Do pets go to heaven?

Yes, if they were loved by a human.  

You see, humans only have souls due to Heavenly Father breathing the breath of life into Adam.  

But as children of our Heavenly Father, we breath in a bit of our souls into those pets who we have as companions in this earthly incarnation.  

We may also know the truth of this by the simple realization that heaven would not be heaven for us without those we love.  

And finally, we may know this as cats and dogs are not born with original sin and never fell from grace.  

What is that heaven like?  

For starters, they go there at once, without needing to wait on any Judgement Day.  They are there in waiting until we get to our destination.  And if we fail to arrive, then they still remain in their heaven.  

But what is the nature of their "pre-heaven", so to speak, until they get to join us in ours?  

For cats, it is a place of endless fields of catnip, growing fresh under a warm sun, where the rabbits are all deaf, the mice are all blind, and the birds are all slow and low flying.

Where all laps are warm and inviting, and random bushes grow brightly colored balls of yarn, and at night, little red dots dance and caper under the cool, but not too cool, skies.  

As for dogs, they too have a heaven, but my prophetic inspiration only applies to where my pets - all cats - go to.  

That's all. You may know this to be true because a God that didn't have it that way would not be the just and merciful God of the Holy Scriptures. 

Another Battle Lost

I'm sad to report that in the Culture Wars, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just lost a battle with LBGTQ Nation.

Not the entire war, mind you, but a crucial battle nonetheless.

It was hard fought, but fifth columnists within their church made it impossible to maintain position.

Leaders of the Mormons are attempting to characterize this as a "strategic withdrawal" and not a real retreat at all, but LBGTQ forces have been quick to trumpet this as a victory.

Jehovah's Witnesses, various small denominations of Pentecostal and Apostolic churches, the Amish, and of course, the Seventh-day Adventists are still holding fast. Besieged on all sides, and with allies melting away, they still maintain that "it is an abomination" means "it is an abomination".

Yet the loss of sixteen million Christians who had been previously thought to be lead by stalwart leaders who would never give in has been a blow to everyone's morale. And given aid and comfort to many in those churches who see this as a sign to redouble their efforts to sabotage the war from within.

This also comes on the heels of another recent battle, in which the United Methodists had won a rather hollow victory against LBGTQ forces, but it was at such a price that many experts are waiting for crumbling of their resolve.

Keep praying.

Spirituality

If you can't commit to an hour or two per week at church...

If you can't be bothered to be part of a church family that helps you and lets you help others...

If you can't humble yourself to go and learn more of the Christ you say you love...

If you can't take your kids to where they can see others of your faith, or be there as an example to the kids of others...

If you can't donate to a cause larger than yourself with your brothers and sisters in Christ...

If the guy who's cross you claim you'd have carried isn't worth the bother of getting dressed up once a week...

Then your "Spirituality" is worthless - at best.

Political Praying?

Last night at Bible Study at the small Midwestern church I go to, I was treated to - as usual - a long prayer about Donald Trump. This after a recent Sabbath service in which the sermon started with playing a recording of Trump speaking about faith, then continued on into a praise of his administration.

Understand, that while I feel that praying for politicians - any politicians - to have wisdom and goodness and courage is a good thing, and to pray that they draw nearer to Christ is a good thing, I do feel that lines can be crossed.

Like when the prayer (or a sermon) leaves off those general good wishes, and is more along the lines of "And we pray that Congress will see the wisdom of the wall Trump wants, so that those caravans trying to come in to hurt us will know to stay behind, and only come in legally, or better stay home and fix their problems."

Now maybe you personally believe that, and maybe you don't, but for me, whether I could agree with such or not (I don't) I find it distasteful that this is put in a public prayer to the Almighty.

I also find it distasteful in a Bible Study to be studying about a person healed by Jesus - who was then told not to sin again, lest the ailment come back worse - and hear that among other reasons for a person not wishing to be healed, maybe a reason could be that they want to keep drawing government welfare.

But such sermons, such prayers and such assessments can be made, and it raise no eyebrow. But when I heard the minister speak about how the crippled of some foreign nation had to beg in the streets, I did raise an eyebrow.

By calmly pointing out that those other nations had beggars in the streets as there were none of those socialistic welfare payments being made to them. And that our own streets would be as clogged, if we stopped disability checks, and checks for the elderly and aid to children.

Oh, you could have heard a pin drop then.

And yet it is true. We all pay taxes and we'll all always pay taxes and even if those programs were stopped, it's not like the government is going to send us all fat refund checks. Our choice is not then whether we live in a Capitalistic Ayn Rand Utopia or give welfare, but whether we are taxed for some welfare, or taxed the same rate for more "Congressional fact finding missions" to vacation paradises or billion dollar bailouts for Wall Street.

I'll choose the welfare payments.

I like social security to help the elderly. And no, the old folks did not earn it, they are receiving other people's taxes, not their own. I like disability checks to the blind so they don't have to hold a cup on a street corner. I like that the crippled get apartments and wheelchairs. I like that 12 year old kids do not - like when "Huckleberry Finn" was wrote in non-Socialist 19th century America - grow up smoking and drinking and running around malnourished and not knowing how to read.

We are a big enough and wealthy enough nation to provide public roads to all and street lights to all. And none who complain about welfare ever imagine that such means that, too. And thus the nation that can provide free bailouts to billionaires and free roads and lamps to the middle class can certainly stop complaining about providing free aid to the poor, the elderly, the sick, the orphan.

And really, when Jesus was here on Earth, was he busy granting favors to the rich? Help to the middle class? Complaining about taxes? Advocating for one Caesar or another? Or was He giving aid to the very classes of people that we are told to forsake now?

Can I get an "Amen"?

The Mathematics of Mormon Membership

If you're a revenue and influence hungry church - which is all of them - then the most important mission is to gain and retain members.  It's math, but not so simple as you think.

You cannot just assume that each member is giving, or even what percent each is giving.  You cannot assume a one to one ratio between Membership and Supporter (financially) of the church.

Let's examine this further.

S = M x R x T

Wherein S is for the Total Financial Supporters of the church, M is the Total Membership, R is the Percent Actively Retained and T is the Percent of the Actively Retained who will become Tithers.

That would tell you - if you had the membership list, figures on how many stay the course, and how many tithe - the number of people who are actually supporting the church financially.

To derive the current Annual Revenue, you'd need another equation.

R = S x (.10 x I)

Wherein R is for the Annual Revenue, S is the total number of Supporters and I is for the average Income of each Tither.

That would tell you - if you had data on the Total Number of Supporters, and the average Income of that group - what you could reasonably expect in Annual Revenue.

For those unfamiliar with why translating these things into equations is important, it's because it allows you then to more readily see what might increase revenue.  And what might not have as much effect.

As an example of what probably would not work, take "I", the "average income" of each tither.  Sure, mathematically, raising the average income of each member of your church would result in more revenue with which to do good works or aggrandize leadership, or in most cases, both.

But any church's power to raise the personal incomes of their members is very scant.  They can, and do, encourage thrift, savings, abstention from various - and costly - vices, and good work ethics.  So a cynic might think that besides those things being good in themselves, that most all church's have an ulterior motive to promote those things.

That only succeeds broadly, though, and after you've already preached all those virtues, there's not much more you can do past that.  The average income level of church groups is actually very stable in the United States, and various think tanks can - and do - tally up which faiths and/or denominations are the most and least well off.

It will come as no surprise that those with the greatest emphasis on those virtues are in fact among the wealthiest of faiths, when it comes to the individual Supporters.  Judaism and Mormonism are prime examples.  (And remember, I said "individual Supporters", not "individual Members", many who are on the membership list, but not Actively Retained, let alone being a Supporter.)

It might come as a surprise to some that other churches - quite a few, nowadays - have a wealthy base of individual Supporters, not by focusing on stern morality, clean living and hard work, but by becoming Social Do-Gooder Clubs, where those of the upper middle classes can have a pretense of piety at a very watered down church while soothing their consciences with all the "good works" being done by that church.  The Methodists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are prime examples of this.

If one were founding a new church, one might desire to focus on that which would raise "I", but for any of the established churches, "I" is already a given, by focus on the difficult virtues, or focus on charitable do-gooding, and not likely to go much up or down.

You might think then that focusing on "T" would be the trick.  To encourage more to tithe.  Yet most churches find this very difficult, because there is little extra for a member to gain - socially speaking - by tithing.  If one attends at all, one is regarded as just as good as any other, and so whether you tithe or not, you're still going to have that good Christian status.  Mormons have got around this by giving "temple recommends" to those who tithe, and that helps - a little.

To get around that problem in general, most non-Mormon churches set it up so that only tithers and/or other large and generous donors can be in leadership positions.  Board positions, favored assignments, special titles and such.  And that helps, to a certain degree, but there are only so many of such positions, and after those positions are filled, new comers, however generous, can at best vie for maybe knocking off the pedestal some current tither.

Mormons have done this, too, but with the other churches, that's all they have, they do not bar members who won't tithe from "The Lord's House".

As most have already guessed, the two surest ways of increasing Revenue would thus have to do with "M", as in increasing the total membership and/or "R", as in increasing the percent of those Actively Retained.

Actively Retained means that instead of they just having their names on the membership rolls, they actually come most every week.  At the least.  Past that, it is hoped that they are engaged with the other members, perhaps volunteering in some outreaches, taking some minor responsibilities (usher, printing bulletins, etc.) and coming to various church functions besides the worship service.

Now, the equations above show how to derive expected Annual Revenue of a church, but to figure out how to increase that, you'd have to know how to gain more Supporters, Supporters who will be tithing off of whatever income they have.

NS = C x R x T

Wherein NS is the total number of New Supporters in a year, C is the total number of those Converted to the faith/church that year, R is the percent Actively Retained and T is the percent who will become Tithers.

That would tell you how great an increase you could expect in New Supporters each year, if you had figures on how many were Converted in that year, how many Actively Retained and how many one could expect to become Tithers.

Persuading any body to give 10% of their income off the top is actually very hard for any church, for reasons mentioned before, but each church does try, nonetheless.  Sermons/Messages mentioning "giving back" to the Lord and "sustaining the faith" and "supporting the church" are easily a monthly event, and a mention - in or out of the sermon/message itself - can be expected on this topic almost every week.

Yet given how little an effect that has - most Tithers are doing it or not, long before hearing from any guy up front - you can well see why churches focus so much on missionary efforts to recruit more members.  And "fun" activities to engage those who are already members or just converted.

This theory, and it's basic math, can be tested.  Looking about churches in America, there are few who have not took dramatic steps to try and increase and retain converts.  And before any assume that this is not for financial reasons, but for simply following Christ's mandate to "Go ye, into all the world, and preach my gospel to every creature.", consider the manner in which the increase is typically achieved.

It is achieved by making it easier to join.  Picture a leader of a Chess Club, he is enjoying the dues from ten of the brainiest kids in school.  And if chess is the only goal, not revenue, he will be satisfied with that.  What if you saw him try to water down chess, though?  What if he proposed and rammed through changes like "You need not know how to play?" or "Checkers are substantially like Chess" or "We're really more about all forms of games"?

One might then suspect that revenue - not revelation - was the goal.

Observe America's churches.  The stampede of the left leaning churches to the acceptance of fornication, divorce, homosexuality, "moderate" drinking and such.  What is that but attempting to include those who previously would have stayed away, not wishing to hear how they had to change their habits and lifestyles?

Or the stampede of the more "Bible based" churches to having rock and roll bands, light shows, breakfast bars and everything light, fun and fluffy, as a background to the minister telling the crowd how bad all the left leaning churches are.  While still accepting tattoos, long hair, sloppy clothes, premarital sex, divorce - oh, pretty much everything but out and out homosexuality.  And even then, contorting themselves to "love the sinner (who has no intention of repenting) and hate the sin (which will continue on as, oh yeah, the sinner wasn't called to repent for fear of losing him)".

All of that is simply a drive for more members from a previously excluded base.  And to retain members who have trouble "staying the course" on all the difficult counsel against sinning found in the Holy Scriptures.

Everything each church does, on the left and the right.  And if it is not specifically on the issue of homosexuality or a lessening emphasis on vices, they will still try to make church as easy, as fun, as fluffy and entertaining as possible, not for drawing people to Christ, but for bumping up the only variables in the Mathematics of Money they can control - total number of new converts, and total number of actively retained members.

Now comes the Mormon church.  Re-branding itself as "not Mormon" now so as to attract even more members.  Making the hours less and lighter.  Getting rid of pesky and time consuming non-fun activities like home teaching and Family Home Evening.  Even taking the long overdue step of appointing two minorities to the Quorum of the Twelve, which was the right thing, but one suspects done for foreign membership enhancing - and thus revenue enhancing - reasons.

In all this - and more - they are but making it easier to join, easier to stay, and thus hoping to ramp up the only number they have some control over, in the hopes - probably justified - that it will then work out to more revenue.

Not more souls saved, by the way.  One does not save souls by making Christ's message easier and shorter.  One does not train the children of the Heavenly Father to become perfected by telling them it's okay to forsake monthly visits to those in need, or get around to an evening with your eternal family "as you can".

No, the only "inspiration" here is in the category of "how to bring in more money".  No doubt so as to raise those "modest stipends" of $120,000 yearly to a living wage.

Small Town Pharisees

An email I got today from a church that - mercifully - I do not attend.  It shows well that extravagant spending is NOT confined to national televangelists, but can rear it's ugly head locally.

Here was the pitch from Real Life Church in Springfield, Illinois, which to be fair, does do good works:

"RLC, as a church, would like to surprise Pastor Clint and Pastor Brian by celebrating their anniversaries next year, with a week's vacation in Florida, for them and their families.  A condo has been donated for a week of their individual choosing. Funds in the amount of $5,000 are needed to cover flights, rental cars, and food. If you would like to participate in celebrating our pastors, you can give cash, or a check made out to Ken Morris, to either Nancy or Ken. Remember it is a surprise!"

My reply, in which I pretend to believe them that it's a surprise, even though we all know the Pastors are CLEARLY in on this:

"I've seen first hand some of the good works this church of yours does, but if you're so flush that you can have fundraisers for all expense paid Fun in the Sun vacations for the Pastors, then you hardly need my aid.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to study the New Testament, with an eye to finding the passage where one of the Disciples asked the multitudes to dig deep to send Jesus to sunny Cairo for the winter.  I mean, because surely if Pastor Clint and Brian deserve such, our Savior must have, too, right?"

Videos are not outreach!

"Go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel to every creature!"

This was not a request, but a command, so the question of evangelical outreach should never be a question.  We are to do it, we're commanded to do it.  And looking at it in faith, it's a "get to", not a have to anyway!

Therefore, to charge for doing what Christ commanded is an abomination, and should NEVER be done.  

"But...but...Dean, are you saying that ministers should not be paid, that the 'laborer is not worthy of his hire'?"

Of course not.  Ministers do far more than simply preach a sermon, and the time and effort that they must expend is well worthy of compensation.  Yet even then, there is a sense that the compensation should not be "too" much, and while reasonable people can disagree on exactly where that line would be, all understand that there is such a line.

The minister who is then given nothing but a cot in the back of the church and the right to grow potatoes in the yard - this is thought as too little.  The minister with fleets of private jets and minks for his wife, this is thought of as too much.

Some where in between, we are comfortable.  Usually any where in the middle class range, be it modestly lower middle or quietly upper middle.

But what of video series?  Video presentations?  Then it should be at cost or not at all.  

Because how many times can one man be paid for the same thing?  How many times should he be?  The Apostle Paul certainly received expenses, he got to have room and board provided, but no where does it say that if the Thessalonians numbered 100 he got 10 drachmas, and if they numbered 200, so that twice as many wanted to hear his letter to them, that he then got 20 drachmas!

A minister may have gave a great sermon - take Lee Venden for example.  But was he not paid to create such?  And does he not desire it to be heard by as many as possible?  Has it not been a calling?  Has not the command of Christ applied to him as well as any of us?

It seems likely, that if he is about to ascend to the pulpit, and an extra person steps inside to hear him, that his salary does not go up.  Why would it?  He's paid for the effort of creating and performing the sermon, as to how many hear it, it takes no more time and effort for 100 to hear - or 101, or 1,001.

Yet he films it.  And it is then recorded.  And this he sells world wide.  Seven days a week.  Oh, for reasons of delicacy, he won't have his staff laboring on the Sabbath, but the answering machine assures the caller that it can still be ordered immediately at www.whateverdotcom, yes even on the Sabbath.

$36 for a five disc series, to take one example.  "All about Jesus".  And that's a good topic.  Sure, there were 66 whole books wrote about it, well over two thousand years ago, but I guess a fresh take never hurt.  And certainly if only 10,000 people world-wide ordered that, it sure wouldn't hurt his budget.

See, each disc only costs about 30 cents to make.  So five discs to ten thousand people would be about $15,000 that Lee would have to spend.  But let's be safe, assume I forgot a lot, and double that.  Ol' Lee then has to shell out $30,000 for those folks to hear his message.

How much does he get compensated?  Well, at $36 coming in from each of the 10,000, that's $360,000.  Hmm.  I'm not mathematician, nor a fancy dan CPA, but I'm guessing that he's managing to squeak even in this arrangement.

But I'm just picking on Lee because he's handy.  I'm sure he does just tons of great stuff with the money.  Really.  I guess.  But still, kind of sucks for those who would have desired to hear a great message, but don't have $36 to drop.  And a far cry from how Jesus did it.

Oh, remember Jesus?  Yeah, he gave out food first, healed some, then preached.  Had he followed Lee's model, he could have charged each person who came to the Mount to hear his sermon five drachmas, then did good works with all the money that would have rolled in.

What's the real point here?  Lee is the least of these who feed off the desire of the already converted to learn more of what they already knew.  He's the least of those who convince the faithful that only through this or that series can a "real" evangelical outreach be had.

There are those who charge far more than Lee.  Those who charge us not $36, but $3,600 and even upwards of $5,000, for video series with glitz and glamor, polish and finesse, such that if we only dig deep and buy them, we can advertise them to the community and just watch the converts roll in!

And last time, how many did we get?  

Zero.  We had a guy, his mom, what?  Any more visit?  Anyone?  Buehler?  Buehler? 

Pastor Cory Jackson, from the Michigan Conference, spoke at Bible Chapel last night.  He said, ""Do we Adventists know the pulse of our community? Because if we don't, we cannot be missionaries to them! We spend money on another video series of the Book of Daniel in Prophecy and get, what? Five people attend? And most of them from our church? And yes, we all enjoyed the video very much! But when we offer food, three hundred respond! So we order another video series? Really? We have to learn the pulse of our community! We have to show and act the gospel, not just speak it!"

Amen.

Here, take a look at this.  George printed it on his printer, at home, this morning.  He got to Bible Chapel half an hour early and passed it out in the neighborhood.  Total cost?  Yeah, it'd be well under a buck, and no where near a thousand dollars.

And six people then attended Bible Chapel who never had before.  

Now maybe they'll no more get baptized then the few who showed up for "A Pale Horse Rides" or whatever that was we purchased, but I'm guessing that we can afford to do what George did a heckuva lot more times than we can afford such videos!

He spent several thousand times LESS!  And had twice as many show up!

Or consider our food pantry.  We aid 16 plus homes each month.  Nearly 100 separate individuals receive food.  And a spiritual message.  And our name recognition is greatly increased.  

Cost to run it?  Over $500 per month.  Cost to the church?  $200 per month.  By being proper stewards of the tithes and offerings, they joined with a local charity, that kicks in a matching $200 and picks up the $150 in delivery costs.

$5,000 for three people?  Or $5,000 for OVER TWO YEARS of feeding Jesus's sheep?  Because that's what $5,000 would get - it would pay $200 per month for two whole years, with a bit left over.  

How many is the food ministry bringing in?  Well, it's brought in at least one person who consistently visits and works on the food program.  And it's aided another who is regularly taking lessons.  And it's aided another couple that is thinking of joining.  Is it the cause?

No.  But it's a "contributing factor".  And none can doubt that someone will come and be baptized one day, who learned of us first through a bag of food.  Or our advertisements - because every halfway and sober living home we tend to has one of our postcards on a bulletin board or refrigerator.

Cost benefit analysis boring?  Need more reasons to shun over priced video presentations?

Well, what would Jesus do?  What did he do?  Did he say, "Feed my sheep?"  Or play them a movie?

What's that?  There were no movies back then?  Well, there were no cures for leprosy or blindness, and he did those miracles.  Why couldn't he have caused a giant screen to show an amazing video series with explosions and fire and dragons and such?  Give the people on the Mount a real show, not just a sermon about boring beatitudes?  

I think we err to stray from Christ's example.  No, it's not just about food as an evangelical ministry, that is just an example, and one that I'm obviously personally familiar with.  Christ also healed the sick, visited the imprisoned, clothed the naked, and in general aided those who needed aid - and he did such FIRST, then gave the verbal message.

Show - then tell.  Show by actions.  Not tell by glitz and glamor.  

It need not be a food ministry, there are other means of evangelizing, from the cards that George printed in a moment at pennies of cost, to a store ran by us that gives out clothes and furnishing to any who have need.  

But no where in this are over-priced videos that only preach to the choir.  No where in this is wasting the hard earned donated dollars on stuff that should only have cost 30 cents.  No where in this is making Lee and men far worse than Lee rich while those locally go without.