'm an outsider struggling to communicate). I'm unemployed and working on writing materials for ministry and consulting. To some degree I'm burned out with the writing and struggling to determine the next steps to take. God's clearly steered me in this direction so I'm trying to discern the next steps. We're also facing some major financial decisions soon regarding income. The big thing on this site for me is personal growth and learning. The interminable long posts I create have been a source of much growth for me. The research, meditation, and distilling of thoughts as well as attempted application of this to real situations are a honing and practice of gifts and skills. In the long run, writing is likely to be a big part of where God is steering me so this has been a good opportunity to work at it.

My understanding is that much of the inspiration for the anchorite lifestyle is the common biblical example of God calling people to be alone with Him for a time in the desert or wilderness. I've heard many testimonies over the years how people had life changing experiences when God called them into the wilderness (usually figuratively speaking though at times somewhat literally) to get away from the normal hustle and bustle and distractions of life. As I've meditated and written and rewritten this post, I'd have to say that my best answer is that to some degree I've been figuratively living like an anchorite in many ways for much of my life. I think the benefits of being an anchorite comes more from a state of heart and mind than a physical location. I think that there are compelling reasons why some elements of that lifestyle could have a profound impact on most Christians today. My sense of things is that God created us to live at a particular pace of life. Think about life in the garden of Eden. We were created to live in nature. Our brains were created to be most at home in that environment. We were created to walk and talk with God in that environment. Compare sitting and watching a sunset with someone to an hour in a typical western lifestyle having a TV running, a computer with multiple windows open, and smart phone with multiple text conversations going. To some degree, we are living in an altered state of consciousness because of this sensory assault and frenetic flow of information on our brains. Each source of information has to become more intense and extreme to compete for our attention with other sources of information. We now have a few generations who are losing the ability for critical thought because they are living in something akin to an altered state of mind where their brain constantly switches between things and reacts to things rather than deeply focusing and meditating on one thing. Things are coming so quickly and furiously that our brain can do nothing more than react. Through constant exposure to this, many people's brains have become wired to react to information rather than understand information. In this altered state of consciousness, many "facts" people learn are merely emotionally shocking pieces of information (be they real, fake, accurate, or inaccurate) that cause a deep reaction. They become incapable of disbelieving such things which have been absorbed by their brains. The stronger the shock value, the more likely it is to be embedded as something "factual" that we know. I believe this is affecting Christians negatively. It becomes harder to meditate and be thoughtful when our brains are in some type of altered state running in hyperdrive to process input from multiple sources. It becomes harder to separate truth from lies when we are reacting to things rather than processing and understanding and meditating on things. A shocking video, image, or quotation (whether in or out of context, whether accurate or inaccurate, whether truth or a lie) becomes embedded in some people's minds and will remain there. The more shocking, the more likely it will be remembered and embedded in someone's brain. Inaccurate headlines and shocking images become something our brain believes in this altered state of hyperdrive. Things that we would normally reject as foolishness and error if we slowed down and thought about them get past our discernment filters because our brain is reacting rather than meditating. If we've gotten used to communicating to a dozen people at once in several conversations between multiple chat platforms and text threads, it becomes hard to sit down with one person and focus on that conversation (which likely adversely affects our ability to commune with God). In hindsight, this thread has made me realize I've been leading a more anchorite life than most Christians simply because of the path God has lead me on. Decades of my hobbies (enjoying reading, music, languages, and learning new things) and professional career (which required me to spend hours per day of systematic clear thinking and reasoning) has made me somewhat immune to much of what is happening. I can trivially spend an hour thinking, meditating, writing and rewriting a post like this, or spend a few hours meditating on some topic or question. In contrast, as soon as a few chat windows light up or my phone rings or beeps for a text, I get frustrated and tend to ignore them. I cannot have the computer and TV on at the same time. A question such as "would you be an anchorite" immediately triggers in depth meditation on who are anchorites and where did anchorites come from, to what degree is it a biblical practice, and how might such things benefit or affect us today. Hence, a post like this results. The processing of thinking and writing is one of learning and growth for me. Each time I do this, I am practicing meditating, thinking, and learning about the Bible, other information, and how to apply it. I think that the ongoing environment we provide for our brains deeply affects how we think. If our lives are spent constantly being saturated with sensory and information load, we are rewiring our brain to deal with being overwhelmed all the time. If our lives are spent with more things such as calmly reading books, having real talking conversations with a few people, and doing things such as watching sunsets, taking walks (without the phone), playing with the dog, enjoying eating a meal, and writing in-depth letters or messages, our brain is rewired to think more calmly and systematically and to actually enjoy the world around us rather than mostly react to it. I think regularly having some type of anchorite-like time in our lives would be physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy for us. When I left a previous job due to high stress levels, it took close to 3 months before I physically started feeling okay again and about another 6 or so months before I felt normal. My guess is that it would take most people at least a few weeks or more for disconnecting from sensory and information overload to start getting their brains back to a more healthy state of operation and likely months to really develop healthier patterns. God created humanity to walk and talk with Him in the garden of Eden. I think to the extent our lives have this type of pacing, the easier various spiritual practices become for us. I wonder if many of the spiritual blessings attributed to anchorite types of practices is mostly related to the pacing and organization of our lives rather than the physical isolation.

We've got a gazetteer for our home state. It has pretty much every rural named road in the state and most main city streets. It's a bit out of date now with some newer roads not on it but it's great for maneuvering around in the country. For many years, this was my chief resource for plotting routes (and alternative routes when we hit road construction). We have a Garmin GPS (an older version with perpetual updates). This is nice for in town. As a practical matter, I use both.

How bout that Kenneth Copeland Ministry ? Did their member give to the poor or to Copeland ? that US 1,3 Billion accumulated in his bank account. Who would help the poor Lazarus then ? Jesus has entrusted the poor to the church My response was specifically referring to the overly broad accusations about Christian schools being for profit and making money for churches. The Copeland example is the first that seems to carry some weight. However, it does not undo other accusations which appear to be baseless. The damage of those other accusations is done. What if someone quotes those posts and assumes everything is true? What if someone reads the OP and now believes supporting ministries in Kenya is a questionable thing? What if someone now believes that most Christians schools are primarily profit centers for greedy preachers? Who knows what posts get picked up by a search engine and read by someone who might assume it's factual. I have little respect for people who toss out a series of accusations waiting for one to be valid and never clarify, acknowledge or apologize for those that might not be true. In this case, this thread includes comments, links, and an image implying very negative things about particular ministries in Kenya as well as broad condemnation of a range of churches in Kenya. It also includes a general negative characterization of Christian schools passed off as factual. When one passes on potentially baseless accusations against particular Christians or churches or ministries or a broad range of ministries, one has the responsibility to do basic fact checking before posting as well as posting corrections if more information comes to light. Why do I push something like this so tenaciously? Because we Christians should be prime examples of those committed to truth. We should be examples of good research and fact checking. It's the main reason I research and write posts such as my first on this thread about CITAM ministries in Kenya. I'm trying to set an example of how to fact check accusations to try to determine what is true and what is not. None of us is perfect; it is how we react to and deal with our imperfections and mistakes that is the example we set for others inside and outside the church. I tend to agree with most of your points on this thread. I however cannot let things that are pushing the edge of libelous go. It reflects badly on the other posters on this site when such things go unchallenged and left as factual. I'd like to toss in my two bits about tithing and giving and how ministries should handle their resources, but I do not want to be associated in any way with some of these accusations on this thread or the OP.

The OP started with an article about Kenya and direct comments about churches in Kenya. I was just fact checking if it was a valid example. I also call into question the wisdom of using images such as the one in the OP. The proximity of that image with an initial article about churches in Kenya along with comments about churches in Kenya is basically an accusation against the churches mentioned in the article that they are wolves in sheeps clothing. I simply dislike posts and arguments that amount to mud throwing without worrying if the accusations are accurate. They cause loss of credibility and make it difficult for people to listen to what the real topic is. In addition, propagating unfounded accusations against other Christians is simply unacceptable behavior. This latest post again carries inadequately researched and overly broad accusations. "Many rich churches are building Christian schools from their tithe but thats an expensive Christian schools built for profit not for the poor. Its just another way to make money by the church." I've known people involved in Christian schools in the US first hand. Each one I know details about is a financially struggling operation with underpaid teachers and overstretched parents. These are not making money for churches but are generally a drain. The people supporting them are zealous in their belief of raising and educating children in a Christian environment and are sacrificing for it. The information I'm familiar with in the US is that financial struggles are common in Christian education and that Christian schools are a financial drain on churches rather than being profit centers. There are perhaps a few that fit the "elite" category that attract wealthy parents that can turn a profit, but my sense of things is that few Christian schools fit that category. I think trying to score argument points via a string of accusations is counterproductive. Pointing out abuses of the tithe system is not biblical proof against tithing. It is pointing out people who shouldn't be in ministry. Pointing the finger at a broad range of ministries without proof of abuse and basically calling them greedy wolves is not biblical proof against tithing, it is potentially bringing false accusations against solid Christians and ministries. Each time an accusation is made without fact-checking and doing solid research to back it up, it distracts from the main point, which is (as far as I can tell): Does the Bible teach Christians should tithe? Even if a few accusations can be found which are well-founded, that doesn't prove the main point. Overall, I tend to agree with the points being made. I see the tithe as a part of the Law for Israel and not specifically for the church. I see NT teaching on giving being that giving is simply one part of a lifestyle of stewardship. I don't believe in a curse being put on Christians financially for not giving enough but rather a possible loss of blessing and a missing of the joy of ministry. I believe that financial giving is a type of spiritual ministry in which some Christians are more gifted than others. I believe that most giving should usually be done locally rather than remotely (other than supporting missionary type of work or specific ministries). I don't believe fear based or manipulative tactics should be used to "encourage" giving. I just think the best way to make these points is via clear exposition of various Bible verses accompanied by a clear picture of what healthy biblical Christian giving looks like both from the individual perspective and the church perspective and how it fits into our lives and churches.

I've spent years worth of time in churches and ministries which are on both sides of this issue so I've heard a number of teachings and sermons from both sides. I've known a lot of Christians (at all stages of their walk with Christ) on both sides. I have no doubt both sides are Christians. The last church we attended was a pentecostal one. The current evangelical church we attend tends to be cessationist in outlook with a few on staff having made some comments suggesting rather strong opinions against pentecostals, but seems to have an unofficial "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I'll try to cover the big picture here. The following is basically an oversimplified overview of the context. Most answers and discussions you hear will have their roots in this context. My sense of things is that the phrase "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" is used differently by different groups. The phrase "baptize in the Holy Spirit" first comes from John the Baptist talking about Jesus. It is used again in Acts 1 where it refers to the upcoming day of Pentecost. Different groups of Christians make assumptions about what in the book of Acts constitutes being "baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire". Some take it as a clear prophecy of only Pentecost which was fulfilled once and for all for the church as a whole. Others take it as an ongoing promise of something intended for each new believer with various events in Acts showing this as something ongoing as the gospel spread. There seem to be 2 main points of contention between Christians on this issue. The first is if indwelling and baptism are two separate things or merely different aspects of the same thing. By indwelling, I'll refer to the initial work of salvation. By baptism, I'll refer to a possibly subsequent work of empowerment. The second is whether or not the early church age manifestations of this baptism still occur today and the reasons for that. One place where Christians disagree is in explaining what "really" happened in various passages in Acts. Some are convinced that every time the Holy Spirit came (with evidence of tongues and/or prophecy) that it was only associated with initial conversion (other than maybe Pentecost being a unique event). They would say that indwelling and baptism occur together and are a once for all type of thing. Others are convinced that the indwelling always happened first, but the baptism is different and sometimes subsequent to that. This sometimes leads to such questions as to whether or not the apostles and others in the upper room were born-again before Pentecost (such as John 20:22 referring to them actually receiving the Holy Spirit in some way at that point in time) or whether they were all born-again at Pentecost. As far as I can tell, each side tends to read their prior opinions into explaining each event in Acts. The second disagreement is if there was a divine reason why various miraculous manifestations stopped. Some Christians are convinced the Bible teaches anything miraculous is primarily an initial sign when God starts a new work and becomes superfluous once the work is going. The early church needed a jump start with signs to unbelievers to get the first converts, but that is not needed today because the changed lives of Christians are the primary miraculous sign God gives. Other Christians are convinced the Bible teaches that God would always continue to do the miraculous throughout the church age and has done so in various times and places. In addition, there is a further consideration that some Christians are convinced that the Bible is the *only* source of guidance and revelation to Christians today whereas others are convinced that God still gives guidance and revelation today which must always align with scripture. Hence there is disagreement over whether or not any gift related to revelation or guidance exists anymore. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is how to view the pentecostal/charismatic movement from a biblical perspective. (There's some differences between pentecostals and charismatics that I'm glossing over here.) Over the past decade or so, the Pew Research Center has done a number of studies on this which provides a lot of demographic and census type of information about this movement. Here's a link to an older set of reports. https://www.pewforum.org/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/ Given that there are over half a billion (billion with a "b") pentecostal and charismatic Christians today and that the modern pentecostal/charismatic movement started only 120 years ago, this is an incredible growth rate. No other religious or spiritual movement in the world has ever seen growth on this scale before. Unlike many of the large world religions which have grown over several centuries or millennia primarily through birth rates or political conquest, this movement has grown primarily through new conversions to Christ. As a reference, here are some religious groups with their current estimated numbers and approximate age. Buddhist 500 million (2500 years), Islam 1500 million (1400 years), Jehovah's Witnesses 6.5 million (140 years), Mormons 12 million (190 years), Hindu 1000 million (3500 years in various forms/1500-2000 years in current form), and RCC 1200 million (1500 years or so). These religions also tend to be localized in particular regions of the world. In contrast, Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians 600 million (120 years). Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity is growing most rapidly in South America and Africa. Most pentecostals and charismatics are first or second generation in the movement. Some Christians see this as proof Satan is deluding many with false signs and wonders and would attribute this growth to the demonic creating an end-time one world church. Other Christians see this as a great end time harvest before Christ's return which God is empowering in the same way as the early church. Some are convinced the Bible teaches God no longer does such things so it is some combination of wild emotion, delusion, and occult deception. Others simply listen to the testimonies of the many Christians who have come to Christ and observe the many changed lives through these ministries and rejoice God is doing awesome things today. Now to your real question. At it's core, pentecostalism is rooted in the idea that God is doing things today in the same way He did in the early church. Thus such things as healing, miracles, divine guidance, and sign gifts are expected to be seen. The pentecostal view of such things is that Jesus told His disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they were baptized in the Spirit and received power from on high. Pentecostals see this baptism in the Holy Spirit as something separate from conversion and salvation and associated with empowering for ministry (But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Acts 1:8 NIV). They see this as something for all Christians. They see this as something that will be obvious and apparent in some way just as the coming of the Holy Spirit was in various places in Acts. Given that tongues and prophecy are frequently mentioned in connection with this, some pentecostals emphasize such things as being evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurring in the same way as in Acts. Ultimately, this is based on many testimonies of solid mature credible Christians who simply give testimony that they had something new happen to them spiritually that had never happened before, often associated with joy, a bubbling up of emotion, a sense of God's awesomeness, and often followed by a new sense of spiritual awareness to spiritual things around them as well as an enhanced faith about what God can do. From what I can tell, the more thoughtful pentecostals clearly separate this baptism and empowering from the spiritual growth and maturity which comes from abiding in Christ where fruit of the Spirit develops as we grow. My sense is that while some enthusiastic pentecostals attribute both spiritual growth and empowering to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I think that the more thoughtful ones separate the spiritual transformation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from ministry empowerment of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think this is a fair presentation of what most pentecostals would say on the issue. I've hung around enough pentecostals and charismatics to have seen some get overzealous about such things. As far as I can tell, this usually tends to be a temporary phase for most. I've seen some that try to mimic in the flesh things that do happen at times when God is doing things in people. I've been at "healing" services where the minister basically pushed people over (simple little physics trick I could use to push anyone over with a light touch to the forehead) as "evidence" God's Spirit was doing something. But I have too been at services where people have been healed of things. (Aside on a topic that sometimes arises. Some Christians teach that spiritual gifts are given to individuals; hence an individual will have only have a particular gift or a few. Other Christians teach that spiritual gifts are given to the church as a whole; hence various individuals may use various gifts as the church needs at various times in their life. Those in the first group tend to focus on discovering and using one's gifts and emphasize how one receives those gifts at conversion. Those in the latter group tend to focus on discerning God's leading in a particular situation as to what is needed. These two views tend to follow along the lines summarized above.) Bottom line is something like this. Those who are convinced that the Bible teaches such things died out with the apostles typically attribute these things to some combination of emotion, flesh, self-seeking, deception, or demonic influence. They usually dismiss testimony on such things as subjective and untrustworthy. Those who are convinced God is doing today similar to things in the book of Acts are willing to accept believers' testimonies on such things in the same way they accept their testimony of conversion. Hence, with the OP of this thread, some react with a "Praise the Lord" and others react with a "Whoa. We need to be very careful here and not encourage this sort thing."

I'm in favor of healthy dialog on the biblical teachings about tithing and giving and what our priorities with regard to helping people should be. I personally think tithing is an OT concept and that our individual Christian economic life should be one of solid stewardship and frugality so as to maximize our liberty and ability to minister to others. The majority of Christians I know who tithe (including teachers who both support it and practice it themselves) do so out of good conscience because they believe the Bible teaches that it is something Christians should do. Dragging out an accusatory secular article and inflammatory image to give the impression that everyone associated with tithing is either a gullible fool or a greedy wolf is not really very helpful. After reading the linked article in the OP and doing a bit of research, my opinion is that the real question related to the article is this: are the Christians in Kenya mostly gullible fools who line the pockets of hucksters, or are they mostly an outstanding example of Christian giving which shocks even secular business analysts who cannot comprehend it and try to explain it away? I like to look at accusations in detail before jumping on board. One thing to note is that a Kenyan shilling is roughly equivalent to one US cent. Hence hundreds of millions of Ksh are millions of USD. The BT article also focuses primarily on ministries which have *published* financial details. There are many far larger ones which do not publish their financials. Overall, this article seems to be insinuating that giving to churches and ministries is a bad thing when it becomes too big. This article says NOTHING with regard to what type of educational, medical, and other types of facilities and ministries are being funded with this money. It's one thing if this money is going into someone's pocket. It's by far another if it is being used for both spiritual and social outreaches to meet both spiritual and physical needs. That article focuses on the amount of giving with little focus on the use of the giving. One of the featured offenders in the BT story is CITAM (Christ is the Answer Ministries). According to the BT article, CITAM (Christ is the Answer Ministries) in Kenya had an annual operating budget of about 1.5 billion Kenyan shillings a few years ago. This converts to about 15 million US dollars. According to the CITAM web site, they currently have about 45,000 attendance in 18 assemblies on Sundays. They run about 8 Christian schools, TV and radio stations, and what appears to be a conference or retreat center of some type. In addition, there are a large number of ministries that seem to be operating within each church along with missions outreach. My sense is that they emphasize involvement in small groups for spiritual growth. They have about 250 staff members. Is $15 million dollars far too exorbitant to run almost 20 churches, a handful of schools, and other ministries with 250 staff members? I don't know. But I think this is a better starting point to determine if this is an abuse of the gospel or a responsible use of resources than strongly reacting to click-bait headlines related to tithes and offerings of hundreds of millions in Kenya without even doing the currency conversion first. Here is an excerpt from the CITAM website on their history. The history of Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) dates back to 1959 when Nairobi Pentecostal Church (NPC) was founded as a multi-racial church grounded in the Word of God and sound doctrine. The church was established as a ministry of Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC). The initial services were held in a tent near Jeevanjee Street in Rahimtulla Hall. In September 1960, the church moved to Valley Road where the present CITAM Valley Road is located. In 2003 Nairobi Pentecostal Church changed its name to Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) and was registered as an autonomous independent entity under the Societies Act of Kenya. The name of the ministry was changed to reflect the nature and the geographical spread which was beyond Nairobi. The focus of CITAM is urban ministry targeting English-speaking persons with an emphasis on outreach to young urban professionals. We have established mission stations among the unreached communities in Kenya and by 2016, had missionaries in East Timor, Romania, USA, Namibia and Burundi in keeping with the Church's strategy of impacting the world. By 2016, the beginning of the current strategic period, CITAM had a total of eighteen (18) assemblies: 7 located in Nairobi (Valley Road, Woodley, Parklands, Karen, Thika Road, Buruburu and Embakasi), 4 in the environs of Nairobi (Ngong, Kiserian/Rongai, Athi River and Thika Town), 4 in other towns (Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret, Kapsabet) 1 in Namibia and 2 out of Africa (Romania and USA). CITAM runs mission stations in Marsabit, Isiolo and Turkana counties, with an outreach to the Rendille, Borana, Burji, Gabra, Elmolo, Samburu and Turkana communities. CITAM‟s goal is to establish indigenous churches amongst the unreached people groups. Currently CITAM has seven (7) primary schools (Woodley, Buruburu, Athi River, Ngong, Nakuru, Kisumu and Eldoret), one (1) secondary school (Buruburu), Pan Africa Christian University and a Children‟s centre (Kiserian). CITAM Media comprises radio and TV stations which also stream online. The radio station, Hope FM, has become a premier station with a large listenership in Nairobi and its environs, Mombasa, Western Kenya and streaming to other parts of the world. The church has grown from a small assembly with a morning service attendance of about 20 to 30 people in 1959, to an estimated attendance of 45,000 by June 2015 and more than 250 regular staff. As I read this, my impression is of an effective Christian ministry that started out rooted within an urban, educated, and relatively wealthy demographic in Kenya that is now using their resources to extend gospel outreach to the uneducated and poorer parts of their country and others. It is potentially a good example of how a missions based ministry takes root and flourishes on its own apart from the original missions group. At this point, I'm more likely to take them at their word than the negative insinuations from a business news source that targets a ministry such as CITAM primarily because they are among the transparent ones which publish their financials for everyone to see.