The Vahoo Info Connector

The Five I’s are a simple way to remember how to look for new
volunteers to build your serving teams. Follow this process and
you can, over time, build a strong body of serving teams in your
church.

These simple five steps are: 1. Identify 2. Introduce 3. Inquire
4. Inform 5. Involve

Identify–Find somebody

You have to identify who you believe would be suitable for the
serving task you are looking to fill. Typically, this will be
someone you don’t know, and someone who is alone or whose family
tends to stay by themselves. Look for someone who appears
nervous or looking around your church. Don’t forget those rare
people who ask to be connected, and anyone who is attending a
medium-sized group activity.

Introduce–Make contact

If you do not know them personally, you must make contact! It
sounds simple but is often overlooked. Most people won’t jump
out and volunteer automatically. Smile and say hello. Briefly
tell them your name and what your level of involvement is at the
church and how long you have been coming to the church. Then
flow immediately into the next step.

Inquire–Ask about them

This must be done on contacting new people first. You must ask
if you can serve them in any way. If it is their first time or
first few times to the church and no one has approached them,
the chances are high that they came to church looking for some
help–so be ready to help them!

Your next step is to ask if they would like to serve others–ask
about their desire! Do they want to serve in some capacity? Are
they looking to get involved? Do they know about their gifts and
about their passions? Use the answers to these questions to help
connect them to others in your church community.

Inform–Tell about opportunities

The first step is to be knowledgeable about church serving
opportunities. Make sure you have a good handle on what needs to
be done (it sure doesn’t hurt to have such opportunities written
down in the weekly church bulletin!). Through questions, find
something that they have interest in doing and introduce them to
a leader in that area.

Involve–Direct them toward growth

Do not leave the new person until a “set thing” is confirmed. A
“set thing” is a follow-up time–a connection with another
church servant-leader or team member that agrees to help–where
an opportunity to learn about a particular serving ministry is
set up.

Use these Five I’s and continue to grow your ministry through
volunteer serving teams!

It seems everyone you meet these days is a self-proclaimed
psychologist. From radio talk shows, television interviews,
romance novels, weekly magazines, to cliques at work; everybody
has an opinion on the latest “mental illness.” I was first
introduced to practical psychology when I joined the United
States Air Force in 1970. It was expected that Non-Commissioned
Officers (NCOs) would become counselors to their subordinates.
Profession military education devoted entire chapters and
lectures on non-directive or eclectic counseling techniques.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was drilled into our heads. We were
sternly warned to avoid any mention of religion, but instead to
make ample use of psychological techniques.

Paul Vitz in his book “Psychology as Religion” attempts to
expose psychology for what it really is, i.e., religion. He
begins by giving the reader a brief biography on the fathers of
the modern psychology movement along with some of their
theories. The opening chapter was dry reading but I suppose
necessary as a historical backdrop. My interest peaked when I
immediately recognized Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow since I
was forced to study them for 26 years while in the military.
Vitz also discusses Carl Jung, Erich Fromn, and Rollo May as
being significant contributors to the movement.

Vitz quickly transitions into explaining the concept of
self-esteem which he promotes as the center of the entire
selfism movement. This became important to me as it seems no
matter where you turn, a lack of or poor self-esteem appears to
be the cause of every ill known to mankind. For a movement to be
so widespread to the point where psychology has been woven into
the gospel message, Vitz says that the self-esteem concept has
“no clear intellectual origins.” That’s a surprising claim
considering the impact selfism has had on academia and the
practice of counseling.

Vitz states that self-esteem should be understood as an
emotional response and not a cause. He says it is a reaction to
what we have done and what others have done to us. High
self-esteem is a desirable feeling to have (like happiness), but
the feeling itself isn’t the cause of anything. In trying to
obtain a feeling of self-esteem, the only successful way is to
do good to others or accomplish something. In so doing, you’ll
get all the self-esteem you want. However, the downside is
people begin to pursue happiness as a far greater goal than the
goal of obtaining personal holiness.

Not only is selfism a self-defeating goal for the Christian,
Vitz goes on to make the case that it is also simply bad science
and a warped philosophy. The little clinical evidence that does
exist is mostly based on empirical observations and doesn’t
stand the test of solid scientific problem solving. He exposes
flaws in each step of the process, from stating the problem,
forming and testing the hypothesis, to testing the conclusion.
He also identifies several philosophical contradictions and in
some cases, actual misrepresentations. The spread of this bad
science and faulty philosophy is believed by the author to have
contributed to the destruction of families. Additionally, the
entire recovery group mentality convinces the person with “low
self-esteem” that their ills are due to trauma inflicted on them
in the past. Recovery group therapy strokes the patient with
self-pity thereby convincing the clients are victims. Once
labeled, the “victim” now assumes the attitude of victimhood.

Values clarification has become the model taught in schools and
begins with the assumption that man is naturally good. Since the
developers of values clarification reject moral teachings, Vitz
claims that if responsible adults, i.e., teachers, don’t promote
good values then someone else will. Providing a permissive
environment supposedly nourishes the child by granting
satisfaction for the child’s desires and interests. However,
this philosophy is bankrupt because kids will assume the values
of irresponsible sources in lieu of responsible ones. This
combined with the aforementioned teachings has produced a
society of victims where everyone is pointing to blame someone
else for their misfortunes.

Vitz takes three chapters to present a Christian analysis and
criticism of humanistic self-theories. He gives the credit to
our educational system for the transformation of our society
into a culture of pure selfism. He notes that the New Age
movement has many founders, but Abraham Maslow’s theories have
been the most influential. Vitz argues his Christian critique
within a historical framework and the impact it has had on the
evolution of our society. Unfortunately he gives scant attention
to biblical references for his position, but does show how the
selfism heresy affects teachings on depression, idolatry, and
suffering. He closes his work with the observation, “never have
so many people been so self-conscious, so aware of the self as
something to be expressed…., the self has become an object to
itself.” (I think this may make the case that self-esteem has
become a new barometric indicator to the question everyone asks,
“How are you doing today?”)

Overall, Vitz’s book uses a cerebral approach in attempting to
prove that self-worship is simply a religion. Biblical
counselors looking for material to help their counselees break
free of a selfish worldview of life will be disappointed. Then
again, Vitz didn’t write his book for that purpose. Moreover, he
provides a wealth of information and a refreshing argument
against those who say, “You can’t teach religion in public
schools.” This leaves the reader with an irony: it’s not a
question of should we or should we not teach religion in public
schools, but instead, what religion will we teach; selfism or
Christianity?

You know, O Lord, the desires of my heart
Wisdom and knowledge to me impart
I long to serve you and do your will
Help me to climb this long steep hill

When I reach the long awaited top
And behold your wonders as I stop
Renew my strength, my faith, my zeal
Let me once more your presence feel

Let your great love envelope me
And your glory and power let me see
The valley has been deep and drear
Your sweet voice I long to hear

When you deliver me from this wilderness
I will tell others of your love and faithfulness
This wilderness time has not been in vain
Sweet fellowship with you I did gain

Valleys and hills are all a part of life’s plan
So we can learn to trust Jesus, not man
The top of the hill is in sight
How I rejoice, I have fought the good fight

You have set the times and the seasons
For the valleys you have your reasons
Thank you, O Lord, for your wise ways
You know the number of our days

Copyright 2005, Irvin L. Rozier

About the Author

author of My Walk with the Lord, www.selahbooks.com, preacher, retired military

In early Christianity there were many alternative views that
claimed to have authority over one another. Hundreds of rival
teachers all claimed to teach the “true doctrine of Christ” and
denounced all others as frauds. All claimed to represent “the
authentic tradition”. Jesus himself was the only authority they
all recognized.1 One of these alternative views was Gnostic
Christianity, which gained popularity in the second century.

The term Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning
‘knowledge’. This knowledge is knowledge of participation,
knowledge of union and salvation. It is existential knowledge in
contrast to scientific knowledge.2 Gnosticism was influenced by
Oriental dualism and Greek philosophies. In this dualism the
Gnostics believed that the creation of the world was bad and
that its creator, Yahweh, the Old Testament God of the Jews, was
an evil being. The God of Gnostic Christianity was a benevolent
and loving being, superior over Yahweh.3 This God was God the
Father, Jesus’ Father, the “real” God. Paul Tillich said that
Gnosis is used in three ways: as knowledge in general terms; as
mystical communion; as sexual intercourse.4 This article will be
concerned with the second as it applies to the Resurrection.

The theory that Jesus rose from the dead is the fundamental
element of the Christian faith. The idea that this event
occurred in one unique historical moment is a central theme to
the orthodox position. What makes this so ordinary is not the
claim that Jesus’ friends had seen him after his death, but that
they saw a human being. The orthodox position states that as
Christ rose bodily from the grave, so every believer should
anticipate the resurrection of the flesh. 4 Some New Testament
accounts insist on this literal view of the resurrection and the
orthodoxy of the second century insisted on it as well,
rejecting all others as heretical. Luke 24:34 states that “the
Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon Peter!”
Whatever the truth of this claim, in all honesty we can’t verify
or disprove it on simply historical grounds - we were not there
to see it happen. All we can say is that Peter claimed that the
resurrection happened and generations after him continued to
believe him, and still do.

For the Gnostic Christian, however, the person who experiences
the resurrection does not meet Jesus raised back to life in
physical form. He encounters Christ on a spiritual level, such
as dreams, ecstatic trances, visions, and spiritual
illumination. 5 The Gnostic Christian rejected Luke’s theory.
According to them, the literal view of the resurrection was
argued to have occurred in the past and because of this it was
called the “faith of fools”. 6 The Gnostics insisted that the
resurrection symbolized how Christ’s presence could be
experienced in the present. To them, it was not literal seeing
that mattered; rather, it was spiritual vision. This spiritual
vision of the resurrection, in whatever form it took, was the
moment of enlightenment - a person could be “resurrected from
the dead” right now. Christians could “receive the resurrection
while they live”. 7 Gnostics believed that taking the literal
view was ignorant.

What interested these Gnostics far more than past events
attributed to the “historical Jesus” was the possibility of
encountering the risen Christ in the present. They alleged that
the risen Christ continued to reveal himself to certain
disciples, representing how Christ’s presence could be
experienced individually in the present moment. For Christians
who wanted to know and experience Christ now, in there own
individual present moment, this belief probably seemed like a
quick fix. But I beg to differ.

It may be true that Christ’s resurrection is central to
Christianity, but I want to take it further and say, putting our
faith in the occurrence of the resurrection is actually more
central that simply stating it happened. Anyone is capable of
saying it happened; not everyone is capable of believing it
happened. There is significant difference between the two. One
requires faith, the other doesn’t. Here is where I believe the
Gnostics should not be considered Christian. In truth, we were
not there two thousand years ago to see the resurrected Christ;
the reality of the issue says that we honestly do not know if
the event occurred or not. But isn’t this what our faith is all
about, believing in something not seen? This is why the
Christian faith is so beautiful. The mystery of it gives us hope
of salvation and eternal paradise. The Gnostic Christians were
adamant about experiencing Christ’s resurrection in the present
moment, as opposed to relying on the belief that it happened in
the past, a belief that requires the central theme of
Christianity: Faith. If a person experiences something in the
present moment, they don’t need to have faith that it happened
because they were there to experience it. If the Gnostics did
not need faith, then I argue against their Christianity, for
they did not find use for the essential driving force behind a
Christian’s whole existence. I believe that the proof of their
heresy lies in the fact that Christian Orthodoxy, despite its
evolution into many different denominations and doctrines, is
still practiced by millions of people, whereas Gnosticism died
out long ago. Although people in the modern world did not
witness Christ’s bodily resurrection they still, two thousand
years later, put their faith in the hope that it did. And
sometimes, a simple hope is all a person needs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. The Gnostic Gospels, Pg 7 2. A History of
Christian Thought, Pg. 33 3. Exploring Christianity, Pg. 40 4.
The Gnostic Gospel, Pg. 4 5. Ibid, Pg. 5 6. Ibid, Pg. 11 7.
Ibid, Pg. 12

REFERENCES 1. Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought.
Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York, NY. 1968.

2. Monk, Robert, and Joseph Stamey. Exploring Christianity: An
Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1984.

3. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Random House:New York.
1979.