Nationalism in America’s churches is in many ways more explicit and more unnoticed by participants than even 1930’s Germany. The church I work at has decided that it’s far more acceptable to say the pledge of allegiance than to take communion on a regular basis. This shows a church that has lost its way, a community not gathered around the cross, but around a constitution, around not God’s Word, but the republic.

The church I attend is confesssional, it has creeds, it has liturgies, the sad fact of the matter is that these liturgies are America’s ideology. Our creeds are not the Christian creeds, but the creeds of America. Our pastor stands to decry a godless society week after week in love and patience, but, cannot even begin to articulate the problems which we really face. I’ve heard sermons about the evils of evolution and how serving Jesus is like being in the American service, I’ve stood in silent horror as my brothers and sisters salute a flag, pledging allegiance to a bloodthirsty nation in the very community that was built as a community of peace, and cross bearing discipleship.

I’ve heard our pastor thank veterans for defending our freedom, when really, there hasn’t been anything near a just war in the history of America, and the only war that comes remotely close is the European theatre of WWII. But even that was invalidated by our decision to as a nation commit the greatest act of terrorism ever known to history. There’s no defense of freedom in the wars we fight today, or in any of our wars, it’s never been about the defense of freedom it’s been about the unnamed expansion of empire. It’s been about cultural indoctrination and the self-entitled right to supremacy assumed by the American people.

The “tolerant” Americans have sought to excuse themselves from their imperialism by calling it other things, including: a war on terror, defending our freedom, liberating the oppressed, taking out a threat to our national security, disabling a mass murderer, bringing democracy to a people in need of freedom. The rhetoric is all the same and all underlies what’s really going on. America is a darkened face, and a nation willing to commit seedy acts to save her image, to save face. Just like Two-Face and Batman in the Dark Knight, our image has been marred by the publication of torture acts, of really looking at the things we’ve done in order to save “this fair city” from “madmen”.

America’s two face is the presidency and the CIA, agencies we love to praise, that we now have no choice but to see as disfigured and disfiguring aspects of our society. So we’ve created the idea of “the troops” and “freedom” as our heroes, who bear the weight of our guilt, for better and for worse, we shove off the blame on the president, the vice president, the government agencies, the powerlessness of the american people. The mask we’ve taken on for ourselves is a deliberate and overtly intentional rebranding, a way to distance ourselves from the war we find ourselves in. Yet it doesn’t change the reality that is Two-Face, the reality that our white knights have turned out to be monsters.

Our nation is a people determined to be free of guilt, obsessed with ignoring the past to live in the eternal present. The death of metanarrative and historical unity in American culture is a sign of the ways in which the American project is mediating its own failure to itself. We have become dejected and rather than acknowledge our place in history, we’d rather displace ourselves from it in what Foucault called differance. Trying to make ourselves differ from the past and even our present, making America an ideal, an invisible unity, a sinless body removed from the sins of individual persons.

America’s ecclesiological apologetic for itself is that it is an invisible body, perfectly unmarred by the sins of the past. The ideal still lives on, despite historical failures, because these were the failures of presidents, of leaders, but not of America. Underlying America is a strong belief in her invisible unity, despite her radical inclusion of most peoples (although there are some dissenters like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh). But nevertheless, the claim of America’s idealistic unity and legitimacy as this ideal society in the minds of both conservatives and liberals stands.

As Christians, we do not hope for America, we do not hope in America, we do not take oaths of allegiance, to church or state, baptism is our yes. We need take no oaths of allegiance to the church, to the bible, to the Christian flag, to Jesus. Baptism is our yes, so let us live as though it matters. Pledging allegiance to the Christian flag is rarely if ever done without pledging allegiance to the American flag first, and it just goes to show where the priorities are.

I think that this video shows the problem in explicit detail so you know i’m not just making this up.

the only difference between that first video and the one that follows is not all the children in the first video have flags, but the sentiment is the same. The only difference between American and German fascism is that Americans are gathered around the invisible church that is “Christian America” rather than a charismatic leader. Fundamentalist churches have displaced the invisible church with the visible america in need of “restoration”. My only question is, were we a Christian nation while we moved in slaughtering indians, or after that, when we decided to import slaves to create our livelihoods? Was it at our earliest founding, by Catholic missionaries? Or was it when Puritans decided to betray the natives who had taught them to work the land?

What separates the “Christian” nationalism above from the one presented below?

What would Bonhoeffer say? What would Karl Barth say? What might St. Paul say? Augustine?

Shaking—dark and quiet. Night descends like an eagle, dropping its shadow upon the earth. Majesty at its finest. Child of the evening air, with whispered steps and silky hair, call out to your fellow heirs—just let them know you’re there. Alone but united by the soft suffocation of darkness, of pale syllables that roll off tongues and plume into the ever-colder air, of cotton promises that swell in your mouth like poison. Choking and sputtering on words that should never have been captured in that cage you call a chest—those vows and swearing oaths that crawl off swollen tongues as lies before they’re even told, before their long life has begun—they’re resting as their work is done.

Two articles on different aspects of having a sense of proportion: how to generate passion while realising you’re the enabler not the destination, and how to teach ethics at business school – just what is business’ ethical relationship to the world it operates in?

And a bonus cracker – how to be ignored (a useful tip for the time-deprived, but not without its dangers!) (For more snippets from around the web, see the full Crackers list.)

Who’s Passion is Greater?: the good people at Brains on Fire – who’s passion for communicating inspired us to have our own blog – make a great point or two about passion. As Graham Parker once sang, “it’s no ordinary word”. Passion creates passion, but it needs to be mutual.

Can you teach ethics to students? The Financial Times’ Judgement Call column explores the issue of teaching ethics at business school (which reminds us of The MBA Oath project, started by students at Harvard). You can get the leopard into the classroom, but can you change it’s spots.

Ensuring Employees ignore you: A Leader’s guide: proof that Americans do understand irony. The modern business leader’s time is valuable: engage people and you’ll only have to waste more of it in a dialogue, right? (Ok, we’re kidding too.)

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

We’ve been so rude as to say so before, but business – and social attitudes – are not immune to the whims of passing fashion – different tools and techniques come and go (though some remain eternal). The social aspects of business move to a slower rhythm, but there are still fashions. The respectability and social desirability of different jobs come and go: just as golf club membership may now seem a pursuit of the (cough) mature – personal trainers are so much more now – I would imagine that introducing yourself as a ‘bank manager’ at parties in 2009 carries less cachet than it may have done a few years ago. But status matters – not just in and of itself, but because in a world that remains so acutely aware of it, our working status says something important to us in terms of our self-esteem. And if our self-esteem suffers, our work tends to suffer too. So both employees and employers should be paying attention. It seems Harvard’s MBA students are paying attention too.

The standing of the traditional ‘professions’ – lawyers, doctors, professors, the kind of people you’re asked to get to sign your passport photos – seems to be more ambivalent that it used to be. Although Ipsos-MORI’s indices of public willingness to believe different professions to tell the truth still shows them carrying ‘weight’ (92% of us trust our doctors, 88% our teachers, 80% our professors and judges), there are other voices that are questioning the standing of the ‘professions’. Back in 2000, New Statesman published an article, Professionals who lost their virtue, that looked at the social changes that can serve (and, indeed, often have done) to undermine their repute. For those of us who follow the news headlines, the opening paragraph could have been written at any time since:

The professions have become increasingly prone to professional fouls. Trust, competence and moral integrity – the conventional trademarks of “the professions” – have evaporated. Hardly a day goes by without horror stories involving doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, even members of the clergy. We are beginning to realise that George Bernard Shaw was not just joking when, in The Doctor’s Dilemma, he declared: “All professions are conspiracies against the laity.”

Dear old GBS was, perhaps, playing Devil’s Advocate (or perhaps submitting a new entry for the Devil’s Dictionary), and horror stories can arise in any job: Typhoid Mary was not a professional, but created not just history but quite a body count. (Reassuringly, a professional – one George Soper, a sanitation engineer – played a key role in helping to limit the death toll). But the generation of trust – and its retention – is dependant on a profession taking steps to ensure it meets the demands of those it wants to hold it in admiration.

There are widely recognised steps in establishing a profession – become a full-time occupation, establish training colleges and/or university schools, established local and national (and international) organisations, publish codes of ethics – and an equally wide range of identifying characteristics. This ethical component is critical – a code of ethics is also a code of honour. It is essential in establishing something that (to use a word that has also perhaps had its day) is best described as ‘superiority’. Abiding by codes of ethical conduct while delivering expert knowledge is the route to establishing not just moral but social superiority. (Which probably takes us back to those passport photos: the signatories are meant to be ‘professionals’, as professionals can – and I’m carefully not typing ‘by definition’ – be trusted.)

As The New Statesman article goes on, it travels through the social changes (the impact of war, the rise of the middle-classes etc) that transformed the social landscape – and the professionals position within it. It arrives – baring in mind that the publication has its own agenda, and journalists are the least trusted ‘profession’ in the UK in 2008 – at two conclusions. Firstly, that self-regulation is (or will be) the downfall of the professions, and is incompatible with upholding ethics. (Bankers again, anyone?) And secondly, that ‘qualification’ can’t mean what it used to: the world is too complex and too rapidly changing for a once-off never-to-be-repeated process to be enough.

So I was surprised to find myself reading The Economist and discover an article about Harvard MBA students leading a campaign to ‘turn management into a formal profession’. Max Anderson, one of the students behind the initiative, had hoped that 100 classmates might sign up – yet more than 400 did so. And surprisingly – and perhaps encouragingly – his motives, reported in an interview with Harvard Business Publishing’s blog, seem both laudable and well informed:

I am part of a team of 25 graduating Harvard MBAs who created the MBA Oath, pledging to lead professional careers marked with integrity and ethics. My classmates and I are aware of the low opinion many people have of MBAs, especially in the wake of the financial crisis. We don’t want to be known as the least respected profession in America (though some polls say MBAs hold that distinction). We want to be known as professionals, who look after the best interests of their clients, customers, employees and shareholders.”

The oath (read more here) is quite some ’stretch challenge’ project, and it’s certain to be a worthwhile debate: it’s a project that deserves applause. That poll link – to CNN – is instructive too: have a read. In Feb 2009, considerably more of the US public had greater faith in their politicians and (remarkably?) in trade union leaders than in their business leaders. (Recent UK polls show very similar results.) It may be a secular form of it, but faith is a powerful commodity. And its message has not been lost on Max and his fellow students, who appear to recognise that managerial credibility needs to be restored. To quote him further:

The oath is a voluntary pledge for graduating MBAs to create value responsibly and ethically. The oath begins with the following premise and conclusion:

“As a manager, my purpose is to serve the greater good by bringing people and resources together to create value that no single individual can build alone. Therefore I will seek a course that enhances the value my enterprise can create for society over the long term.”

We hope the Oath will accomplish three things: a) make a difference in the lives of the students who take the oath, b) challenge other classmates to work with a higher professional standard, whether they sign the oath or not and c) create a public conversation in the press about professionalizing and improving management.”

But as The Economist points out, there are barriers to the establishment of a formal profession beyond the tendency of some observers laughing up their sleeves at what some will interpret as youthful idealism. Some slightly more mature practitioners in the traditional professions might also be sighing at the naïveté: a New York Times article from January 2008 – The Falling-Down Professions – profiles lawyers and doctors who find work ever harder in a climate where their status (by which they don’t just mean the money) is in decline, while rates of associate haemorrhage and employee depression climb.

[…] in the days when a successful career was built on a number of tacitly recognized pillars — outsize pay, long-term security, impressive schooling and authority over grave matters — doctors and lawyers were perched atop them all.

Now, those pillars have started to wobble.”

The Harvard students have, however, done their sociology homework. In looking to establish management as a profession, that desire to enhance “the value my enterprise can create for society over the long term” is more crucial than it might appear. To quote from Peter Morrell’s Some Notes on the Sociology of Professions:

• Primary professions include, for example: Judges, Doctors, Surgeons, top Police Officers, top Military Officers, Professors, higher ranking Lawyers and Bishops
• Secondary professions include, for example: Dentists, Architects, Civil Engineers, Surveyors, Accountants, Lawyers and all other specialised technical occupations [Scientists, Educators, Nurses, etc]
• While all professions enjoy high social status, primary professions have the highest status, regard and esteem conferred upon them by society at large.
• This high esteem arises primarily from the wider, deeper and higher social function of their work as compared with other lower ranking professions. Their work is regarded as more vital to society as a whole and thus of having a special and very valuable nature.”

But if Mr Anderson and his fellow oath-takers do succeed, they may have battle of values on their hands. Business schools have traditionally taught that the purpose of managers is to increase shareholder value. Full stop. While seeking to counter short-termism may be laudable, it will need to be done against the probable wishes of owners let alone the grain of fashion (recessionary times notwithstanding). The question of enforcement is yet thornier. While some of the ‘few faculty members’ to support the oath have reportedly discussed ways of developing a professional licence, who will issue it? How will inappropriate behaviour be sanctioned – especially when much of it is already punishable through the courts? And can self-regulation – one of the time-honoured pillars of the professions, but one that appears to be digging under its own foundations – be the way forward?

Thinking more widely, what would be the impact on organisations? How would existing areas that have professional status – legal departments, accountants – respond to ‘management’ acquiring a similar professional status, as well as maintaining an organisationally superior one? What would it mean for managerial development within organisations, and accreditation of training? And who will referee disputes between newly ethical professional, oath-swearing managers and shareholders and other stakeholders with opposing opinions? Stakeholders who may forsake the oaths, but may not hold back on the swearing.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Moroni’s offer of peace

In Alma 43:53 we read, “Therefore when Zerahemnah saw the men of Lehi on the east of the river Sidon, and the armies of Moroni on the west of the river Sidon, that they were encircled about by the Nephites, they were struck with terror.”  Moroni’s army has won the battle against the Lamanites (Zerahemnah’s army).  Because they had them surrounded they had all the power and the Lamanites could not run away.  If I was surrounded by an enemy, I hope that I would get down on my knees and pray for help.

As Jesus continued to teach in Galilee, these were some of his words that to me stood out in chapter 5. They stood out because these were a preamble to his teaching on murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, revenge and loving our enemies. What specifically got me again and will never stop is the fact that Jesus is talking not to the rich, the strong, the wise, the faithful, the righteous, the saints or the people we perceive as the ones whom he would recognize among us but instead, his words were to the poor, the sick, the broken, the frustrated, the suffering, the weak, the hungry or in essence the ones who realize that they need help, over and above anything they can get from this world or the powers and authorities of this world.

Jesus spoke then and still speaks now in the same language. He does not want our wealth because he has more and he does not want the ones who have achieved a lot because they believe in themselves and their own efforts and feel no need for a God and savior. Therefore, whenever I hear people saying ‘Believe in yourself; Mind over matter; self realization; power of inner self; etc’, it worries me because these people are capitalizing on the one thing we all desperately need, a SAVIOR. When our savior becomes anything but the Lord Jesus Christ, we are serving no one else but the devil whose only goal is to steal us from God and ruin our lives. Are you in need of saving? Turn to Jesus and know that you can have newness of life, unceasing joy and peace in his him and through his love and sacrifice for us.

In His Loving Service,
Vineet

Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. –Joshua 21:43–45

Samuel Butler said, “Oaths are but words, and words but wind.” Napoleon said, “The best way to keep one’s word is not to give it.” Most people have heard the famous line, “Promises are made to be broken.” Man has always struggled to fulfill his promises. It is not uncommon to know someone—and in many cases even a friend and a brother in Christ—who quickly promises things he never fulfills. Isn’t it refreshing to know that God has no such trouble? While man certainly is made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26), he has failed to live up God’s image when it comes to covenant keeping and trustworthiness.

Joshua 21:43–45 emphasizes God’s faithfulness to keep His word. He had promised the land of Canaan to the family of Abraham long before this generation of people received the inheritance. The first utterance of this oath is found in Genesis 12:1–3: “Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This land that God would show Abraham is also the land He would promise to Abraham. We read of the detailed promise of this land in Genesis 13: The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you” (Gen. 13:14–17). These promises were handed down from generation to generation.

Surely with each generation there was a question of “When?” When are we going to get the land we have been promised? When will we finally be a nation and have our own territory? When is all of this going to happen? By the time we meet the Israelites leaving Egypt, we find a generation who apparently barely knows the promises—or at least fails to fully believe in them. At every sign of opposition the people cry out to God wanting to return to the chains of Egypt. Their faith was so fragile that when they are merely days from conquering the land, the report of ten doubters causes them to forsake the promise of God. They would not see the land. But the next generation did. And that’s why Joshua plainly points out, “Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” (Josh. 21:45). Consider some lessons learned:

• God can not lie. The words of Balaam serve as good witness to God’s character—“God is not man, that he should lie…” (Num. 23:19). God does not lie. When the Creator makes a promise, mankind can know that He will surely keep it. We are trained to mistrust everyone. But we must know we can trust God.
• God works in His own time. God’s promises concerning Canaan were made centuries before they were fulfilled. His promise concerning the coming Messiah (Gen. 12:3) took even longer to fulfill. But each promise was fulfilled. Too often we grow weary waiting on the Lord to work our plan in our time. We need to trust Him to work His plan in His time.

God has promised us that one day there will be a judgment (Heb. 9:27). He has promised that those who are found faithful will enter into a place of eternal rest and joy (Matt. 25:34). He has also promised that those who are found to be unrighteous will suffer eternally (Matt. 25:41, 45–46). We must know that God will keep those promises. We must also know it will happen in His time. That could be today. It could be thousands of years from now. But knowing He will keep the promises and that it will come to pass, we must live our lives accordingly.

Section 600 . Legislative Body .

The city council shall be the legislative body of the city.

Section 601 . Mayor – Mayor Pro Tempore .

By the affirmative votes of not less than three (3) members, the city council shall choose one of its members as mayor, and one of its members as mayor pro tempore, upon the following occasions:

A. In odd numbered years, at the regular council meeting held for the purpose of canvassing the results of the general municipal election; and

B. In even numbered years, at the first regular council meeting held during the month of March; or

C. At such other times as a majority of the council shall so order.

The councilman chosen as mayor shall, in addition to the performance of this duties as a councilman, preside at all city council meetings, represent the city as the ceremonial head of city government, and perform such other acts as may be required of him, as directed by the city council, consistent with this charter, ordinance of the city or other applicable law. In the case of the absence or disability of the mayor, the mayor pro tempore shall act in his place and stead.

Section 602 . Vacancies In Elective Offices .

Any vacancy occurring in any elective office of the city, may be filled by the city council, by resolution, adopted by the affirmative votes of not less than three (3) members of the city council. If the city council fails, for any reason, to fill such vacancy within a period of thirty days from and after such office becomes vacant, it shall within not to exceed six (6) months, call and hold an election to fill such vacancy. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy in an elective office shall hold such office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent.

If at any time, three (3) or more vacancies occur in elective offices of the city, then the following procedure shall take place:

A. If such situation qualifies under the provisions of a disaster as provided by applicable law, and the city has provided for the preservation of local government as provided thereunder, then such preservation shall be observed; or

B. If such situation does not so qualify, or if such preservation has not been provided, then the then chairman of the board of supervisors of the county shall temporarily appoint qualified persons to such three or more vacant offices for the limited purpose hereinafter set forth. Upon such persons being so appointed, the city council as thus constituted, shall meet forthwith at a time and place to be selected by the city clerk for the purpose of calling a special election to elect qualified persons to the offices temporarily filled by such appointments. Such temporary appointees shall continue to hold such elective offices until their successors have been duly elected and qualified.

Section 603 . Council Meetings .

A. Time And Place . Regular meetings of the city council shall be conducted at such time and place as are established by ordinance.

B. Open To Public . Except as otherwise herein provided, each and every meeting of the city council, be it a regular or special meeting, or an adjourned regular or special meeting, shall be open to all members of the general public.

C. Application Of Brown Act . Except as otherwise herein provided, the provisions of the “Ralph M. Brown act” shall apply to all meetings and acts of the city council, and its members.

D. Executive Sessions Of The City Council may be conducted only:

1. To consider the appointment dismissal or imposition of disciplinary action with respect to any officer, employee or contractor of the city; or

2. To meet with the city attorney or other appointed special counsel of the city, to consider matters relating to pending or potential litigation involving the city; or

3. For such other purposes as are permitted by general law.

For the purpose of this section, an “executive session” shall mean a session of the city council at which only councilmen and persons specifically directed by the city council or authorized by applicable law shall be permitted to attend.

E. Quorum . Three (3) members of the city council shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business of the city council.

F. Oaths . The mayor, each member of the council and the city clerk shall have the power to administer oaths or affirmations in proceedings pending before the city council.

G. Subpoenas . The city council shall have the power to compel, by subpoena, the attendance of witnesses, and the production of any relevant evidence, at any meeting of the city council, or of any duly appointed board or commission or at any hearing held before any officer or employee of the city. Subpoenas shall be issued by the city clerk, upon order of the city council, in the name of the city, and shall be served in the manner prescribed by applicable law for the service of subpoenas in judicial actions. Disobedience to a subpoena, or the refusal to testify to relevant matters before the city council, except upon valid constitutional grounds, shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as such.

H. Rules For Proceedings . The city council may establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings, including, but not limited to, provision for the punishment of any person who engages in disorderly conduct at a city council meeting.

Section 604 . Reimbursement For Expenses .

Councilmen of the city shall be reimbursed for necessary expenses actually incurred in the performance of official duties. Such reimbursement shall not be made, unless approved by the affirmative vote of not less than three (3) members of the city council. The city council shall establish a procedure for the reimbursement of other officers and employees of the city for expenditures incurred by them in the performance of official duties.

Section 605 . Compensation Of Councilmen .

Compensation of councilmen, other than reimbursement for expenses, may be established in the manner and amount as provided by general law, relating to councilmanic salaries in general law cities in this state.

Section 606 . Ordinances .

Except as otherwise provided in this charter or by applicable law, the enactment of ordinances by the city council, shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this section.

A. Meetings . Ordinances may be adopted at either regular, special or adjourned regular or special meetings of the city council.

B. Adoption Of Ordinances . Ordinances shall be adopted in the manner and according to the procedure provided by general law.

C. Effective Date Of Ordinances . Ordinances shall be effective in the time and manner provided by general law.

D. Vote Required . No ordinance of this city shall become effective unless the same is adopted by the affirmative votes of at least three (3) members of the council, except for ordinances for the adoption of which, this charter or applicable or general law, requires a greater number of affirmative votes.

E. Form . Each ordinance shall bear a title which shall briefly describe the subject matter of the ordinance and shall contain the following enacting clause: “The City Council of the City of Temple City does ordain”. Each ordinance adopted by the city council shall be signed by the mayor, whose signature thereon shall be attested to by the city clerk.

F. Violation . Penalty . A violation of any duly enacted ordinance of the city shall constitute a misdemeanor which shall be prosecuted in the manner prescribed by applicable law. The maximum fine or penalty for the violation of any ordinance shall be in the sum of $500.00 or a term of imprisonment for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The city council, by ordinance, shall provide for the place of imprisonment for such violation and may provide that persons convicted of a violation of any such ordinance may be compelled to perform labor on public works of the city.

G. Codification . Any and all ordinances of the city may be compiled, consolidated, or recompiled and/or reconsolidated, and indexed and arranged in a comprehensive municipal ordinance code. Such code may be adopted by ordinance, by reference. Such code, if adopted by reference, need not be published in the manner required for other ordinances, provided that:

1. Not less than three (3) copies thereof shall be on file in the office of the city clerk, available for examination by members of the public, prior to the adoption thereof; and

2. That the final adoption of such code shall not take place until a public hearing is held before the city council to allow interested persons to express their views on such proposed code; and

3. That notice of such public hearing is given by publication in an adjudicated newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of such hearing.

Detailed regulations pertaining to any subject, such as building regulations, when arranged in a comprehensive code, including maps, charts or diagrams, may also be adopted by reference in the manner provided in this section.

Amendments to such code shall be enacted only by ordinance and, if no adoption by reference is involved, the procedure set forth in this sub-paragraph shall not apply to such adoption.

Section 607 . Contracts .

A. Council Action . No contract, for any purpose, shall obligate the city, in any manner, unless and until such contract has been approved or ratified, in written form, by the affirmative votes of not less than three (3) members of the city council; except that:

1. Where a contractual expenditure by the city has been included in an approved city budget, city council approval thereof shall be conclusively presumed; and

2. Where the city manager reasonably determines that an emergency immediately requires the obtaining of goods or services, he shall be empowered to contract for the same without prior city council approval, and such contract shall be a binding obligation of the city. The authority of the city manager hereunder as to a particular emergency shall terminate at the next meeting of the city council unless specifically extended.

B. Leases . No agreement for the lease of city owned property to any person, for a non-municipal purpose, shall be valid unless the city council finds that the property proposed for such lease is not required, and will not be so required during the term of the agreement, for municipal purposes.

C. Supplies And Equipment . Notwithstanding the provisions of this section relating to contracts, the city council shall, by ordinance, provide for the acquisition of equipment, materials or supplies, other than for public works contracts, if the same are included within a budget approved by the city council.

D. Surplus Property . The city council may provide for a system for the sale, disposal or exchange of real and/or personal property which is surplus to the needs of the city.

E. Public Works Contracts . Except as otherwise herein provided, the city shall contract for the construction or reconstruction of any public building, works, streets, drain, sewer, utility, park or playground (hereinafter “public project”) in the time and manner and in accordance with general law.

Section 608 . Franchises .

Franchises shall be granted by the city council only in the time and manner, and for such purposes, as may be prescribed or authorized by the constitution or by applicable laws of this state.

Section 609 . Interference With Administrative Services .

No member of the city council shall interfere with the execution by the city manager of his powers and duties; nor shall any councilman direct the city manager to appoint or remove any officer or employee of the city. Except for the purpose of inquiry, no councilman shall deal with the administrative services of city except by and through the city manager; nor shall any councilman give any order or direction to any subordinate officer or employee of city. This section shall not apply during periods of disaster proclaimed by the governor or city council, nor during such times as there shall be no council designated city manager acting in that capacity.

Section 610 . Conflict Of Interest .

The lawful provisions of applicable and/or general law, with regard to conflict of interests, prohibited interests and disclosure of assets shall apply to, and govern the activities of each elective officer of the city.

I have been watching the History Channel a lot lately. I find as I get older there is little on the “prime time” channels that interest me. Instead, I find myself drawn to documentaries, biographies, and history, as well as classic movies (you know, the films they made before computers and had real scripts). Recently, the History Channel has been running a series on modern day gangs, both in and out of the prison system, and I have found it to be very interesting. These are gangs who have gone way beyond the Sharks and the Jets; bloodthirsty groups who stop at nothing to dominate a territory and extort money any way they can.

During the documentary, several current and former gang members are interviewed. Interestingly, one of the main reasons they join a gang is to establish a sense of family, a desire to belong to something in order to feel wanted and accepted, which is something they were not getting at home, regardless if they have parents or not. They are willing to pay dearly for this too, and voluntarily take a binding oath and suffer through a harsh initiation ritual, all for the sense of belonging. Such blood oaths and initiations leaves a lasting impression on the individual who dares not leave the gang, partially in fear of the consequences, but more as they desperately want the sense of family.

During our lifetime, we make a lot of pledges, and take certain oaths and vows. For example,

• “To love, honor and obey, until death do us part.”
  
• “To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.”
  
• “I pledge allegiance to the flag…”
  
• “I will play fair, and strive to win, but win or lose, I will always do my best.”
  
• “I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

As an aside, I find it interesting that all such oaths related to serving in American government or military end with, “So help me God.”

These pledges are all nice and sound impressive, but I find few people take them seriously anymore and reject them when it suits them. In other words, there is no real commitment to stand behind our words. Consider, for example, “The Journalist’s Creed” or the “Hippocratic Oath” as administered to physicians. If you read them carefully, you have to wonder how many people truly adhere to them.

Mechanisms such as pledges, oaths and vows are intended to define our code of conduct. This, of course, refers to our honor and ability to keep our word, something people use as a measurement of trust. I find it interesting that criminals have a higher regard for such things as opposed to John Q. Public. Maybe its because the criminal code has stiff penalties which will undoubtedly be executed if violated, and the person knows it. In our society though, there is no real penalty for violating our obligations, least of all shame or embarrassment. In other words, taking an oath or vow has become a joke in our society, and as long as it remains a shallow inconsequential ceremony, it will always be regarded as nothing more than a triviality to be implemented only when it is convenient to do so.

It’s no small wonder why today we have a deterioration of ethics, both in our homes and in the work place. It is one thing to enact legislation, quite another to enforce it. You can make all the pledges, oaths, vows, and codes you want, but if there is no real consequence for violating them, there is little point in administering them. The criminal class understands this. John Q. Public does not.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim’s new podcast, “The Voice of Palm Harbor,” at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Read Write Prompt #2: Eat, Drink, Write a Poem

Hades and Persephone.

It wasn’t hard to find something that she
Would like; little fruit, hiding promises.
She doesn’t take it like I thought she would.
Seeds, kissed away from my fingers. Swallowed.

I follow those seeds, down her throat, soft, white;
I kiss, leave red stains: pomegranate juice
Flows between us; life stirs in this shadowed
Womb-world; we create something new. We live.

I know what will happen; I always know.
I offer her a dance, a kiss, a ring.
She accepts everything; Queen Hera gifts
Our marriage as her mother stirs in rage.

Such a small fruit, but containing so much.
We have the fruit and we have each other.
Reality, life, death; nothing matters
In our private world. Nothing but our love.

[This sermon is one of a series entitled "Sermon on the Mount, Concentrating on the Beatitudes," which is being preached on Sunday mornings by Pastor Tim Senter.]

Adultery is a very evil thing. It is a process which Satan uses to destroy families; it destroys testimonies, and it destroys people’s lives. Adultery denies children their childhood in many cases, especially if it involves the mother. Adultery drives individuals to leave those who are part of their own flesh and blood simply to lust after another. Adultery is such a serious subject that Jesus determined that extensive teaching is required to warn people of its pervasive causes, effects, and actualities.

We first saw that adultery is not just an act, but also a thought that promotes sin. In considering impure things about another woman, or another man you have in your mind already permitted an adulterous act to take place. Jesus tells us we must strive to control these sinful thoughts, and that we were given a helpmeet in the efforts. Our spouse is there for that purpose.

Next, we found that these temptations are so serious that we must discard anything that can in any way promote those lust-filled feelings. Our purity is essential, and we should consider that nothing is as valuable as maintaining our righteousness. If we have to give up things we might consider appendages in order to do so, we must. Everything in life on earth is temporal. As Christians, our focus must be eternal. It is, after all, better to give up things temporally than to burn in eternal torment, is it not?

Last week we again addressed adultery and its effects on all involved. We considered more specifically how divorce is actually a cause of adultery, how divorce begins in adultery intellectually, and how adultery and divorce are the products of our self-centered, sin-filled hearts. We cause these things – not God, anyone, or anything else. Satan certainly has a hand in the temptation, but we know that with each temptation there is an avenue of escape.

As a point of exercise, I believe it is good at this juncture to attempt to put some things together. When we look at the Beatitudes, we see poor in spirit mentioned once, we see mourning mentioned once, meekness, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, pure in heart, and the peacemaker all mentioned one time. What do we see throughout these descriptions of the saint who resides in Heaven? Contentedness, happiness, and blessedness. These are the things that mark the true Christian. The true Christian has a contentedness in their poor spirit. The true Christian is content in their mourning out of the poor spirit. The real Christian is blessed to be meek. The authentic Christian is happy to be hungering and thirsting after righteousness. A Christian, therefore, is content in their mercy. The pure heart of the true Christian is blessed. The happiness of an authentic, peacemaking Christian is equally undeniable. Where each of these Beatitudes is mentioned only once, real Christian contentedness is mentioned nine times. Where does that leave you?

Now we move to a new paragraph as we consider Matthew 5, beginning in verse 33. Once again, we find scripture in the Sermon on the Mount that has, many times, been misquoted, maligned, and misinterpreted. There are a number of passages in the Bible that have this distinguishable attribute, and this is certainly one. A couple of weeks ago we considered one in particular – dealing with, supposedly, self-mutilation for the sake of righteousness. What a distorted view of God’s great lesson there can be regarding that passage. Equally, if someone were to look at today’s passage and say it was about giving your word and then failing to follow through, that would be a drastic understatement. Some parents have attempted to escape personal responsibility with their children through this verse. This is as if to say, “How can I promise something if scripture says I should never make such a promise or oath?” Yet, others have held this scripture as one which teaches we cannot raise our right hand and “swear to” anything. We cannot take an oath of office, an oath of enlistment, an oath of commission, or any other committal oath because this scripture tells us it is inappropriate and ungodly to do so. Once again we have to ask – is that what this scripture really teaches? Alternatively, is this teaching something more basic, something simpler, something more foundational? Is this simply saying, “say what you mean, and mean what you say”?

What kind of illustrative example can we give of the type of attitude that Jesus is describing we should have? What is it exactly that we might see today that shows this lax attitude about commitment? Many people used to enter the military, specifically the National Guard, for the educational benefits. They would enter, glean as much benefit they could, and depart. There was no interest in actually performing the duties of a guardsman, except to do their monthly drill and two weeks of active time. Yet, the oath they took reads much like the following:

“I, Timothy R. Senter, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

In case you are wondering, I took this oath in the Navy on four different occasions in my career. The National Guard oaths include specific state references in the defense of their constitution, and a reference to the Governor of the state as well as the President. I find no exception here for education, no reference here for choice of command, no condition based upon satisfaction of duty assignment. This is about service and the fulfillment of a commitment in an honorable fashion through your personal dedication. Therefore, regardless of why someone might take the oath, their acceptance of, assent, and committal to this oath obligates the individual. If, therefore, someone takes this oath, then when called to fulfill it attempts to escape their obligation, the individual has falsely represented themselves and falsely taken and assented to the oath. Of course, if they were themselves defrauded there may be room for a claim of misrepresentation. Still, this does not absolve the individual of their oath. The oath is taken and fulfilled on one side, not the other. There is equally nothing in this oath that puts the government under any obligation. In other words, the government, in this oath, promises nothing in return for the loyalty that is expressed in taking the oath.

There are people – some in our own government – who have taken this oath falsely and committed a form of adultery in their actions. They have taken this oath, then when they saw something else in life that was tantalizing, and they realized that certain unpatriotic actions would further their career and position, these individuals undertook actions and debased the oath to further their own desires. Government politicians have done this for personal political gain. Protestors have done this for the same reasons. Individuals have done this under the misunderstanding that the government needed to hold up some part of a bargain. The oath contains no quid-pro-quo. There is nothing in the oath outside of the personal honor of the individual that they will fulfill their sworn obligations under the oath. Regardless of the actions taken by the issuer of the oath, the assenter is personally obligated. The one who assents, therefore, places their own honor, their own liberty, their own livelihood, and their own personal integrity down as the chip. In this oath, there is no help provided by the issuer to maintain that honor. The oath is made by the individual, and no one else.

However, a specific inclusion must be noted. As secular as our government is today, we still understand that, irrespective of the liberal teachings of today, there is recognition of a higher power in, “so help me God.” The issuer recognizes that they are powerless to enforce the maintenance of this oath without the omnipotent power of God. That is somewhat refreshing. Equally, the taker of the oath involves God and takes this oath before our Maker. The oath, therefore, is sworn by an individual before God recognizing Him and His ability to assist in carrying out the obligations within the oath.

Therefore, we must ask an active question:  Can you be contented in your ability to maintain honor, integrity, and purity in taking this oath? It is either the lack of contentedness or covetousness that drives individuals to forsake their oaths. Therefore, self-centered sin drives the lack of honor, the loss of integrity, and the impurity in the sinful heart that is not content.

“Oaths and vows are scriptural, individual, and singularly honorable; but all are before God.” We are very fickle and when trouble begins, or just because we want something different, we attempt to reason our way out of an obligation. “Man says, “but…” God says, “But what? You took the oath – no one else.””

I.  Law in letter (Verse 33)

Here again, our Savior teaches us that not all that man holds to be true is, in fact, true. Man would have it that if something about the oath or if some preconceived notion of the oath were violated, he can absolve himself of any responsibility to honor the oath. In this way, man can keep himself from obligations that he actually knows he is accountable to complete, or from committing to obligations. Folks, this is a contingent covenant, not an oath. I know parents who forbid the use of the word “promise” in their home because of these scriptures.

We should note that the word translated “forswear” can also be translated “perjure.” This indicates, therefore, a false claim to achieve something, a false assent to complete a task, or a false – even placating – attempt to quiet someone’s requests. Do not claim things in a false fashion at all, but complete everything you claim to want to do to the fullest extent of your ability. Further, do not claim you will do something that you have no intention of undertaking, especially if this claim is before the Lord.

The word we find here “perform” is also interesting, as it is rendered “pay” and “recompense” in other passages. Therefore, what you claim that you will do, is a rightful payment to the Lord for your promise. You are obligated to deliver that very thing in payment in full to the Lord as you have claimed.

Jesus is targeting Leviticus 19:12, where God instructs Israel that they shall not falsely swear, they shall not falsely take an oath, and that you should not, therefore profane the name of God. The entire section deals with relationships and obligations to others. Verse 13 states, “thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour.” Folks, these are intentional and specific acts that involve theft and robbery due to misrepresentation. The idea here is that the Jews were not to swear by God that they would or could do something, knowing full well they would not do it. This is a blatant choice to deceive, and the use of God’s name applied to the promise was supposed to add validity. When you say, “cross my heart and hope to die” when making a promise, it is supposed to add a certain credibility to the commitment. God is telling the Levites, do no such thing with an impure heart.

In Numbers 30:2, we have the affirmation of a personal commitment that is contingent upon the honor and integrity of the individual. Boaz, in the story of Ruth, is typified in this scripture where he redeemed the house of Elimelech through Ruth, when the first kinsman redeemer could not. Another aspect of this teaching is that verse three talks about women vowing vows. Women, too, were obligated in their oaths. This carries greater importance in some ways as the family can also be bound by the daughter’s vow.

A final piece of law we should note is in Deuteronomy 23:21-23. Here we find that not fulfilling a vow or oath that we take is sin. There is no exception, there is no empty space, and there is no wiggle room. Making a vow before God, then not fulfilling that vow, speaking an oath to solemnly swear to “support and defend the constitution of the United States” and not fulfilling it in any way – is sin. In verse 23, the statement “that which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform;” the NASB translates it this way,

“you shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised.”

The scripture clearly indicates that you volunteered and you dedicated yourself to complete a promise. Once again, this is something that you have done. Your personal testimony in the Lord is what is at stake here. The scripture clearly states, you should complete that which you began before the Lord – what YOU have promised. The only proviso in this passage is in verse 22, where it states you are not guilty of sin if you refrain from vowing. This is the only escape.

What we must consider then is the teaching of the Pharisees and scribes  which is alluded to in Jesus’ statement, “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,” as well as the truth of the actual law that we have just reviewed together. This is the comparison: what does man say, what is man’s interpretation, and what are the real truths of the scripture? These are the clarifications and issues about which we should concern ourselves.

By way of illustration, in this argument Jesus is a Protestant. Jesus was making the distinction between the established temporal church leaders of the day and the actual Scriptures, in much the same way as Protestants made the distinction between the Roman church and the actual Scriptures. Just as Jesus argued against the established church, which was organized, run by, and focused upon the power of men on earth, the Protestants of the past argued against the same forces in the Roman Catholic Church.

Similarly, we here in this ministry fight for the purity of the Word of God in our midst. We fight against external influences or the possibility of dependency upon any organization for our survival. We are an independent church because we believe the scriptures teach that each ministry for the Lord is an independent work, and we are identified as Baptist because we believe in scriptural baptism. We look at the scriptures for guidance and do not attempt to inject infant family members into a home where none are mentioned.[1]

The sum of the law teaches, therefore, that you will make vows. You should commit yourself; but before you do, make sure that these vows are reasonable within the scope of your abilities and the strength given to you by the Lord. Making a solemn vow before God is a serious undertaking; however, nowhere in scripture are we taught that it should not be done. The teaching, then, that our Lord is undertaking will not conflict with this overall assessment. We should ask, then, What is Jesus telling us? What of these vows?

II.  Law in Heaven (Verse 34)

What our Savior does now is give us examples of what He means. First, He clarifies the position concerning the perfection of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom occupants. These two should agree. People who reside in His kingdom should not have a different idea concerning the requirements in the kingdom, than those under which the kingdom itself operates.

Can an individual, in God’s eyes, ever take this position – as a conscientious objector – after they have already taken an oath in the military? That should be one question we can answer. We are supposed to live as though we are in the Kingdom of God while we are here on earth; therefore, we are to implement the precepts for the kingdom in our lives, and live them in Christ. In our first discussion, in the first example, many, many people have taken the words, “make no oath at all” and ripped them out of this verse, held them up, and therefore stated they could not fight for our country. This is one verse the conscientious objector might misread and distort, holding to it as a biblical standard in attempting to escape an oath they have already taken. If one has never taken an oath, they may claim to have grounds, in striving to live more Christ like each day, to never desire to hurt anyone. I say, “may” because this attitude is still not entirely biblical either. There are multiple reasons and situations that guide us through these scriptures. We only have time to briefly discuss a few here.

First, if one has taken an oath, is that individual bound to that oath wholly? Second, God has blessed armies in the past. Third, God is never changing – He is the same today as He was yesterday and will be forever (Heb 13:8). It follows then that God commands us to fulfill our oaths, or we sin (Deut 23:21). Armies blessed by God with victory are therefore approved of God in their purpose. Therefore, God can bless those who take oaths to serve armies and countries. We can easily see how even a soldier unaware of other happenstances, may not be held accountable for specific actions. Look at how the armies were treated in 2 Samuel 11, where they were used to murder Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. There is no discussion about their use as an instrument to murder, and no conviction of them as that instrument. The guilt lies with the one who wields the weapon, regardless of the implement. An army, just as a gun or knife, is an implement in the hands of their leader. Other Israelites died that day as well, placing upon David’s head more than one death. However, the armies still prevailed, they succeeded against the enemy and pressed them back into their city. God therefore, blessed the army with victory. However, God punished King David for murder. The point is that those who took the oath and fulfilled those requirements were seen as honorable.

If an individual, therefore, is involved with an army where the commanders of that army are unscrupulous, yet in service the individual soldier fulfills their vows, that soldier is honoring God. One could argue that these soldiers did not know what the plot was; they did not know King David was scheming against Uriah. If they had known, they should turn against the King. This is not entirely so. In order for Joab to do this deed, he needed to communicate with the unit belonging to Uriah in order to issue the command to,“retire ye from him.” In other words, Joab had to organize things such that Uriah’s men would know a certain signal that Uriah would not know. They communicated with flags and pennants on the field of battle in those days. All they needed to do was display a flag that all Uriah’s men knew to be the signal, but Uriah did not. They also had to be told not to tell Uriah about the pennant. They would wonder about the reason, but they would know something was wrong. If the soldiers did not personally kill Uriah, they are only guilty of following their orders. Equally, Joab, the General of the Army, only knew what the King told him. He could surmise anything, however, he simply followed orders and secretly planned the death of Uriah with the unit Uriah commanded. In no instance are these armies in scripture condemned for their action.  Only King David was held responsible, as the one who knew the whole truth of the evil he perpetrated. Others fell with Uriah in the fight as well. Can we surmise that they did so because they would not withdraw from him as the others did? In other words, they disobeyed the orders of Joab and were punished for this with their deaths? This is an argument from silence, for the scripture truly does not give us any indication: however, it is one that may warrant consideration.

We have discussed the “make no oath” statement and clearly, then, it is not an emphatic or singular statement. It is not even an imperative or command. Grammatically, it is an infinitive which is to say then, “do not swear to” or “do not make an oath to….” Therefore, it is not a command to not make oaths or vows, but, rather, not to make them to something – at something, or dependent upon something. That something is Heaven.

What of Heaven then? Our scripture, verse 34, speaks of making no oath at all “either by heaven.” In making this type of oath, then, you are making an oath not to God but to a place which God created and rules. It would be like making an oath before your neighbor’s car. The car means nothing to you, and making an oath over something you have no control over is worthless, meaningless, and senseless. Equally, the car has no authority over you, just as Heaven has no authority over you. It is the King of Heaven, the one on the throne who controls all things and maintains authority over you, not the place itself.

Further, swearing or affirming a position before something of lesser stature than God is no less binding. Pharisees of the day regularly swore oaths that included phrases such as “to the beard of the prophet” or “as the day is long” or some such colloquialism. Taking our oath of enlistment as an example, the entire verbiage is an agreement by the individual to proceed in a specific fashion. It is a one-way assent and does not involve cooperation, but is wholly by the individual. Claiming that a vow has lesser import simply says if you do not involve God personally in your vow, you have a right to a lesser character, quality, or commitment because, after all, you are only human. This cannot be further from the truth. Kingdom saints have no such liberty, for all they do is done for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). Which means everything that a kingdom saint, one who is committed to the Beatitudes in their lives and has the Holy Spirit residing within them, must perform all things “unto the Lord.” There is no exception, there is no such thing as a lesser oath – there is only serving God.

Once again, we see Jesus speaking authoritatively here by saying “I, I am saying to you…” This is a clarification of verse 33 where the Pharisees said one thing, but Jesus is teaching the kingdom truths. Do not make oaths or vows in the name of Heaven. Do not make oaths or vows in the name of anything, for it is not necessary for those who dwell in the kingdom. We should not have to make those oaths in order to maintain our purity. Making oaths in the name of Heaven is even more foolish, because you have no individual effect on Heaven as a kingdom, and your existence in Heaven is purely the choice of God, not of your own doing. If you make your truth contingent upon your further existence or opportunity to reside in Heaven, you are equally foolish. This would be saying something like, “I swear, or may God remove me from His kingdom…” One should note, we are not yet in His kingdom. Second, you cannot get into His kingdom without His Son. Third, once you are in His kingdom, you will not be removed by anything in this world as Paul states in Romans 8:38-39,

“38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

This we must glory in, yes: but we must also realize the foolishness of one speaking an oath and vowing to remain honorable to something which we can have no effect upon – our eternal residence in Heaven. It is the choice of God to determine who will and who will not reside there. The children of the Kingdom of God belong to Him and He knows His sheep, and they know Him (John 10:14).

God is in charge of the throne in Heaven, not me, or you, or any person, praise God. God sits on the throne in Heaven and He alone chooses the occupants of Heaven. Kingdom residents are also unique people. One commentator gathers from this teaching that since this is a discussion of Kingdom residents, true Kingdom residents would not need to make vows or utter oaths in order to keep their word, maintain honor, or keep some ethic.[2] True kingdom residents are already pure in heart and need not make vows to prove their veracity. True kingdom children are also content in their ability to fulfill the things which they commit to under their Lord.

The question is, are you a true child of the kingdom? Do you feel compelled to make oaths or vows concerning things, people, and issues in your life because you are concerned people will not believe you, or you may not hold up your end of the bargain? Are you concerned about your honor? Equally, do you shun vows and oaths of all sorts because of your fear in keeping your word? Neither of these two circumstances is healthy. Your concern should not be for yourself – it should be for the testimony of the Kingdom of God. To the Christian, therefore, all commitments are before God. In this concern, you should place all your dependence or your deliverance of your oath upon our God who sits on the throne in Heaven. That, folks, is where you gain your contentedness.

If we can answer the question honestly and say we are a true Christian – if we can say, we are contented in our poor spirit, mourning, meekness, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, mercifulness, and purity of heart – if those things do mark us and the contented spirit that accompanies them, then we need not commit to vows or oaths before man, for man, and of man. Christians may, are permitted to, have the right, and may be required to vow or take a special oath by man (in the case of military or even law enforcement or other public service positions); however, a Christian neither needs nor desires oaths or vows to maintain a code of ethics, morality, or honor. We have Jesus. We have God. We have the Holy Spirit. Do you?

[2] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1992), 124-125.

‘I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.’

This is one of the more famous quotes from the Hippocratic Oath, the oath that some (not all as is commonly supposed) doctors take. Other bits talk a lot about pessaries and gods, but more relevantly it goes on to say:

‘In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.’

In short doctors (or some of them) swear to:

• Put the interests of their patients first.
• Not use their status and ability to gain advantage over those they work with.
• Respect their patient’s confidences.

This oath is over 2300 years old but despite its archaic formulation still covers the important parts of the doctor patient relationship. Now obviously some doctors do naughty stuff like murdering their patients, seducing their patients or extreme cases patching their patients up so they can be tortured; again and again. But this post isn’t about global politics, but is about the politics of design. What do we believe in? What do we stand for? What are our obligations to our clients and our users?

If VisCom designers were going to swear an oath what we swear on, what would we swear to do? The First Things First Manifesto (the original by Ken Garland) is a lovely and entirely appropriate piece of work. It tells us what, in an ideal world, we should do. I applaud the manifesto, but observe that when I was working designer my inclinations were quite simply to earn as much money as I can, as quickly as I could to cover those luxuries of being a designer in London: feeding my family, buying my daughter a buggy and getting an occasional haircut. Little things all, but they seemed important at the time.

In short the FTFM (the original) is the ten commandments of graphic design. As set of aspirations that are daily watered down by the general needs of graphic designers to stay alive and keep being a graphic designer.

It might be better to have a set of guides that would govern the relationship between designer, client and user. At least we would know when we were being bad, overstepping the bounds and letting ourselves down.

Perhaps something like this might do:

I swear by Schoeffer, the first art director, by Games, Tschichold, and Bass, and I take to witness all the great designers, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To hold the values of the society of designers and communicators to my heart, and to treat my fellow designers as my brothers and sisters.

I will design for the users of my designs according to my best ability and my truest judgment and never create designs that knowingly brings harm to the world.

I will not design work that brings harm to the world just because I am asked (with money or fame waved in my face), nor will I advise such a plan; and I will not allow harm to come to anyone when through my designs if I might prevent it.

I will render honest and truthful service to my clients and actively promote the well being of users through my work.

I will not claim expertise in areas where I have none and will not pitch for jobs where peers will render a better service; I will leave this work to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this field.

In every place where I come I will enter only for the good of my clients and the user, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all people and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, I may no longer call myself a designer.

In a fallen world, disciplinary matters are rarely neat and tidy, or easy to navigate through.  Most of the time, when we are dealing with sin, we find ourselves shoveling through some pretty large piles of scat in order to get to the bottom of things.  Occassionally, those under investigation will decide to be honest and forthright, understanding the gravity of their sin and the necessity of genuine repentance.  I say occassionally — I don’t have any statistics to back that up.  “Rarely” might be the better word.  Certainly the word “usually” would not be the case.  When men sin, they want to hide it.  There are plenty of reasons for this, but those reasons lie beyond the scope of this brief foray into Scriptural Church Discipline, so we will leave that alone for the time being.

By all appearances, Eddie‡ was a faithful father, husband, and church member.  He was a gifted businessman as well, and a generous filler of offering plates in his local church.  Eddie seemed to addict himself to the ministry, and was a faithful witness both through the ministries of the church and in his workplace.  From all appearances, Eddie genuinely loved his pastor , his church, and the ministries that he was involved in. 

So, it was a great surprise to Eddie’s pastor when, one day, Eddie’s wife Carol called in tears, and accused Eddie of having an affair.  Pastor Flint immediately set up a meeting with Carol, and then called his wife and asked her to come right over to the church office.  What Carol described to Pastor and Mrs. Flint in that meeting was beyond belief for Pastor Flint.  After all, he had known and even become close friends with Eddie.  Or at least, he thought of Eddie as a close friend.  He thought he knew Eddie — if the pastor knew anyone in the church, he thought he knew Eddie.  Could these things be true?  If they were, then Pastor Flint realized that he never really knew Eddie at all, that Eddie had been living a lie.  Could that be?

Pastor Flint considered himself a pretty good judge of character.  He figured that, all things being equal, he would be able to tell if Eddie was lying to him.  So, after the meeting, Pastor Flint asked Carol to allow him time to meet with Eddie before she said anything to him.  Before Pastor Flint left his office that afternoon, he put in a call to Eddie, and fifteen minutes later, Eddie showed up at the pastor’s office alone. 

An hour later when Eddie left, Pastor Flint was not sure what to think.  Eddie had denied any wrongdoing whatsoever, and had done so in convincing fashion.  And yet, Carol had been just as convincing in her accusation.  Certainly, her tears were genuine.  The details that she had given as evidence were certainly damning.  But Eddie had an answer for every detail.  And Eddie’s denials seemed to be just as genuine as Carol’s charges.

Before Eddie left the office, Pastor Flint insisted on setting up counselling sessions for the two.  Eddie agreed gladly.  “If it’ll help restore my marriage, I’m all for it,” he said. 

And so, the very next night, Pastor Flint found himself sitting in the office once again, this time with Carol and Eddie together.  Once again, Carol was open and adamant with her accusations, and Eddie was equally adamant in his denials.  Carol even brought up things that Eddie had told her not to bring up in front of pastor.  But once again, Eddie had a legitimate explanation for everything. 

After the meeting, Pastor Flint spent some time in prayer, and then decided that, lacking evidence, the best course of action would be to probe the root of the problem between Eddie and Carol.  For the next two months, Pastor and Mrs. Flint met with Eddie and Carol on a weekly basis.  Sometimes, Pastor Flint kept the couple together in order to deal with a particular issue.  Other times, Mrs. Flint took Carol in one office while Pastor Flint met with Eddie in another office.  After each meeting, Pastor and Mrs. Flint would compare notes and discuss what they were finding.  But these meetings got them nowhere.  And both Pastor and Mrs. Flint began to get a nagging suspicion — Carol was right. 

But they had no proof.  No matter how incriminating the charges seemed to be from Carol, Eddie seemed to always have an answer, and that answer always seemed sufficient.  Pastor Flint wondered what to do.  Short of hiring a Private Investigator, something that he felt was unthinkable when it came to a member of his own church, Pastor Flint could find nothing else to do. 

Then late one night, or more accurately early one morning, at about 2 a.m. to be exact, Pastor Flint’s phone rang.  It was Carol.  “Pastor Flint, I have the proof I need.  I have been going through my husband’s phone records, and there is a phone number on here a number of times — a phone number that I don’t recognize.  That is the woman he is having the affair with.  I’m sure of it.  I even called the number, and a woman answered.” 

It took Pastor Flint a moment or two to gather his senses about himself, and when he did, he asked Carol if she had asked the woman for her name.  She hadn’t.  He asked Carol if she had asked the woman about Eddie.  She hadn’t.  “But I think you need to ask Eddie about this.”  Pastor Flint agreed.  He promised to talk to Eddie about it.  In the morning.  After the sun came up in the morning, that is.

And true to his word, Pastor Flint called Eddie first thing the next morning.  Eddie apologized for his wife’s behavior, and told the pastor that he had been disputing that phone bill with the phone company for a couple of weeks.  He did not know who the phone number belonged to, he said, nor had he ever called that number even once.  Once again, Pastor Flint asked Eddie the question that he had asked over and over before.  “Are you having an affair with any woman, either physically or emotionally, or are you fantasizing about any woman other than your wife?” 

And, like all the other times before, Eddie once again gave a straightforward answer: “no.” 

Break Through

That day, when Pastor Flint arrived at his office, he told his secretary that he was not to be disturbed.  Then, he went into his office, shut the door, got down on his knees and began to pray.  From eight in the morning until well past noon, Pastor Flint prayed and asked God what to do.  He asked God to reveal what was going on.  He asked God to make His perfect will known.  He sought direction.  He sought deliverance from this awful thing.  He poured out his heart to God in prayer . 

Finally that afternoon around three or four o’clock, Pastor Flint began to get some direction.  But what came to mind seemed troubling.  The answer that seemed to be coming to the pastor was this, “Have Eddie swear an oath in the name of God that he is telling the truth.” 

Pastor Flint wrestled with this idea for some time.  Is it Scriptural?  The first passage that came to mind was Matthew 5:33-37.  The Bible says,

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:  But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:  Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.  Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.  But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Was the Bible here forbidding the swearing of oaths in all cases?  If so, that would mean that it would be wrong, in a court of law for instance, to hold up the right hand and solemnly swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”  If this passage forbid swearing in every case, then wedding vows would be wrong as well. 

We subject our practices to the Bible, and not the other way around.  If this passage forbid swearing at all, then it would be unlawful for the Christian to swear an oath at any time.  Pastor Flint dug a little deeper.  Christ is speaking here about telling the truth, about the value that we should place on our word.  In order to be telling the truth, it should not be necessary for us to swear out an oath.  We should tell the truth, and perform all our vows, and it should never be required for us to swear out an oath in order for us to tell the truth. 

But the fact that it should not be necessary does not mean that swearing an oath is never necessary.  Nor does it mean that swearing an oath is unlawful.  It simply means that we should always tell the truth, even without swearing “on a stack of Bibles.”  Pastor Flint continued to dig deeper in the Word.

God swears oaths in order to confirm the seriousness of His own Word (Deut 7:8; 29:12-15ff; I Chr 16:16; Ps 105:9; Acts 2:30; Heb 6:16-18).  We are told in Scripture of cases when men lawfully swore an oath in order to confirm the seriousness of their word.  In fact, Numbers 30 gives us God’s laws concerning these sorts of vows.  And the first thing we notice is that “If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”  These kinds of oaths are especially binding. 

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 23 teaches us that there is no sin in choosing not to vow, but if we vow a vow, we are bound by it… “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.  But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.” 

Pastor Flint studied further.  He began to understand that there are times when swearing an oath is lawful.    In fact, he was amazed to discover that God actually intended for the swearing of an oath to be used in cases where a lack of evidence would prevent the commission of justice.  For instance, Exodus 22:8-11 taught that the accused should take an oath of the Lord in order to reinforce his claim he is not guilty of the crime that he has been charged with.  And if the defendent takes that vow, his vow is to be accepted as true.

Pastor Flint began to feel a sense of direction.  In prayer, God began to direct his steps. As he searched further, Pastor Flint discovered that the Bible prescribed the swearing of an oath in cases where a spouse is overcome of the spirit of jealousy.  The Bible says in Numbers 5,

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.  And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.  Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

Pastor Flint thought about this passage and prayed over it for a long time.  ”Lord, is this the answer?”  As he thought about what he was reading here, one thing became very clear — God takes these charges very seriously.  In matters of jealousy, the jealousy is not to be ignored.  

Pastor Flint began to understand that in these sorts of cases, the wife or husband is not to be told simply to “get over it.”  Rather, the accused spouse should be required to swear out an oath in the name of God that they have not sinned against their wife through infidelity.  If the accused will take this oath, then the accuser is to accept it as fact. 

Pastor Flint searched further.  Wouldn’t it be easy for the accused spouse to simply lie?  Certainly, in a human sense.  But as he understood the Bible, the man who swore out his oath was appealing to God as his witness.  In other words, all parties involved would be appealing to God by faith, to expose the truth.  If the accused was guilty, but swore an oath of innocence, then as surely as God is in the heavens, that lie would be exposed.  And if the accused really was innocent, then God would make that clear as well.

When Pastor Flint had finished his study, that inexplicable peace of God settled over him.  And along with that peace came a resolve to pursue the issue to the end.  First, he called together the deacons, and then he asked Eddie and Carol to come and join them.  The pastor explained the gravity of the issue to all those involved .  He then presented the charges that Carol had made against her husband, and asked her if she still stood by those charges.  When she confirmed it, the Pastor then led the deacons in prayer, asking God to oversee the proceedings of the meeting.  When he had finished this, Pastor Flint took out his Bible and explained what he had found in Scripture on how to resolve this issue.  He gave the deacons, along with Carol and Eddie, time to ask any questions that they had.

When the issue was clear, and the solution apparent, Pastor Flint then turned to Eddie.  “Eddie, you have been charged with a very serious crime – the crime of infidelity towards your wife.  Do you swear in the name of God that you have been and are now faithful to your wife, that you are innocent of her charges of infidelity?”

God’s Solution

The question was raised, “If the original offense is denied by the accused, and if when the 2nd confrontation occurs the accused still denies that anything took place, and the two or three witnesses to the confrontation are unable to gather enough facts to determine the case one way or the other, what then?”

I believe that the Biblical answer is this — to require the accused to swear out an oath in the name of God that they are innocent of the charge.  I believe that the church has sufficient warrant to require such a thing, and that a refusal to swear out the oath should be considered an admission of guilt.  And furthermore, if the accused swears out his oath and continues to deny the allegations, then I believe that the church is duty-bound to accept this denial until such time as God reveals otherwise.  In other words, we leave the matter in the hands of the Righteous Judge, who already knows the answer.  He will reveal the truth in such cases. 

‡ All names are ficticious.

When Boyz II Men sang “I swear”, romantic girls swooned.   But these plaintive words make me shudder, and not just when they’re crooned on X Factor.  Invariably “I swear to you” precedes an unwelcome admission.  The swearer isn’t arguing: oh no, the heirloom is broken, and yes, the plane tickets are in his briefcase.  At home.  But he swears he didn’t mean to.  And if I doubt his word, he is entitled to be angry with me.  Devious, isn’t it?

Emotional manipulation is just one of swearing’s powers.  Whatever you tell your mother, I bet you love letting rip, but don’t care to be sworn at.  What is troubling isn’t simply the limited vocabulary of whoever is cursing, which suggests that violence may ensue.  Swearing disturbs an antique thing called honour.

Once, swearing invoked magic.  The word derives from an Old English word for ‘answer’, because it was part of an exchange.  Devotees of Sulis, the goddess at Bath spa, would hurl curses, inscribed on pewter or lead, into Sulis’s spring, begging her to melt the eyes of the rotters who had stolen their boots.  Like the coins we toss into wishing wells, these were bribes, hoping for answers.  Equally, to plight your troth (pledge your truth) made you answerable for your promise.  If not, your good name would be lost.  

‘Son of a bitch’ still impugns somebody’s honour, not to mention his mum’s.  Unless he  answers back, with word or fist, he’s the loser.  Such vendetta logic makes an-eye-for-an-eye sense, but ends only when there’s no honour left to be redeemed, i.e. one side is dead.  That’s why an entire Corsican clan bought it over a disputed chestnut tree.  And that’s why civilisation favours virtues like forgiveness, which ask us to answer not to our honour but our conscience.

 Today shame and magic are as unfashionable as vows, and potty mouth is a term of endearment.  While gangs pursue honour, the rest of us bang on about self-esteem, and swear to nobody in particular, to vent out frustration.  We don’t fear, like our grandparents, that it will turn the air blue, let alone blacken our name, or bother the gods.  It’s a shame, because the magic of swearing was that people took their words seriously.

The daughter of Tyre hearkens, considers, 

and inclines her ear to her Adonai, her Husband…

Ps 45: 10-12

Isa 55:3

God also hears and inclines His ear toward her, His beloved Bride…

Ps 17:6

I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me, and hear my speech.  

Isa 37:17

Incline thine ear, O LORD, and hear; open thine eyes, O LORD, and see: and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God.

 

Da 9:18

O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. 

She is the mother eagle with two wings, like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky. 

The moon rules during the night.

She shall rule during the time of tribulation,

defeating the dragon who wants to devour her and her children.

Pr 21:28

A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.

Speaketh = Dabar

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threaten, sing

1. (Qal) to speak
2. (Niphal) to speak with one another, talk
3. (Piel)
   1. to speak
   2. to promise
4. (Pual) to be spoken
5. (Hithpael) to speak
6. (Hiphil) to lead away, put to flight

The Faithful and True Witness Speaks Truth, shows righteousness, and delivers souls.

Pr 12:17

He that speaketh (dabar) truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.

Pr 14:25

A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.

Heb 11:4

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh (dabar) .

Jud 5:12

Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter (dabar) a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

AWAKE = `uwr

to rouse oneself, awake, awaken, incite

1. (Qal) to rouse oneself, awake
2. (Niphal) to be roused
3. (Polel) to stir up, rouse, incite
4. (Hithpolel) to be excited, be triumphant
5. (Hiphil)
   1. to rouse, stir up
   2. to act in an aroused manner, awake

This word is a primitive root [rather identical with (05783) through the idea of opening the eyes]

05783 = `uwr

to be exposed, be bared, be laid bare

Only One Scripture has this word for naked…

The hidden and secret parts shall be made known, exposed, and laid bare. The indication spiritually would be to be made fully known or revealed plainly. What is the most treasured part of the Word? Isn’t Jerusalem the womb of the earth? Isn’t the focal point of life found as the womb of the woman to bring forth children? Both have sacred virtue and are reserved for the marriage. The husband, Yeshua Ha Moshiach, Jesus Christ, needs His bedding ground (His wife) exposed and made bare in order to have spiritual children born of His Spirit. Didn’t Ruth lay herself down and “make” herself “known” unto Boaz? Tamar showed all to bring forth the lineage when it was not going to continue any further past Judah. Esther, no doubt, like all of the other virgins, had to go into the bed chamber of the King before being married to him as his new Queen.

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

BOW = Qesheth 

1. bow (for hunting, battle)
2. bowmen, archers
3. bow (fig. of might)
4. rainbow

Root of a word meaning “to bow down.”

RAINBOW = 7 COLORS = 7 CHURCH AGES = NEW JERUSALEM

OVER THE HEAD OF CHRIST IN REVELATION IS MADE KNOWN, REVEALED, & FULLY EXPOSED.

QUITE = `eryah

nudity, nakedness, bare, naked, quite

From the word, `ervah, meaning

1. nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda
   1. pudenda (implying shameful exposure)
   2. nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour
   3. exposed, undefended (fig.)

From the primitive root of `arah

to be bare, be nude, uncover, leave destitute, discover, empty, raze, pour out

1. (Piel)
   1. to bare, lay bare
   2. to lay bare by emptying, empty
   3. to pour out
2. (Hiphil)
   1. to make naked, strip bare (of sexual offences)
   2. to pour out
3. (Niphal) to be poured out, be exposed
4. (Hithpael)
   1. to expose oneself, make oneself naked
   2. pouring oneself, spreading oneself (participle)

Caphach = Join, Cleave, Smite with a scab

1. to join, attach to, join together, cleave
   1. (Qal) to join, attach to
   2. (Niphal) to attach oneself
   3. (Piel) joining (participle)
   4. (Pual) to be joined together, hold oneself together
   5. (Hithpael) to join oneself
2. (Piel) to cause a scab upon, smite with scab

Poth = Secret Parts, Hinges

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

From an unused root meaning to open = sockets, hinges, secret parts (meaning dubious)

Here is another Scripture using the word, poth…

The Hebrew Lexicon says that the meaning of “poth” is dubious. However, with the previous study of the Scripture, this term of hinge and secret parts can easily be explained. The hinge is needed for the door to open and shut. Without it, the door does not have the movement needed to allow or disallow a person entrance into “the most holy place” or into the “temple”. Just as the two are hinges of gold tried in the fire of the Word, they are also the possessor of the flaming swords [the sword of the Word] making the way back to the Garden of Eden. These two as hinges can also be described as a “hinge”. The word socket relates to the place of movement for the body. If the socket is loose or broken, the body cannot move effectively, not at all, or is greatly hindered.

This explains why the Hebrew Lexicon highlights just the word “hinge” and not hinges with the ‘s’ added to the singular word. When they (he and/or she) allow the door to be open, the flaming swords, or the sword of the Word, are directing people to eat of the tree of life and live. When the door is closed, the people cannot eat of the tree of life in the Holy of Holies. Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden in the fall and could not eat of the tree of life to live. They needed a way to get back to it again but the plan was a wait until the end time for this to take place. Whenever you see “he” in the Scripture, there is always a “she” aspect of the “he”. Even the Hebrew alphabet has both male and female genders within the language. Again, this goes back to “he them” being referred to Adam and Eve in the image of God. The poth is described as “secret parts” and “hinge” not hinges. Secret parts, as the meaning of the word denotes, indicates more than one part or many parts that are secret, hidden, not in open view, or not fully exposed or made known. The word “hinge” is singular.

They two are “hinges of gold” for the doors of the Holy of Holies and for the doors of the Temple. This is why you have the word hinge and hinges actually refer to two as one making an entrance into the temple and the inner house. In describing them (two as one) whether it be the “secret parts” or the “hinge” the exposure of who they are must be shown, explained, or opened. Otherwise, this truth, as well as much of the Scriptures, still remains hidden in the day when all that was hid needs to come to light or be exposed.

Oath, Curse = Sh@buw`ah 

1. attesting of innocence
2. curse

1.  
   1. oath (of Jehovah)

Even thy word

Word = ‘omer = utterance, speech, word, saying, promise, command

Primitive Root of ‘amar

1. to say, speak, utter
   1. (Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one’s heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend
   2. (Niphal) to be told, to be said, to be called
   3. (Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly
   4. (Hiphil) to avow, to avouch

THEY (he, she, them) BREAK OPEN THAT WHICH WAS HIDDEN.

Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers

CLEAVE = Baqa`

to split, cleave, break open, divide, break through, rip up, break up, tear

1. (Qal)
   1. to cleave, cleave open
   2. to break through, break into
2. (Niphal)
   1. to be cleft, be rent open, be split open
   2. to be broken into
3. (Piel)
   1. to cleave, cut to pieces, rend open
   2. to break through, break down
4. (Pual)
   1. to be ripped open, be torn open
   2. to be rent
   3. to be broken into
5. (Hiphil)
   1. to break into
   2. to break through
6. (Hophal) to be broken into
7. (Hithpael) to burst (themselves) open, cleave asunder

The alabaster bottle (a pure clear vessel) has to be broken open (made fully bare, naked, or exposed) in order to pour its oil (ointment, anointing) out upon those who dwell before the Lord, (both Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, male and female) who need to have the seal of God upon their foreheads (and not take the mark of the beast.) The refreshing oil is needed to break every yoke of Satan and his bondage of God’s people, to put the waters in heaps for the children of God to go across Jordan into the Promised Land, and to bring in the sheaves for the harvest with joy and gladness.

Let’s look at this Scripture again.

Pr 21:28

A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.

1. (Niphal) enduring (participle)
2. (Piel) to act as overseer or superintendent or director or chief

Used as these words in the KJV Bible… 

Musician 55, set forward 3, overseers 3, excel 1, oversee 1, perpetual 1, chief singer 1

 

 Is 54; Mic 4 & 5;   

• The barren and desolate woman sings…
•  The daughter of Zion sings…
•  Deborah sings a song…
   
  … And her children are delivered in Babylon!

I tell you this and declare this before it “springs forth” so that you know that I knew ahead of time. There is no telling what the Lord will do for His elect and chosen people whom He loves. These are the apple of His eye and they are precious in His sight.

Shalom,

Sis Shoshana Joy 

 Copyright 2009 Shushan Eduth – Rise Up My Love  

Chapter One of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim’s book explaining the Qur’anic oaths.  Any volunteers for translating the rest of the book?

Oaths of the Quran

©2009 by Donna Cunningham, MSW

 One of the cool things about my life is that I get lots of free books in the mail.  Since I’m a book lover, that makes it Christmas about once a month in my house.  Publishers send review copies because I’ve edited journals for many years–Vibration’s online essence journal for over a decade being the most recent.  (http://www.floweressencemagazine.com/blog)  I’m also featuring book excerpts by other authors on this blog under the category “Guest Bloggers.” So, hey, if you’ve written something in the inspirational/astrological line, email me to ask if I’d like a copy. (DO NOT send it without asking, though, okay?)

 Some years back, I got a review copy of a Crossing Press book by Diane Stein called Essential Energy Balancing II. One of 25 by this metaphysical author, it helps you clear out a variety of negative influences by others so you can live your life without constant obstacles. Admittedly a strange book, it nonetheless has changed my life and my relationships with others hugely.

 Much of the work–and believe me, there’s diligent work–involved a series of step-by-step processes she teaches to clear out things like psychic attack, curses, psychic cords, karmic agreements, and past life karma. For instance, if you’ve sworn a vow or oath to anyone in a past life that contained the word “forever,”  or even “always”, you’re probably stuck with it until you release yourself–and the other party–from it. I have been rigorous about not making even the most casual of vows ever since and not allowing other people to make enduring promises to me either.

 The various teachings in this book go a long ways toward clarifying and healing persistent turbulent ties to problem people in your life. As I was expressing profuse gratitude to the guides behind the work, they said, “If you’re so doggone grateful, buy 10 copies and send them to others. An author’s gotta eat.”  So I did, and I’m also recommending it to you, my readers on this blog.  You can see it and others in the series at:  http://www.dianestein.net/DianeBooks.htm.

 Over the several years since I received the book, I’ve worked persistently with these processes to unsnarl every single important relationship I’ve had over the course of this current lifetime. I’ve said goodbye to codependency and getting hooked into drama queens’ current or past dramas.  I instantly detect and remove all psychic cords. That’s always not been a popular development, since cording is one of the major ways people relate to one another, but it’s healthy because it’s made my life much more peaceful.  I’m a lot more detached than I’ve ever been able to be. It’s a bit like the after-effects of a Near Death Experience without all the fuss, muss, and pain of dying. 

 One of the steps in each process involves approaching the Lords of Karma. There’s a definite protocol to doing that, just as there is for approaching the High Mucky-Mucks of Most Anything.  I’ve done it so many times now, they know who I am. And, frankly, they seem rather tired of me. The matters I approach them about are no longer the biggies, the myriad oldies and baddies of karma, for those are pretty much sorted out. 

A couple of months back, I went to them about a comparatively minor recent infraction, and they collectively sighed and said, “Look, that’s not our department. You need to work with the Lesser Lords of Karma.”

 ”Never heard of them.  What do they do?”

“They are the Lords of Intra-Incarnational Adjudication.”

 ”What on earth is that?”

 ”They’re in charge of shit that happens in the current lifetime. They help you take steps to straighten it out so you don’t carry it over into the next life. 

Verrrry useful!   I have no interest in coming back for any reason whatsoever.  Can you imagine the condition of this planet 25 or 50 years from now if people don’t wake up in, like, the next few years? 

 So I did approach the Lesser Lords about what was troubling me, and we figured out how to rectify it so I didn’t accumulate any new karma. You’ve heard of the review that people do as they’re dying, where their life flashes in front of their eyes? That’s the Lesser Lords’ job, but you can do it at any stage of to clear out any and all karma from this life.

 They’ve asked me several times to write about them on this blog, and here it is.  They say they’re underutilized and would welcome the chance to help people sort out their bad relationships, past misdeeds, and current undesirable patterns now, when it would do some good, rather than letting consequences continue to accrue.

 I don’t know that there’s a set protocol for approaching them. As you might infer, I’m fairly casual and even–for some tastes–irreverent, but they seem to find that humorous. Just sit quietly somewhere and ask them with all your heart for help.  If you’re worried you might reach a wrong group out there in the invisible realms, ask for a sphere of white light to surround you, and then ask Archangel Michael to send one of his soldier angels to sit with you.

To the beautiful love one,

Though they pinch,
All are for love,
Though it stings,
Everything is for you.

Till the end of the days,
Till the end of the world.

“It is nearly time to leave the office. I hope that few lines could do away the misgivings between us. It is impossible to force a loving feeling upon another (while forcing something else is possible!). I never have the feeling that you force me (or feel that I am forcing myself either), to write you emails. The act of writing is not a responsibility also. However, since I am always thinking about you (you once ask me why), I think writing you emails is all right. I hope that you still know there is still a ‘me’ somewhere. Sometimes, when I have more things to write, the email will be longer. Otherwise, a few words to you are sufficient. My concern is that you grow tired of reading my emails (fortunately you said you did not displeased reading them). Moreover, I am afraid you get the feeling that I am forcing you to reply. Of course, it will be joyful if I see your emails and will be sad if I do not. But anyway, please allow me to show some sadness between words. It will be good then.

Perhaps, it is in my mind a commitment. I never explicitly tell it to you. Whether I commit to reply your emails is not important, you never ask for it anyway. Whether you are expecting any response is also not important. Emails will be written, your emails will be replied. mailbox in iPhone will be checked for emails.”