The following is a reply to which I wish to draw greater attention:

Hello Tony,

You are welcome for the comment I left on your site. Thank you for taking the extra step of commenting over here and for stating that you like this website.

I read your clarifying post concerning the Cross and Resurrection. I too believe that the Crucifixion was the climax. There is no greater love. The Resurrection is the result or fruit. The Cross and Resurrection are inextricable. Taking up the Cross is love and is resurrection or resurrecting. I know these things are not lost on you.

We come from different backgrounds (hopefully not different roots though in the Gospel sense). Touching on semantics can only help us to bridge gaps.

I see that you are quite Pauline. I have difficulty with many people who are Pauline (some things in the Epistles and more importantly some people's selective interpretations ignoring the words of Christ); however, I find in your approach more bridging language not falling into greed, violence, or sexual depravity. Of course, I haven't read your entire site. Perhaps you hold with those things to some degree. I do not.

Yes, I did understand that when you were speaking about "little gods," you were referring to egoists calling themselves Christians and who also line their pockets from the funds of those they dupe and lead astray. I'm glad you are out there in public standing up against them. Of course, you are not judging or condemning them but rather calling souls to turn from the wrong direction.

Unfortunately, the Benny Hinns and Kenneth Copelands of the world do have creative power in their spoken word. The problem is that they speak evil (falsehood) into the world. You were referring to that they hold themselves out as having the power of Jesus. It is up to us to speak the other direction from theirs, which it appears to me you are doing. In the end, of course, only righteousness has power. That's the whole point.

As for our knowing each other, it is only via the social-networking sites to which we both belong that we've made contact. This is our first correspondence or communication other than "friending" and the like on the social-networking sites.

I'm glad I came across to you as polite and personable. I've had people come here leaving comments that I should be more polite. Of course, those people jumped into the middle of firm debates concerning greed or homosexuality ("Homosexuals: What they ignore") and other harmful behavior that all people may choose to stop if they will accept the Holy Spirit into their hearts.

Furthermore, I used your name, Tony Cathey, because I checked to see what there is about you on your site and it's better for me to think of people by their (what the social networks call) real names rather than their handles or user names or screen names, etc. It's just less contrived. Those nicknames though are often revealing. Contrivance is a major problem. We need to be real.

Well, I'm glad so far to have made your acquaintance. I say "so far" not because I expect to be disappointed but simply to acknowledge that not all people turn out as they first wish to appear.

We both know that Jesus was amazed by people in both directions. He was amazed by both lack of belief and great belief. If Jesus can be amazed by how people react and turn out, who am I not to be also? Of course, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit doesn't reveal secrets about the future. I am not one who believes that the gifts from God have been switched to off since the first generation of Christians. The Spirit is everything that has true significance, true in the way Jesus uses the term. If it is off, nothing signifies.

I've move this comment reply from comments to elevate its visibility. This site is a "Do-Follow" site, meaning that the major search engines are instructed to follow the links in the comments section. However, to-date, most sites are not "Do-Follow." Public posts though are almost always set with instructions to the major search engines to follow the links. Many sites also use the posts' rss feeds to build their databases. Comments are usually not included. Therefore, mentioning our sites in our posts with a links will only help us in our networking to spread the semantical understanding.

There is no reason not to reply to people via posts as opposed to comments only. We don't want the thread of a conversation to become impossible or too inconvenient to follow, so there is a trade off that is a judgment call.

Lastly, thank you for your patience in waiting for this reply. I'm working on a number of projects simultaneously. No doubt, so are you. The length of time it takes me to respond is not necessarily indicative of the weight I place on a matter.

Well, may God bless you, Tony, with more and more light as you go forward into the future.

Perhaps we can collaborate more and more as time goes by. Let's see how much we can arrive at seeing things eye-to-eye.

Point me in the direction of where I might learn more about you. Do you attend a particular church? I know of none that agree on all three points: Giving and sharing all, total pacifism, and sexual harmlessness versus greed, violence, and sexual depravity. Are you a member of a certain denomination? I've started the RLCC to further the three points I've mention among other things and reasons.

Your friend in Jesus,

Tom Usher


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Tom,

      Great to hear back from you. I have been gone the past few days. I took my wife and 3 kids camping. It was the first time that my kids have been, so it was an exciting adventure, though exhausting.

      Thank you for writing me back. I like it when people actually take the time to be upfront in their beliefs and aren't wishy washy trying to just follow a crowd. I think that is why I like this site so much. You aren't vague.

      I'm sure there will be things that we won't see eye to eye on, but I think that on some levels so far we have found common ground. I will try to let you know my stances on the issues you addressed. By the way my site is also Do-Follow. I think it is a good "movement" :)

      On the question of Church/Denomination; I am pentecostal from childhood attending a Church of God denomination with the Cleveland Tennessee headquarters. I attended one in my hometown for 12 years before it and about 80 percent of the other local churches got sucked into the church growth movement and started following either Rick Warren or the G12 methodology, and all but rid the sermons of the bible, but preaching from books and studies. I left that for another church that is preaching the uncompromised Word of God instead of preaching what the people wanted to hear and refusing to mention sin, hell, or our need for repentance. There are still many things that are preached that I don't 100 % agree with, but none of the major issues or I would leave also.

      On the 3 points that you mention, I will do my best to cover those the best I can, not totally understanding "your" meaning of them:

      Giving and Sharing All: I don't know if you mean outreach, tithing, missions, feeding the world, but if you mean any of them I will tell you that I do believe in local outreach ministry. There are a lot of local kids that have been given up on by the other churches in the area, but we take the time and effort to minister to them, providing them a secure place to come, we feed them all every Wednesday night, and Every Sunday morning breakfast and bus them to and from their residences. I believe in tithing wholeheartedly, but only where the true Gospel is being preached in order to further that work. Feeding the world. I support such programs and ministries, but only if the Gospel is being sent out as the priority. Feeding the physical is great, but feeding the soul is better. And obviously I believe in missions. I support them financially, but haven't personally been able to go, but i will soon.

      The next thing is total pacifism. What I construe you mean by that (correct me if I'm wrong) is the belief that Christians, the church, our country should use force/war to change nations. I do not believe that any problems the world have are manmade. I believe that ALL problems are spiritual in nature and thus have a spiritual answer. I believe that answer was given at Calvary when Christ died. What I will say, however, is even though I do not agree with the war that our country is in, I do support and pray for the safety of our people over there. I won't be like the Westboro Baptist Church and say that it is good that our soldiers are dying because America has turned away from God. America HAS turned away from God, and I wish America would repent, but I don't believe one second to glory in the death of our brothers/sisters/uncles/aunts/mothers/fathers, etc over there fighting this war. We aren't fighting a people, we are fighting a religion. War will not solve any problem. Only Christ can. If that isn't even what you were talking about, forgive me, At least you know something else about me. :)

      The next thing I have tried to figure out the exact meaning: sexual harmlessness versus greed, violence, and sexual depravity. I'm not exactly sure, and will need clarification on this. I don't want to go too far off base on your question. I will tell you that I believe homosexuality to be a sin and an abomination to God. I do believe that Christ can save and heal the homosexual, but a christian cannot live a Christian life and still be homosexual.

      Anyhow, I hope I have clarified a few things, although I have a feeling that I totally misunderstood your questions and look pretty stupid right now, spouting off that info that wasn't on topic. :)

      God Bless,

      Tony Cathey" target="_blank"> target="_blank">http://"" target="_blank">" target="_blank">" target="_blank">

    • Hello Again, Tony,

      That was a quick response. So, your camping was good. I'm glad for you.

      I enjoy camping a great deal. I especially like camping outside official campgrounds. Governments are becoming much more restrictive about that though.

      I was raised in a camping family. I think it's good for children. It's good your wife and you are taking your three out to experience it.

      We went camping for months a number of years when I was quite little. The last time I went though was in 2004. I camped for 3 1/2 months that year. Since then, I've been working on projects — no vacations. It's okay though. I'm making up for lost time you might say.

      Well, let's see. I was born into the Episcopal Church. My father was a minister. I dropped out at 11. I hated the hypocrisy. I became hypocritical too. I went back long enough to be confirmed but that was it. Then the Episcopal Church started turning high church, and they started calling my father a priest. People started saying "Father Usher" when addressing him. The Protestantism in the church was quickly disappearing. Of course, the Episcopal Church (Anglican Church in America) was never really Protestant. I just knew I was no Roman Catholic. Therefore, I became all the less likely to return to the Episcopalians. Now of course, they have their openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson. I can't fathom it.

      I never considered myself a Christian until I came to it late and through cross-referencing scripture (something that was never emphasized to me in the Episcopal Church).

      As for Pentecostalism, I agree with them about the movement of the Holy Spirit. I don't hold at all with the Fundamentalists who don't believe in the healing power of God existing right now. However, I don't hold with the unintelligible speaking of tongues. I do not believe that that is what happened at Pentecost at all.

      I don't know what possessed Paul to sanction the gibberish version. To me, it was error and confusion. That's not to say that emotions can not be translated via sounds that are not what is typically meant by words. They most certainly can. Music is a prime example, and the voice can sing in non-words. I'm sure you get my point. I've heard people speaking in tongues though who were obviously swept up in something other than Christian love.

      I take it you're big on grace and not deeds. You're also for holiness (yes?), whereas many others in the reformed movement are more inclined to excuse themselves under their definition of liberty. I'm big on grace and works. Where there is no fruit, there is no grace. Where there are works though, there is not necessarily the Spirit. That's because people can be building in a purely materialistic sense.

      I do not agree with the "liberty" crowd. I do believe we are to be as holy as we can be. I am no Calvinist. I'm not saying I'm Wesleyan either. I'm not.

      I also don't hold with the dispensationalists who have come out from John Nelson Darby. I don't hold with his idea of a secret rapture.

      Concerning Rick Warren, I don't hold with his use of capitalistic marketing methods to build churches. That's not what Jesus has in mind.

      In looking at the G12 methodology, it's an issue of span of control. I do understand the emphasis upon 3 and 12 of course. I suppose this would become an issue of rigidity. Jesus said that some bring forth a hundred fold. He sent out 70 in pairs, echoing the Sanhedrin.

      When I say giving and sharing all, I'm referring to God and Jesus sharing all and Jesus and his disciples sharing all such that his original disciples held all things in common. I do not believe that that was some temporary arrangement of necessity due to circumstances in Jerusalem as the laissez-faire capitalists (libertarian- or anarcho-capitalists) pass off as an excuse for their selfishness. This is why I'm starting the Christian Commons Project™.

      "Feeding the world. I support such programs and ministries, but only if the Gospel is being sent out as the priority. Feeding the physical is great, but feeding the soul is better."

      Of course, James addressed this directly and quite well. Jesus speaks of it too. We are to do both.

      By total pacifism I mean no coercion. Jesus forced no one. He did drive them from the Temple, but the Temple is a voluntary place of association. The secular world has set itself up as non-voluntary. They hold that none of us may opt out. They hold that their laws bind us all. It isn't voluntary in their eyes. I don't hold with that. We can't force morality into people's hearts. The law is to be written on our hearts. That's something one must choose not to resist but actually desire. Wars between nations and neighbors, etc., are wrong and never justified. Jesus was consistently non-violent. Even when he cleansed the Temple, we hear nothing about his harming anyone. He didn't harm a soul. They didn't put him on trial for cleaning the Temple — for being violent against the money-changers. They just ran away even though he would not have hit them. He was doing his best to reach them at the core level. Some people got it thank God.

      You are right that the Westboro Baptist Church is wrong to be glad that anyone falls on any side. You are also right that we are in a spiritual war until we overcome.

      Sexual harmlessness would make more sense to you if you would read about the harm caused by homosexuality for instance. It causes physical and psychological/spiritual harm to all parties involved. It is a sin. It is offense. It is often adultery and is always fornication. It is the opposite of healing and being whole or wholesome. It is also a crack in the door through which the pedophiles seek acceptance. Then it's incest and bestiality and whatever other confusion can take hold.

      Opposed to that, if your wife and you keep only to each other for life, you are showing faithfulness and love (not only harmless but beneficial if you are both in the real Spirit) that is not dissimilar to the faithfulness we are to show to God. That's not to say that virginity and celibacy are wrong. They aren't.

      I'm glad for the opportunity to do this back and forth with you. Let me know what you think.

      God bless your family, Tony, your home, and all that is in it,

      Tom Usher