T.Austin-Sparks and Local Church III - Supernatural

We've been going through T.Austin-Sparks' revolutionary view of what the Lord's view of the church is, and how we are to appropriate and incorporate that into our lives.

In this article we'll talk about the need for supernatural, and what it was Sparks meant by that.

Sparks said this:

WHEN our Lord made the great pronouncement about His Church: '... I will build my Church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' He intimated three things. One, that He would build a definite entity called His Church. Two, that that Church would encounter an opposing force in its full and final enmity. Three, that that power would be taken at its ultimate strength and be destroyed, that is, made incapable of prevailing against that Church. In this full statement there is a very definite indication of the fundamental nature of His true Church. We have been saying earlier that the Church is essentially a spiritual thing, and that spirituality is its basic principle. But can we be still clearer as to what we mean by spirituality? Yes, I think that we can, and that by using an alternative word, the word 'supernatural.'

"The Church is the embodiment of true Christianity, and true Christianity is supernatural, or it is nothing! It is only when and where that is fully realized and accepted that the Church really exists and can be the power that it is intended to be.

Let's get one barrier immediately out of the way when Sparks refers to supernatural, and that is it has nothing to do with the contemporary idea of when signs and wonders and healings are demonstrated, people will flock to Jesus Christ and the Church will be built.

In reality, that premise is largely a false one, as many decades of that experimental mindset and practices have shown. That's not to say there aren't healings and signs and wonders, just that in the way Sparks uses the term, it's not how we usually apply it. It was the source and resources, in Sparks view, which was the vital importance of the supernatural, not the outward manifestations that at times can accompany it. Think of Israel, which was called the "church in the wilderness," right after the extraordinary and supernatural deliverance from Egypt as an example.

Here's how he describes it:

1. SUPERNATURAL IN ORIGIN

First of all, Christianity and the Church (in truth, identical terms) came down from heaven, and have still unceasingly to be received and entered from there. This is the very foundational truth of Christ Himself and of the Church in every individual incorporated into it.

The teaching of the New Testament everywhere is this. The origin and home of Christ was in heaven. John's Gospel and Paul's Letter to the Ephesians are a particular and emphatic argument for this one thing, and they comprehend the New Testament in this truth. In the former the repeated affirmation of Christ as to His heavenly origin is the basis of everything in the whole Gospel. It is a "verily, verily" -- 'most truly', and everything in the Gospel is intended to bear that out and be evidence of it.

But when that has been recognized, the Gospel, and the rest of the New Testament return from that to affirm equally that the Church embodies that truth and fact of Christ. John 3 will employ the identical language -- "verily, verily" -- in connection with any single individual entering the Church. That individual, no matter if he be the best specimen and representative of the Old Testament Israel (such as Nicodemus) just "cannot" enter along the horizontal line of this creation; he cannot enter by the door of nature, of tradition, of 'religion;' he "must be born from above." By this birth he is constituted a super-natural being in the innermost reality of his being: what Paul calls "a new creation."

Then correspondingly the Church is born from above on the Day of Pentecost. The difference between the same persons before and after that event, and the corporate nature of the new entity, are patent to all who have eyes to see. It is supernatural.

2. SUPERNATURAL IN SUPPORT

What was -- and is -- true of the origin and home of Christ and His Church is shown with overwhelming evidence to be true of their sustenance and survival. 'Bread from heaven' only means the sustaining, supporting power of heavenly resources. This is seen in two connections. One, in the law of utter dependence upon God and heaven; the very principle of the Incarnation -- "He emptied himself" (Philippians 2:7). Again, John's Gospel is a constant emphatic assertion of this. The double "verily, verily" is employed to affirm this -- (5:19): "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of (out from) himself", etc., etc. For every work, for every word, for every time, He declared that He was dependent upon His Father, upon heaven. It explains His lowly birth, His lowly upbringing, His later homelessness. It explains His being "despised and rejected of men". But was there ever a life and work so powerful as His?

The other connection is that of the Church. When we consider the human material of the first nucleus, and mainly of its growth; when we take into account what it did not have of this world's goods and support; and when we think of all that was against it in every conceivable way, bent upon its annihilation; and then remark its more than survival as an entity, there is only one word for it - supernatural! I confess that I have marvelled at the sustained and triumphant faith of a man like the Apostle Paul when I see him suffering as he did, and when I read his own catalogues of sufferings. The natural mind would say: 'This is not the support of heaven', but we have the verdict of many centuries, and it is the evidence and verdict of the supernatural.

Surely all this is contained in that further double "verily" of John vi, where -- with an allusion to Israel's life in the wilderness -- Jesus declares Himself to be the Bread of God from heaven. Indeed, so strong, meaningful, and imperative is His mind on this matter that in that chapter He uses the double "verily" four times. The wilderness has always been the symbol or figure of a place outside of the world, and the succour and sustenance in conditions so inimical to life demand resources from another realm. The history of the spiritual life is the history of secret supernatural support. Silently, without demonstration; sustained, without failing, sufficient, without poverty, the Manna fell, and the Heavenly Lord of Life has maintained His Church in the same way. Yes, while it has been silent and often almost imperceptible to the natural senses, yet in fact, it has been a working of immense power. The New Testament will teach us that the very birth and sustenance of the Church is the counterpart of Israel's emancipation from Egypt. There and then the power of God extended and exhausted the whole might of Egypt and its gods, and then nullified death itself.

Sparks saw the quiet and slow impact of supernatural resources of the early church as vital to it being a church truly born of God from heaven. In his view, nothing in that regard has ever changed, as it remains a vital part of the overall picture of what constitutes the church in the heart and mind of Jesus Christ.

T.Austin-Sparks and Local Church II - Seeing Christ

Concerning the church in general and local church specifically, T.Austin-Sparks struggled at times during his lifetime to communicate what it was a true church would be, as there are enormous dangers and variables associated with the telling, as people almost always organize, bureaucratize and institutionalize something when they discover it; especially when it's passed on to the next generation, or at least attempted to be passed on.

Here's the revelation of the church - universal and local - that Sparks saw:

"There we have touched the very heart of the true nature of the Church. The touchstone of the Church is a seeing by Divine -- supernatural - Holy Spirit revelation and illumination the real significance and meaning of Jesus Christ and His mission. It is so evident that the great Apostle of 'the Mystery' -- the Church, came to his knowledge and understanding of the true Church by way of the revelation of Christ to, and in, him (Galatians 1:16)."

"...a Person who was to be reproduced by the Church, as the Corn of Wheat, through death, being reproduced in resurrection in a corporate body."

"To truly see Christ is to see the Church, and only so can there be a true church."

"So spirituality, which is a heavenly other nature and endowment, is the first basic principle of the Church. Let us repeat that the Church is the vessel and embodiment of 'the mystery' so often referred to in the New Testament, especially by Paul, and the mystery was and is the hidden meaning of things, and of Israel, but which mystery is now revealed to and in the new order, the new Israel, the Church. The 'mystery of Christ' is the meaning of Christ, inscrutable to all but those who have 'the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the Knowledge of him.'"

"This all means, that fundamentally, a true expression of the Church, locally, is not more, nor less, nor other, than the spiritual apprehension of Christ by believers. The Church, local or universal, is not traditional. That would make it second-hand and therefore artificial. The Church cannot be seen through other people's eyes, whether those others be of the past (Apostles, etc.) or present (teachers)."

In the interest of being extremely exact, sometimes by the time Sparks ended up explaining something the reader could get lost because of memory lapse, especially in the short-term memory world we live in today.

To make it short. What Sparks is saying is the same way an individual believer must be born from above to be saved, so must a corporate group of believers be born of the Spirit to be a church Christ recognizes as such. That which born of the Spirit is Spirit, and nothing else. This is what he rightly called 'spirituality.' Anything else, whatever you want to call it, isn't spiritual; including an alleged church.

The only way to see Christ is to be born from above. The only way a body of believers can meet God's expectations is to come together as a result of that revelation of Christ within them, forming a spiritual dwelling place for Christ Himself. That was the mystery hidden from the ages and revealed by the Spirit through Paul the apostle.

Transhumans About to be Released Upon World?

For about two decades so-called scientists have been using advancements in genetic engineering to experiment on developing what are being called transhumans, which is basically a chimera, or the result of combining human DNA with animal DNA, along with technology, to create a possible super being which would no longer be fully human, if human at all.

To understand the potential consequences, you have to consider what has happened when similar combinations in the plant world have ended up with the side effects of super weeds which can't be killed.

According to a documentary by author and researcher Tom Horn, federal U.S. dollars have been flowing into these programs since Obama has been elected president, "he overturned restrictions that had been put in place by President Bush which would have prohibited federal dollars, American taxpayer money, flowing in to pay for experiments to be done on human-animal chimeras (combinations) and other forms of science such as stem-cell sciences – which is also important to the transhumanist movement.

Horn adds, "But what most of the public doesn't realize is when we're talking about stem-cell sciences, we're almost always talking about the creation of a human-animal chimera from which those stem cells are being derived. But now, tax dollars in the United States from the federal level are flowing into thousands of laboratories."

"The public mostly is still under the impression that this is being done at the embryonic level, and that the amount of human DNA in a transgenic animal is so minute as to be excusable," says Horn.

"But where they want the debate to go now is, 'Can we raise these to full maturity in the public's knowledge and experiment on part-humans, part-animals that are fully grown?' And by admitting that that's now where they want the public to be comfortable with this research, they also said that they knew that there are some rogue scientists out there that are not operating with federal dollars, and they're getting ahead of them in this technology and it could even become a new kind of a weapon of mass destruction. It could, at a minimum, become a molecular biological nightmare."

We're going to cover a lot more of this at Acts29Review, as it's far too detailed a topic to cover in a short time, and the repercussions are potentially extraordinary and dangerous.

For believers in Jesus Christ, there is only one union that is eternal, and that is the one between the Lord and believers, as He dwells within us. Combinations of humans and animals is a step backwards, obviously, and is motivated by military uses, longevity, and other factors.

Rand Paul Blasts "Out of Control" EPA

Confirming he's a defender of the free and coal, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. blasted the Environmental Protection Agency over proposed rules which could devastate Kentucky and other states, as well as weaken the power grid in many areas of the country.

Paul said the EPA was an “out of control” bureaucracy that is waging a war the coal industry.

He said:

Coal is a vital sector of Kentucky’

s economy. More than 200,000 jobs in the commonwealth depend on it, including the jobs of about 18,000 coal miners. America’s coal miners produce the fuel for nearly half our nation’s electricity needs.

Yet, the out-of-control EPA has waged a war on coal and the families whose livelihoods depend upon it. Washington’s bureaucratic regulations and excessive taxation have sought to limit our energy choices and kill even more jobs during this recession.

As a defender of the free market and of coal, I will continue to fight back against the EPA and any other federal agency whose goal is to stifle coal production. I will continue to stand up for our miners in Washington as we continue to recognize the sacrifices they make to provide food for their families and energy for America.

Paul is absolutely correct, and we need to eliminate the EPA as an agency and slash the federal debt and federal spending levels, rather than attack productive and important industries like coal, which provide over 40 percent of America's electricity.

Picture the hell that will come if these new rules aren't rejected, and numerous places in the country experience man-made blackouts.

Healthy Lifestyle Equals Longer Life

A new U.S. study confirmed what most already know, that a healthy lifestyle will in fact result in a longer life.

The elements most of us think of for a healthy lifestyle were part of the conclusions of this study. Regular exercise or physical activity, not smoking, modest alcohol use and a good diet contributed to living longer.

Smoking was found to be the worst contributor to premature death in the study.

Study findings:

"Those who practiced all four healthy habits were 66 percent less likely to die early from cancer, 65 percent less likely to die early from cardiovascular disease, and 57 percent less likely to die early from other causes."

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers, 47.5 percent of those participating in the study had never smoked, 51 percent were moderate drinkers (no more than two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women), 40.2 percent got enough physical activity, and 39.3 percent had a healthy diet.

The findings are from an analysis of data in the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III Mortality Study, which included people recruited from 1988 to 1994 and followed through 2006.

Even with the findings, it was found that few Americans engage in all four healthy behaviors, while smoking has been drastically reduced.

Ron Paul Getting Media Blackout

After years of staying on message, presidential candidate Ron Paul is capturing the hearts and minds of a growing number of people, being perceived as a real threat from Democrats and Republicans alike.

That has resulted in both parties putting pressure on media outlets to ensure Paul gains no more traction.

John Kass said:

Why is the American media so intent on ignoring congressman Ron Paul and his prickly libertarian views?

Paul is running for president in the Republican primaries, and it's plain that the handmaidens of the political establishment — Democrats as well as Republicans — are freezing him out.

Libyan Civil War (2011) He came within a few votes of winning last week's Iowa straw poll, just 152 votes short among almost 17,000 cast.

But rather than shower this intriguing candidate and his views with attention, the news media willfully forgot about him. The question is, why?

Perhaps the answer could be found during the recent Fox News debate in Iowa, in which Paul trashed Republican saber-rattling toward a potentially nuclear Iran.

"They're building up this case like, just like we did in Iraq — build up the war propaganda," Paul said. "It's time we quit this. It's time — it's trillions of dollars we're spending on these wars."

After that, he couldn't get himself into a news story for days.

But this media freeze-out started long before. The Project for Excellence in Journalism studied media coverage of Paul from January through Aug. 14, and demonstrated that he received much less coverage than non-candidates such as Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.

After reading that, I got a little paranoid and did what any reasonable guy would do. I fashioned a cone-shaped hat from aluminum foil and put it on as I typed this column. The last thing I needed was to have my mind channeled by either Democratic Merlin David Axelrod or Republican Rasputin Karl Rove.

Even liberal comedian Jon Stewart, not my typical go-to source, seemed ashamed of the media's treatment of Paul. On his show last week, Stewart ran clips of broadcast news coverage that slapped Paul around.

News anchors gushed over the "top tier" Republicans in Iowa, and even though Paul came in second behind U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, he wasn't considered "top tier" enough to be mentioned.

"Really?" asked Stewart, as Paul's photo flashed on the screen. "You're not forgetting … say, an ideologically consistent 12-term congressman who came within less than 200 votes of winning the straw poll? Isn't anyone going to give that gentleman any love?"

Love may indeed be the reason the media ignores Ron Paul. Under this theory, the media is merely trying to provide us with loving protection from Paul and those challenging libertarian ideals:

Such as the view we shouldn't be eager to be groped in airports or to fund another war in the Middle East, or that we should legalize drugs rather than fight the drug wars, or the wild idea that a coffee shop waitress should not be expected to pay taxes on her tips.

These are extreme notions, though the principles behind them were once held dear by a few old guys in powdered wigs who founded this country.

The TV people are happy to do the work for you, and tell you what notions are fit for public debate. Thinking for yourself is really, really hard, and it's just easier to watch TV and listen to discussions about Bachmann's hair.

Another possible reason why the media is ignoring Paul could be fear rather than love. Perhaps Democrats and Republicans are afraid of him.

Paul is anti-war, and there are many independent Democrats who've been anti-war, including those who elected President Barack Obama in 2008 and have since turned on him because, well, he recently help start a war in Libya, turning America's two wars into three.

Paul also doesn't campaign on social issues, like outlawing abortion, or involving the government in the bedroom. He's not a political evangelical, so Paul's stance would be attractive to many Democrats.

And that is why I put on my tinfoil hat, lest magic-man Axelrod zap me with one of his mind-control spells before I could finish typing. Yet it's obvious that tin-foil brain prophylactics are also needed against the powers of Axelrod's doppelganger, Rove.

For years now, Rove has sputtered angrily about the libertarians, and it's obvious Republicans see Paul as a threat. Perhaps it's the fact that Paul ridicules the GOP military drumbeat against Iran. It may be that he appeals to tea party fiscal conservatives, and if these voters begin to lean toward Paul, the establishment GOP will be left with defense contractors, neocons and evangelicals, not enough to win a national election.

I'm not picking a candidate yet, and I reserve the right to flip and flop like any other voter, depending on what the candidates say and how their hair looks on TV.

Paul loathes government even more than I do, but his throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater philosophy of reform gives me pause. Still, he's intriguing.

So even a blind goose can see that by freezing Paul out, the media serves the political establishment, but that's about it.

"It is hard for them to accept," Paul told Politico's liberal Roger Simon in a recent interview about the candidate's media treatment after the Iowa vote. "They (the media) believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo, but that is a reason to be more energized."

Paul is dangerous to the status quo. And that's a reason not to ignore him.

The bottom line to me is Paul has earned and the public deserves far broader coverage of his campaign, as much that he represents, especially in regard to government spending and economics, is what is needed at this time in the country. Hopefully the media will respond so a wider representation of people will hear an alternative and refreshing message than they've heard for some time.

Michele Bachmann Working on Expanding Base

credit: (Justin Sullivan/Getty)

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann has been feverishly working to expand her base, as she tackles issues outside of her social conservative record, which is known by most people.

Bachmann has been staunch in her economic stand for some time, something a lot of people may not know, but is also very easily followed from past comments.

This is why conservatives and others in the Tea Party movement support her so much.

With this election surely to be based primarily on the economy, Bachmann has a good record to work from, including her voting against raising the debt ceiling, which was a disaster, and one which many Republicans voted into office to resist, capitulated on. They will probably pay for that in the next election. Bachmann won't.

Bachmann noted, "You cannot spend more money than what you take in. It's a simple fact of life, right?"

Campaigning in South Carolina, Bachmann noted her beliefs and credentials: "Fiscal conservatives -- I'm one of those. National security conservatives -- I'm one of those. Social conservatives -- I'm one of those. And the tea party -- I'm one of those."

Some libertarians also support Bachmann, but others are furious over her voting for the Patriot Act under the Bush administration.

She concluded this weekend in a speech, "We are going to make the case that we're the unifying candidate who can beat Obama."

Bachmann is highly respected for her principled stand on issues, and for helping troubled children by taking in 23 foster children while raising five of her own, along with her husband.

Sarah Palin Ready to Enter Presidential Race?

It appears Sarah Palin could be poised to enter the 2012 presidential race, with expectations she'll announce sometime around the Labor Day weekend, according to Karl Rove.

On September 3, Palin will be the keynote speaker at the Tea Party of America's "Restoring America" event in Iowa, which could be the ideal time for her to make an announcement, if in fact that is her intention.

Rove said about the timing, "This is her last chance. She either gets in or gets out. I think she gets in."

If Palin gets in, she'll be running on her own terms and strategy, which will be interesting. Rove has been skeptical of Palin skirting the trappings of traditional campaigning and still being able to win, but Rove has admitted politics is changing, but wouldn't admit Palin may be on the right track.

This could be because Rove and others like him have dictated much of the platform and agenda, and Palin it appears, assuming she enters the race, will dictate what she wants to address and focus on if she runs.

Will EPA Rules Destroy Power Grid?

Michele Bachmann recently stated about the EPA if she is elected president, “I guarantee you the EPA will have doors locked and lights turned off, and they will only be about conservation,” over its atrocious attack upon the American people, proposing new rules that will result in the closure of many power plants run by coal.

According to industry groups Edison Electric Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, the rules will be the “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.” They say it will cost as high as $129 billion to implement the rules, which would still result in approximately 20 percent of the power generated by coal to be lost. Coal accounts for 45 percent of the power in the United States, showing the dire circumstances we face from this socialist arm of the U.S. government.

House Republicans are the best bet to stop this attack, and they need to come together and completely stop this outrage from happening.

The EPA conjured up some unprovable statistics by saying an air-transport rule disallowing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide would alone prevent 23,000 heart attacks and 21,000 cases of bronchitis, saving about 36,000 lives by 2014. They don't add how many deaths would result from power grid failures, which would expose babies and the elderly to inclement weather, as they are the most susceptible to temperature extremes.

The attack on humanity continues from the earth worshippers.

What is the Tea Party?

As with many seemingly surprising movements throughout history, the Tea Party is one that has its roots far back in time, and has emerged in response to the realization government is out of control, and its policies, along with those of the Federal Reserve, are leading us to destruction.

That destruction will be the inevitable result of those of liberals, or progressives, which is just another name for the socialists Americans and much of the former free world all opposed in the past.

So while the Tea Party appeared to explode out of nowhere, in reality it has been building up for years, and soared onto the public scene in light of the Obama Administration, emboldened by the Carte Blanche offered it by the press, brought past socialists policies to entire new levels, even taking the healthcare bill and ramming it down the throats of the majority of Americans who opposed it.

Obama didn't start the policies leading to the emergence of the Tea Party, but his arrogance and dictator-like actions brought what has been boiling under the surface for decades to the top.

Even though it's true the Tea Party has largely backed Republican candidates, it's not because they are necessarily apologists for the Republican Party, but rather it's because Democrats have refused to listen to and heed the underlying concerns of the Party.

As to the Tea Party, it's not a political party, but is identified as that from a reference to dissent long ago when Americans opposed taxation without representation from the British. It is in fact a loose conglomeration of locally focused people.

Along with the disastrous healthcare bill forced upon the people, other laws generating and producing the resultant political dissent included, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Some see the bailing out of the banks as the major catalyst which brought people to the streets. But the refusal of Obama and the Democrats, especially, to listen their voices, was also an important part of the political uprising.

Republicans in general don't get off the hook either, as 87 percent of those organizing local tea parties say they aren't satisfied with the mainstream leaders of the Party.

At this time the Tea Party is made up of libertarian and conservative people, with a strong emphasis on lowering taxes, slashing the national debt, cutting the federal budget and reducing government spending. All of this is under the auspices of adhering to the United States Constitution, and not, as Obama has contended, interpreting it as a "moving" document. In other words, making it say whatever you want it to say to justify your policies.

On the social side, supporters of the Tea Party, according to a University of Washington poll, are very conservative, with 88 percent approving of the law put into effect by Arizona, 82 percent opposing homosexual marriage, and another 52 percent saying homosexuals have far too much political power. Obama's policy with foreign countries is also opposed by 73 percent of those identifying with the Tea Party.

From these disparities, you can see the Tea Party, in fact, is made up of libertarians and conservatives.

Contrary to media reports, a sizable percentage of those supporting Tea Party principles aren't white, with 21 percent saying they're of another race. The idea it's also a bunch of older people isn't true either, as 60 percent say they're younger than 55, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of adults 18 and over. As for Christians, 44 percent identify themselves as being born again.

On the libertarian side, and for conservatives emphasizing fiscal responsibility and smaller government, Ron Paul is largely the figurehead of the movement. Michele Bachmann is another powerful force in the movement, embracing the social issues important to conservatives, something that has always been perceived as a weakness for Ron Paul. Bachmann struggles with her signing of the Patriot Act, something many in the Tea Party movement oppose, as it granted even more power to an already too powerful government.

Even so, when asked about who best represents the local Tea Party groups, 34 percent responded with "no one," suggesting the resistance to someone co-opting the movement with a personal or national agenda.

Others identified on the national level as having influence, along with Paul and Bachmann, are Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Glenn Beck, although as time goes on, it seems the latter three are diminishing in importance, rather than gaining strength among Tea Partiers.

Having said all this, it appears at this time there is no real leader of the Tea Party, and hopefully that will remain the case; at least on the national level. Even Ron Paul, who as far as fiscal issues and big government go, has always adhered to these beliefs, and with or without the Tea Party, will continue to, has offered advice for which direction the Tea Party should go on certain issues, but hasn't attempted to step in and lead it. And I don't think he could. Neither will Michelle Bachmann, or any other visible leader; now or in the future. If they are able to, the essence of the Tea Party will disappear, and it'll be relegated to an interesting side note in the march of history, but nothing that had sustainable impact. Hopefully that won't happen.

We'll talk a lot about and follow the Tea Party as the events of our day unfold. Those who are considered as having an impact, like some of those mentioned above, we'll look more closes at, but also, and more importantly, what is happening on the local and regional levels with the movement.