Thursday, April 07, 2011
Sunday, April 03, 2011
My Friends Church, Skyline
Setting in Skyline church this morning in their 11 AM service. Just watched Clay Davis lead worship.
My heart is warmed by their success. Clay did an great job. Nicole sang also and did an amazing job.
I could not help but get emotional watching them fulfilling the calling on their life. I know I am not suppose to be jealous however, I have a holy jealousy, I would love to do what they do again. I miss leading people into worship. I miss.....just fill in the blank.
Their pastor is a great guy and has done a lot for the kingdom of God here in CA. I thank God for him.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
My heart is warmed by their success. Clay did an great job. Nicole sang also and did an amazing job.
I could not help but get emotional watching them fulfilling the calling on their life. I know I am not suppose to be jealous however, I have a holy jealousy, I would love to do what they do again. I miss leading people into worship. I miss.....just fill in the blank.
Their pastor is a great guy and has done a lot for the kingdom of God here in CA. I thank God for him.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Father Junipero Serra Trail,San Diego,United States
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Familiarity breeds contempt.
I have some mixed feelings about this idiom. I am going to talk about this from at least 2 different perspectives.
1st perspective comes from the leader or superior Point of view. I learned this from my directors at college or from celebrity type pastors or evangelist. I have problems with this ideal.
2nd perspective must come from the subordinate point of view. I have a problem with this side of the coin also.
First of all, we must always look to our example for life and living...Jesus. He was the greatest leader, pastor and celebrity of his day, and our day also.
The view of the person considered the leader is " I must keep everyone at a distance because if they get to close they will not respect me". This is not entirely wrong, this is a learned behavior of most successful leaders. It is not good, but to some degree it is an unfortunate necessity to maintain proper perspective from the subordinate. This must be changed! Leaders do this because in most cases they must, because subordinates tend to forget how to respect and to view leaders. This brings me to the perspective of the subordinate. The subordinates have been trained to respect leaders that keep them at a distance because they don't know the leader. They don't know the leader because the leader knows that the subordinate "can't handle the truth" so the safe thing to do is keep them at a distance. This is a cycle, and a bad cycle at that.
Here is the best way to handle this problem. Leaders must get close, and have messy relationships with subordinates. Subordinates must understand that respect for leaders is something that is GIVEN. We must give respect because God has set this in order from the beginning of time. The best example of this is David in the bible. He was put in a position under a retard leader, a leader that tried to kill him and was insecure because David was already loved by the people and respected and chosen by God to be his successor. However, David paid him all the respect that he DESERVED as a leader, the king!! God blessed David because he never failed to maintain the proper perspective for his king.
So that is the answer. Leaders lead correctly and people will respect you, if they don't, it is Gods problem not yours. Subordinates respect correctly and if the leader does not deserve your respect, that is Gods problem not yours.
I will post again soon on how this pertains to worship, and the way we must approach the throne of God.
Thanks for reading and God bless you!!
Kris Barger
Remember,
Please pass the salt
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
1st perspective comes from the leader or superior Point of view. I learned this from my directors at college or from celebrity type pastors or evangelist. I have problems with this ideal.
2nd perspective must come from the subordinate point of view. I have a problem with this side of the coin also.
First of all, we must always look to our example for life and living...Jesus. He was the greatest leader, pastor and celebrity of his day, and our day also.
The view of the person considered the leader is " I must keep everyone at a distance because if they get to close they will not respect me". This is not entirely wrong, this is a learned behavior of most successful leaders. It is not good, but to some degree it is an unfortunate necessity to maintain proper perspective from the subordinate. This must be changed! Leaders do this because in most cases they must, because subordinates tend to forget how to respect and to view leaders. This brings me to the perspective of the subordinate. The subordinates have been trained to respect leaders that keep them at a distance because they don't know the leader. They don't know the leader because the leader knows that the subordinate "can't handle the truth" so the safe thing to do is keep them at a distance. This is a cycle, and a bad cycle at that.
Here is the best way to handle this problem. Leaders must get close, and have messy relationships with subordinates. Subordinates must understand that respect for leaders is something that is GIVEN. We must give respect because God has set this in order from the beginning of time. The best example of this is David in the bible. He was put in a position under a retard leader, a leader that tried to kill him and was insecure because David was already loved by the people and respected and chosen by God to be his successor. However, David paid him all the respect that he DESERVED as a leader, the king!! God blessed David because he never failed to maintain the proper perspective for his king.
So that is the answer. Leaders lead correctly and people will respect you, if they don't, it is Gods problem not yours. Subordinates respect correctly and if the leader does not deserve your respect, that is Gods problem not yours.
I will post again soon on how this pertains to worship, and the way we must approach the throne of God.
Thanks for reading and God bless you!!
Kris Barger
Remember,
Please pass the salt
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, March 07, 2011
This true quote says everything about bankers
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” –
Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928) and reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928) and reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The Waltons to Desperate Housewives
How did we get from "Leave it Beaver" and "The Waltons" to "Desperate Housewives" and "The Family Guy"???? The family unit is extinct from the public eye.
Here's my take. Church look inward before we point fingers at "The World". My bible says greater Is he that is in you than he that is in the world.
If the world has lost a healthy ideal of what a family looks like let me submit to you they never knew anyway. The compromise has to have happened here first. We can't expect them to act in anyway different from what they are.
Our light must be so bright that darkness must run and hide!
Here is my suggestion.
"BE WHAT YOU DESIRE TO SEE"
Kristopher Barger
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Here's my take. Church look inward before we point fingers at "The World". My bible says greater Is he that is in you than he that is in the world.
If the world has lost a healthy ideal of what a family looks like let me submit to you they never knew anyway. The compromise has to have happened here first. We can't expect them to act in anyway different from what they are.
Our light must be so bright that darkness must run and hide!
Here is my suggestion.
"BE WHAT YOU DESIRE TO SEE"
Kristopher Barger
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Monday, February 14, 2011
On Love..From Franklin Sanders' newsletter
It's Valentine's Day & I can't shake out of my head the words of that great Southerner Andrew Nelson Lytle: "The opposite of love is not hate but power." Long have I turned that over in my mind, & the more I turn, the deeper Lytle's insight drives.
The essence of the tyrant is that he wants to be God and make everyone over in his own image. He hates the reckless variety a generous God has lavished on creation because it is The Other -- not himself.
The lover, on the other hand, desires not to make over his beloved after his own image. Far from it, he only wants his beloved to become more & more herself, more and more what she and she alone is, ever fresh, ever astonishing, ever OTHER than himself.
In the tyrant's tight monistic world, love is impossible, because there is no "other," only The One -- the self. Love is only possible where an Other is.
Lytle was right. The opposite of love is not hate, it's power.
Argentum et aurum comparanda sunt --
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The essence of the tyrant is that he wants to be God and make everyone over in his own image. He hates the reckless variety a generous God has lavished on creation because it is The Other -- not himself.
The lover, on the other hand, desires not to make over his beloved after his own image. Far from it, he only wants his beloved to become more & more herself, more and more what she and she alone is, ever fresh, ever astonishing, ever OTHER than himself.
In the tyrant's tight monistic world, love is impossible, because there is no "other," only The One -- the self. Love is only possible where an Other is.
Lytle was right. The opposite of love is not hate, it's power.
Argentum et aurum comparanda sunt --
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Great Quote
When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you-when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -you may know that your society is doomed.
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged, page 413
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged, page 413
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Friday, February 04, 2011
Happy birthday darling
Nothing says I love you like Rigatoni "D" !!!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Create... Be creative
God is a creator, not an imitator. The most God-like thing you can do is create. Write songs, think of new things, create new iPhone apps!!! LOL New ideals should flow from the Church, no need to copy. The God of this world wants to steal your creativity, do not let him.
God told me this as I watched a girl sing a song she had wrote in church this morn.
I pray for new ideals to flow from me for the Church.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
God told me this as I watched a girl sing a song she had wrote in church this morn.
I pray for new ideals to flow from me for the Church.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Sturbucks @ Church
I love church and I love coffee. This is a good place to be!!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone 4
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Great argument.....Pro Gun
I cannot attest to who wrote this or where it comes from. Fact is, it is still a great argument for guns.
"The Gun Is Civilization!" Interesting take and one you don't hear much.
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank You
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
"The Gun Is Civilization!" Interesting take and one you don't hear much.
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank You
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Gillette, the worst a church can get...
One summer morning in 1895, an ambitious traveling salesman found that the edge of his straight razor had dulled. King Gillette later said that the idea for an entirely new kind of razor, with a disposable blade, flashed into his mind as he looked in irritation at his dull blade. King Gillette had been searching for the right product, one that had to be used--and replaced--regularly, around which to build a business. His innovation in shaving technology was just such a product. Another safety razor, the Star, was already on the market at the time but, like the straight razor it was meant to replace, its blade needed stropping before each use and eventually had to be professionally honed. Gillette envisioned an inexpensive, double-edged blade that could be clamped over a handle, used until it was dull, and then discarded.
Gillette spent the next six years trying to perfect his safety razor. Scientists and toolmakers he consulted were pessimistic, and thought the idea impractical. Gillette, 40 years old at the time and a successful salesman, inventor, and writer, did not give up. In 1901 he joined forces with William Nickerson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-educated machinist. Nickerson developed production processes to make Gillette's idea a reality, while Gillette formed the American Safety Razor Company to raise the estimated $5,000 they needed to begin manufacturing the razor. Gillette became president of the company and head of a three-man directorate. Production of the razor began early in 1903.
The renamed Gillette Safety Razor Company began advertising its product in October 1903, with the first ad appearing in Systems Magazine. The company sold 51 razor sets at $5 each and an additional 168 blades--originally at 20 for $1--that first year.
In 1904 Gillette received a patent on the safety razor; sales rose to 90,884 razors and 123,648 blades that year.
Old man billeted had a great ideal that changed the way shaving had been done for a very long time. It worked great for shaving, however it does not work very well when applied to the church.
Churches need a straight razor for a pastor not a disposable razor.
It is my opinion that the most healthy churches in the world have staff members with the longest tenures. When I left college/bible school I was ready to go and minister as a staff pastor wherever God chose for me. I had full intentions of staying at every church I ministered at for a very long time. I had a philosophy that if I could not go somewhere and stay for 10 years or longer that I would not go at all. Yet, somehow the longest tenure I had at any church was just shy of 2 1/2 years. Why did my family and those churches have to go through the pain of separation when we had worked so hard getting to know each other so that we could minister to our community? I can't believe that is the model that is set for us as a healthy church.
I do not think I need to draw the picture of sheep knowing the voice of their Shepard or how a church body is a family. People want to hear a word from God from someone they trust. Someone that has struggled, laughed, and cried with them. They trust someone who has married them and buried their loved ones, someone who has built a life with them.
As I set in church this morning I listen to a pastor that has pastored these people for 34 years.
Churches do not need deposable pastors, they need pastors that for all intents and purposes are permanent. It is a rare thing to find a pastor that has been at the same church for 10 to 15 years. Support pastors make it even less! How does a pastor become part of a church family in just 2 or even 5 years? How does an "outsider" lead a group of people effectively?
I pray that this changes in the churches in America.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Gillette spent the next six years trying to perfect his safety razor. Scientists and toolmakers he consulted were pessimistic, and thought the idea impractical. Gillette, 40 years old at the time and a successful salesman, inventor, and writer, did not give up. In 1901 he joined forces with William Nickerson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-educated machinist. Nickerson developed production processes to make Gillette's idea a reality, while Gillette formed the American Safety Razor Company to raise the estimated $5,000 they needed to begin manufacturing the razor. Gillette became president of the company and head of a three-man directorate. Production of the razor began early in 1903.
The renamed Gillette Safety Razor Company began advertising its product in October 1903, with the first ad appearing in Systems Magazine. The company sold 51 razor sets at $5 each and an additional 168 blades--originally at 20 for $1--that first year.
In 1904 Gillette received a patent on the safety razor; sales rose to 90,884 razors and 123,648 blades that year.
Old man billeted had a great ideal that changed the way shaving had been done for a very long time. It worked great for shaving, however it does not work very well when applied to the church.
Churches need a straight razor for a pastor not a disposable razor.
It is my opinion that the most healthy churches in the world have staff members with the longest tenures. When I left college/bible school I was ready to go and minister as a staff pastor wherever God chose for me. I had full intentions of staying at every church I ministered at for a very long time. I had a philosophy that if I could not go somewhere and stay for 10 years or longer that I would not go at all. Yet, somehow the longest tenure I had at any church was just shy of 2 1/2 years. Why did my family and those churches have to go through the pain of separation when we had worked so hard getting to know each other so that we could minister to our community? I can't believe that is the model that is set for us as a healthy church.
I do not think I need to draw the picture of sheep knowing the voice of their Shepard or how a church body is a family. People want to hear a word from God from someone they trust. Someone that has struggled, laughed, and cried with them. They trust someone who has married them and buried their loved ones, someone who has built a life with them.
As I set in church this morning I listen to a pastor that has pastored these people for 34 years.
Churches do not need deposable pastors, they need pastors that for all intents and purposes are permanent. It is a rare thing to find a pastor that has been at the same church for 10 to 15 years. Support pastors make it even less! How does a pastor become part of a church family in just 2 or even 5 years? How does an "outsider" lead a group of people effectively?
I pray that this changes in the churches in America.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I am mad at blog press
I just made a post and lost everything!!!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Guard your heart
I been thinking about my heart and true motivations.
Also, i have been thinking about the hearts of other people.
Exhibit A: Some people do good things but are all dead on the inside and think bad things and live good but do it not from the heart out of sincerity.
Exhibit B: Other people I know do things they should not, and have problems that some folks look down upon. However, these people are the ones I would have come by and help when my car is broke down or are more likely to spot me 10 bucks for lunch and never even want it back. These kind of people have what we all like to say "a good heart".
What was it about David that made him a man after Gods own heart?
Guard your heart above all else,
for it determines the course of your life. Proverbs
Do you think mean stuff about people? Are you convicted as soon as you do? Do you have a good heart?
A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart, and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart. What you say flows from what is in your heart. Luke 6:45
Your heart can trick you. You must know your heart. Ask yourself the hard questions.
God knows your heart. He knows it better than you do. Exercise having a good heart! How do you do that? Listen to that small voice that says "that was not nice" or "you really should say this or do that". Pay attention, listen, Gods Holy Spirit will guide you in all truth. He will not trick you like your own heart will. He will not never lie to you.
Here is my prayer today!!!
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts. Psalms 139: 23
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Also, i have been thinking about the hearts of other people.
Exhibit A: Some people do good things but are all dead on the inside and think bad things and live good but do it not from the heart out of sincerity.
Exhibit B: Other people I know do things they should not, and have problems that some folks look down upon. However, these people are the ones I would have come by and help when my car is broke down or are more likely to spot me 10 bucks for lunch and never even want it back. These kind of people have what we all like to say "a good heart".
What was it about David that made him a man after Gods own heart?
Guard your heart above all else,
for it determines the course of your life. Proverbs
Do you think mean stuff about people? Are you convicted as soon as you do? Do you have a good heart?
A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart, and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart. What you say flows from what is in your heart. Luke 6:45
Your heart can trick you. You must know your heart. Ask yourself the hard questions.
God knows your heart. He knows it better than you do. Exercise having a good heart! How do you do that? Listen to that small voice that says "that was not nice" or "you really should say this or do that". Pay attention, listen, Gods Holy Spirit will guide you in all truth. He will not trick you like your own heart will. He will not never lie to you.
Here is my prayer today!!!
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts. Psalms 139: 23
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Tommy Barnett quote this morning while praying
God, don't help me preach a great sermon, help me deliver a great truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)