Just a question: if a group only is effective for 18-24 months, is this because it is new? Is the excitement of newness what sustains it? Can a small group mission be achieved in 24 months? How is a small group, or a large group, perceived to have purpose beyond the excitement of "newness"? In a family (which is a type of small group), it takes 16 years to raise one child. And it doesn't always seem new or even effective. Yet there is a need to continue to fulfill the purpose and vision. Is there an analogy here with a small group?
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I agree it is important to shepherd people, not beat them with rods (pastoral, as you say). It is very important to keep in mind how Jesus associated with sinners, with the Samaritan woman, with the thief on the cross, etc., and also with pharisees who always tried to justify their actions. And we should not act in haste. Nor should we make blind rules about too much stuff. But as you say, we do need some discipline and boundaries, even when they are ill-defined or hard to practice as absolutes.
My main point is about the type of thinking we are susceptible to. As you say, Synod 73 said there was a difference between sexual attraction, and sexual action. And that is obvious.
But, my point is just because there is a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Part of the problem is thinking that every attraction to the opposite gender is a sexual attraction, rather than a personality attraction. Some men may prefer the opposite gender in terms of company, not for sexual reasons, but for their perception of personality differences.
What is a sexual attraction for the opposite sex, anyway? Is this ever really defined? 1. Is it just an observation that they are attractive and pretty? (which could perhaps apply to anyone of either gender). 2. or an observation that they are the opposite sex and capable of mating? 3. or a very specific desire to engage in sexual activities with such a person? 4. or is it just a mindless undefinable thing?
I would say that the third option is close to lust. But if it is just based on some physical attributes or quality which is totally separated from the reality of the person, then it is an illegitimate lust which needs to be controlled. At least that is how I understand what Jesus said, when he said that if you lust in your heart after someone else other than your spouse, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
Taking that into consideration, if there is a legitimate attraction (or lust maybe) for someone you are committed to and give your life for, then there is also an illegitimate desire which falls outside of that parameter. Likely none of us is guiltless of that, but justifying that illegitimate desire seems to be the opposite of what Jesus intended. That parameter based on scripture excludes situations of adultery and fornication and homosex. It does not help us or anyone, to simply say that what you think or feel is not a problem. ("As you think, so you are".)
As far as hormone raging teenagers are concerned, it is our job not to tell them that sex is bad or sinful. It is not. It is beautiful, a gift from God. But only when properly controlled and used, in a God-blessed context, based on what God intended it for. And scripture is quite clear about that, right?
Michael asked some very good questions, in a very polite way. I think however, Neil, that your response hints at a rather unfortunate attitude towards this problem. I sense that you are taking on a language of acceptance and excuse. So it seems to me anyway.
For example: you state, "If a person has feelings of same sex attraction, that would not mean a need to repent or be a problem to be solved..." But this is naivete, isn't it? Jesus clearly indicated that what was in our heart was as much a problem as how we lived our physical lives. These feelings are a problem, just as any feelings of covetousness, lust, hatred. They are a problem because they are counter to what God wants for us, and they are a problem when they do not allow people to live as God intended. Do they lead to condemnation? of course not, since God is a forgiving God. Each one of us is daily aware of our need for repentance and forgiveness, and our joy in grace. But are these feelings a problem? Of course they are.
These feelings are also a problem because they so often lead to an enormous motivation for justifying associated behaviours. To deny that these feelings are a problem, is simply living in denial.
What does it mean to acknowledge sexual identity, when the sexual identity is counter to what sexual identity actually signifies? In this regard unclear language and intention about this issue will always lead to confusion and ambiguity.
If there is not an acknowledgement of the problem then it is fallacious to call the approach a "generous spirit". How do we be generous to those who do not have problem....
I agree that we should use good judgement about calling people to repentance. We also don't need to hammer nails into wood, when the nails are already buried in it.
It is difficult to use the gifts of those who deny their sin, or who justify their sins, and in the same way it is difficult to use or appreciate the gifts of those who claim that homosex is not detested by God in the same way that adultery is.
This is an excellent article by John Witvliet. I can't remember reading it in 2010, but if I did, it has taken on new significance for me. Bottom line on this issue is that honesty must prevail. Professions must be honest and sincere, and a formal membership profession using the forms and agreeing to the confessions and being examined on lifestyle must be sincere and honest. It should not be a half-honest profession which skips over or ignores issues or problems or lack of understanding. If children or young people or new christians are not ready for this, then an alternate simpler profession ought to be used, preferably in their own words which signifies their faith in Christ, even while not indicating a "professing membership" in the crc. How I see it anyway.
" At the level of a council, there are a number of things which can be especially helpful:• View the pastor as a partner in ministry; with the elders, a shepherding team..." This comment made above is particularly relevant. However, the suggestions that followed this comment do not seem to follow from it, since they emphasize how the pastor is different, not how he partners. The heavy reliance on the pastor, such as for preaching on christmas day for 25 years, for example, is caused mostly because of the inability of the partners to carry on the task. In order to have true partnership, the elders should be able to be a true shepherding team, and carry on the task if the pastor has personal desires and obligations. It is for this reason, as well as for enhancing the partnership, that pastors should be training the elders, and elders should be training each other. While the primary role of the pastor is understood, and the function of primary caregiver is known, it should never be thought that others are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks, roles and responsibilities. This alone would relieve a great deal of stress and pressure from the pastor, and would encourage growth of the entire church.
(Article is too long.) But music is the expression of the soul; most christian music is prayer. The soul's sincere desire, Uttered and expressed. Prayer of praise or supplication.
We have our younger children, age10-12, playing piano during the offeratory, or accompanying a few songs during the singing. They get better and more confident every week and every month.
At home we sing 2 to 4 songs (ocassionally more) after supper every day, sometimes after lunch too. We sing most of them by heart; and then we learn a few more. This makes a difference for the singing at church too, so that the kids know some or many of the songs.
In church service, we sing about ten songs most of the time, with some children's songs, some choruses, some hymns, some vineyard stuff. Sometimes we ask for favorites. The variety is enriching, and helps all ages to emote their worship thru music. Today, "Blessed be Your Name" was a favorite.
I'm not sure about the consistency of "Council is at liberty...", and the clause, "councils should not do this without the senior pastor's full consent..." How is this liberty? when constrained by such a condition?
It would be fantastic if every new member was encouraged to make a brief public testimony of their faith, rather than simply answering three formula questions. The questions are okay, but just as faith without works is dead, so agreement without spirit is dead. These testimonies can often have a greater impact on the life of the people in the pews than the greatest sermon ever preached.
Lou, in some way, I am finding your comment somewhat offensive. Just so you know. I am curious as to what is a generic evangelical church compared to non-generic? I have also always placed the crc within the evangelical camp in terms of its emphasis on missions and the significance of repentance and faith. I know that you are probably using different nomenclature or categories, but I find it offensive to think that the crc is not evangelical in its attitude towards unbelievers. I also find it offensive that we would put more energy into accomodating erroneous catholic beliefs about baptism than we do for evangelical beliefs about baptism. In spite of the fact they deny infant baptism (which I also find sad), I often find a closer synergy of theology with some of them than with the romcatholic theology and romcath practice. You also ought to be aware of what is called the "Reformed Baptist" camp, in terms of understanding so-called "generic evangelicalism".
Second, you are taking for granted that anti-catholic attitudes should be overcome, yet seem to be displaying an anti-evangelical attitude yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the impression you are leaving with me.
This is ironic in the sense that during the reformation in Europe, the RomCatholics would persecute the protestants, and then the protestant state churches would persecute the anabaptists. Pray that that attitude has died several centuries ago.
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
Alejandro, let me say I appreciate your earnestness and your "contending for the faith" In regards to your point 3: I have said before that during the reformation, the RomCatholics persecuted the protestants, and the protestants persecuted other protestants, in particular the dissenters and anabaptists. I pray that this has ended several centuries ago. I agree that some anabaptists have a shallow theology and a lack of understanding of covenant. But I am also familiar with baptists who believe in and promote covenant theology, ie. "Reformed Baptists"(a seeming anachronism). I also believe that much theology originates from a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is difficult to promote covenant theology when it is misused by churches in the sense of, as it says in Jude "they have turned the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." In the same way they have turned covenant, which is all about the grace of God, into a license for immorality. By their works you shall know their faith. True, we know that baptism does not save, and that not all who are baptized will be saved, but when it is done in deceit and falsehood, or in disobedience, and when this becomes an obvious tolerated trend, then it is understandable why some would have an aversion to such a practice.
As to your point 4: I would not agree to rebaptism for anyone baptized in a reformed christian church as an infant. But I am becoming sympathetic to a discussion on it, putting the onus on anyone who requests it to prove that the original infant baptism was done in deliberate disobedience. Some might call this a "disputable matter." I agree with your emphasis on unity, even on as much unity as possible with other believers in other denominations. But our great unity must have its basis in honesty and obedience to Christ and His Word. A superficial unity of forms and procedures will carry us just as far as it carried the Israelites when they offered sacrifices to God as they travelled to the high places to also offer sacrifices to Baal. And a desire for unity such as the desire of Annanias and Sapphira to be like their neighboring Christ followers, will achieve nothing and will mean nothing if it is done in deceit or pride or envy.
Posted in: I See Dead Groups
Just a question: if a group only is effective for 18-24 months, is this because it is new? Is the excitement of newness what sustains it? Can a small group mission be achieved in 24 months? How is a small group, or a large group, perceived to have purpose beyond the excitement of "newness"? In a family (which is a type of small group), it takes 16 years to raise one child. And it doesn't always seem new or even effective. Yet there is a need to continue to fulfill the purpose and vision. Is there an analogy here with a small group?
Posted in: Pastoral Care, Homosexuality and the Elder
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I agree it is important to shepherd people, not beat them with rods (pastoral, as you say). It is very important to keep in mind how Jesus associated with sinners, with the Samaritan woman, with the thief on the cross, etc., and also with pharisees who always tried to justify their actions. And we should not act in haste. Nor should we make blind rules about too much stuff. But as you say, we do need some discipline and boundaries, even when they are ill-defined or hard to practice as absolutes.
My main point is about the type of thinking we are susceptible to. As you say, Synod 73 said there was a difference between sexual attraction, and sexual action. And that is obvious.
But, my point is just because there is a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Part of the problem is thinking that every attraction to the opposite gender is a sexual attraction, rather than a personality attraction. Some men may prefer the opposite gender in terms of company, not for sexual reasons, but for their perception of personality differences.
What is a sexual attraction for the opposite sex, anyway? Is this ever really defined? 1. Is it just an observation that they are attractive and pretty? (which could perhaps apply to anyone of either gender). 2. or an observation that they are the opposite sex and capable of mating? 3. or a very specific desire to engage in sexual activities with such a person? 4. or is it just a mindless undefinable thing?
I would say that the third option is close to lust. But if it is just based on some physical attributes or quality which is totally separated from the reality of the person, then it is an illegitimate lust which needs to be controlled. At least that is how I understand what Jesus said, when he said that if you lust in your heart after someone else other than your spouse, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
Taking that into consideration, if there is a legitimate attraction (or lust maybe) for someone you are committed to and give your life for, then there is also an illegitimate desire which falls outside of that parameter. Likely none of us is guiltless of that, but justifying that illegitimate desire seems to be the opposite of what Jesus intended. That parameter based on scripture excludes situations of adultery and fornication and homosex. It does not help us or anyone, to simply say that what you think or feel is not a problem. ("As you think, so you are".)
As far as hormone raging teenagers are concerned, it is our job not to tell them that sex is bad or sinful. It is not. It is beautiful, a gift from God. But only when properly controlled and used, in a God-blessed context, based on what God intended it for. And scripture is quite clear about that, right?
John Z
Posted in: Pastoral Care, Homosexuality and the Elder
Michael asked some very good questions, in a very polite way. I think however, Neil, that your response hints at a rather unfortunate attitude towards this problem. I sense that you are taking on a language of acceptance and excuse. So it seems to me anyway.
For example: you state, "If a person has feelings of same sex attraction, that would not mean a need to repent or be a problem to be solved..." But this is naivete, isn't it? Jesus clearly indicated that what was in our heart was as much a problem as how we lived our physical lives. These feelings are a problem, just as any feelings of covetousness, lust, hatred. They are a problem because they are counter to what God wants for us, and they are a problem when they do not allow people to live as God intended. Do they lead to condemnation? of course not, since God is a forgiving God. Each one of us is daily aware of our need for repentance and forgiveness, and our joy in grace. But are these feelings a problem? Of course they are.
These feelings are also a problem because they so often lead to an enormous motivation for justifying associated behaviours. To deny that these feelings are a problem, is simply living in denial.
What does it mean to acknowledge sexual identity, when the sexual identity is counter to what sexual identity actually signifies? In this regard unclear language and intention about this issue will always lead to confusion and ambiguity.
If there is not an acknowledgement of the problem then it is fallacious to call the approach a "generous spirit". How do we be generous to those who do not have problem....
I agree that we should use good judgement about calling people to repentance. We also don't need to hammer nails into wood, when the nails are already buried in it.
It is difficult to use the gifts of those who deny their sin, or who justify their sins, and in the same way it is difficult to use or appreciate the gifts of those who claim that homosex is not detested by God in the same way that adultery is.
Posted in: From Profession of Faith to Multiple Milestones of Faith
This is an excellent article by John Witvliet. I can't remember reading it in 2010, but if I did, it has taken on new significance for me. Bottom line on this issue is that honesty must prevail. Professions must be honest and sincere, and a formal membership profession using the forms and agreeing to the confessions and being examined on lifestyle must be sincere and honest. It should not be a half-honest profession which skips over or ignores issues or problems or lack of understanding. If children or young people or new christians are not ready for this, then an alternate simpler profession ought to be used, preferably in their own words which signifies their faith in Christ, even while not indicating a "professing membership" in the crc. How I see it anyway.
Posted in: Some Thoughts About Pastoring the Pastor
" At the level of a council, there are a number of things which can be especially helpful:• View the pastor as a partner in ministry; with the elders, a shepherding team..." This comment made above is particularly relevant. However, the suggestions that followed this comment do not seem to follow from it, since they emphasize how the pastor is different, not how he partners. The heavy reliance on the pastor, such as for preaching on christmas day for 25 years, for example, is caused mostly because of the inability of the partners to carry on the task. In order to have true partnership, the elders should be able to be a true shepherding team, and carry on the task if the pastor has personal desires and obligations. It is for this reason, as well as for enhancing the partnership, that pastors should be training the elders, and elders should be training each other. While the primary role of the pastor is understood, and the function of primary caregiver is known, it should never be thought that others are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks, roles and responsibilities. This alone would relieve a great deal of stress and pressure from the pastor, and would encourage growth of the entire church.
Posted in: We Are What We Sing: Searching for a Balanced Diet
(Article is too long.) But music is the expression of the soul; most christian music is prayer. The soul's sincere desire, Uttered and expressed. Prayer of praise or supplication.
We have our younger children, age10-12, playing piano during the offeratory, or accompanying a few songs during the singing. They get better and more confident every week and every month.
At home we sing 2 to 4 songs (ocassionally more) after supper every day, sometimes after lunch too. We sing most of them by heart; and then we learn a few more. This makes a difference for the singing at church too, so that the kids know some or many of the songs.
In church service, we sing about ten songs most of the time, with some children's songs, some choruses, some hymns, some vineyard stuff. Sometimes we ask for favorites. The variety is enriching, and helps all ages to emote their worship thru music. Today, "Blessed be Your Name" was a favorite.
Posted in: Who Is in Charge of an Ordination Service?
I'm not sure about the consistency of "Council is at liberty...", and the clause, "councils should not do this without the senior pastor's full consent..." How is this liberty? when constrained by such a condition?
Posted in: Membership Transfer From Protestant Reformed Church?
It would be fantastic if every new member was encouraged to make a brief public testimony of their faith, rather than simply answering three formula questions. The questions are okay, but just as faith without works is dead, so agreement without spirit is dead. These testimonies can often have a greater impact on the life of the people in the pews than the greatest sermon ever preached.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Lou, in some way, I am finding your comment somewhat offensive. Just so you know. I am curious as to what is a generic evangelical church compared to non-generic? I have also always placed the crc within the evangelical camp in terms of its emphasis on missions and the significance of repentance and faith. I know that you are probably using different nomenclature or categories, but I find it offensive to think that the crc is not evangelical in its attitude towards unbelievers. I also find it offensive that we would put more energy into accomodating erroneous catholic beliefs about baptism than we do for evangelical beliefs about baptism. In spite of the fact they deny infant baptism (which I also find sad), I often find a closer synergy of theology with some of them than with the romcatholic theology and romcath practice. You also ought to be aware of what is called the "Reformed Baptist" camp, in terms of understanding so-called "generic evangelicalism".
Second, you are taking for granted that anti-catholic attitudes should be overcome, yet seem to be displaying an anti-evangelical attitude yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the impression you are leaving with me.
This is ironic in the sense that during the reformation in Europe, the RomCatholics would persecute the protestants, and then the protestant state churches would persecute the anabaptists. Pray that that attitude has died several centuries ago.
Posted in: Is It Appropriate for Council or Classis to Instruct Their Delegates How to Vote?
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, let me say I appreciate your earnestness and your "contending for the faith" In regards to your point 3: I have said before that during the reformation, the RomCatholics persecuted the protestants, and the protestants persecuted other protestants, in particular the dissenters and anabaptists. I pray that this has ended several centuries ago. I agree that some anabaptists have a shallow theology and a lack of understanding of covenant. But I am also familiar with baptists who believe in and promote covenant theology, ie. "Reformed Baptists"(a seeming anachronism). I also believe that much theology originates from a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is difficult to promote covenant theology when it is misused by churches in the sense of, as it says in Jude "they have turned the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." In the same way they have turned covenant, which is all about the grace of God, into a license for immorality. By their works you shall know their faith. True, we know that baptism does not save, and that not all who are baptized will be saved, but when it is done in deceit and falsehood, or in disobedience, and when this becomes an obvious tolerated trend, then it is understandable why some would have an aversion to such a practice.
As to your point 4: I would not agree to rebaptism for anyone baptized in a reformed christian church as an infant. But I am becoming sympathetic to a discussion on it, putting the onus on anyone who requests it to prove that the original infant baptism was done in deliberate disobedience. Some might call this a "disputable matter." I agree with your emphasis on unity, even on as much unity as possible with other believers in other denominations. But our great unity must have its basis in honesty and obedience to Christ and His Word. A superficial unity of forms and procedures will carry us just as far as it carried the Israelites when they offered sacrifices to God as they travelled to the high places to also offer sacrifices to Baal. And a desire for unity such as the desire of Annanias and Sapphira to be like their neighboring Christ followers, will achieve nothing and will mean nothing if it is done in deceit or pride or envy.