He has set eternity in their hearts

I preach...

2011-12-05T19:43:00.002+01:00

I preach as though Christ was crucified yesterday, rose from the dead today and was coming back tomorrow. —Martin Luther

Do all the good you can...

2011-11-30T08:48:00.000+01:00

“Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.”
~John Wesley~

Church as the Bride of Christ

2011-09-17T10:16:00.002+02:00

There are many caricatures of Church in the worldtoday. I live in Europe where onemight call it, Church as Museum, or Church as Tourist Attraction. Others might call it Church as OldFolks Home. Many in the States seeit as Church as Political Party or church as Special Interest Group. I recently visited a church in theStates that upon leaving I thought of it as Church as Variety Show. I seen many where I can only call it,Church as Rock Concert. Sadlywhere it has lost the life it was meant to have, it is called Church asInstitution. Church as Building isperhaps the commonest and most empty notion, that it can have.

Perhaps more positive names are Church as Family, or Churchas Support Group. In ages, past itwas seen as Church as a Place of Higher Learning. But now sadly it is seen as Church as the Temple of theSimplistic.

I think the church gets such names when it stops being allthat it should be and all that it was meant to be, namely, Church as the Brideof Christ. When we forget that weare not our own and make church into something of our own making, then it canbecome, Church as Country Club, or Church as Comedy Show, or Church as Haven for Saints.

But it is morethan a haven for saints, it is a hospital for sinners. But even that is short of what Jesusbuilds his church to be.

But, church as the Bride of Christ, yes, that’s a title tobe strived for.

Easter in the King James Version (KJV)

2011-04-18T08:26:00.003+02:00

Did you know that the word "Easter" appears in the KJV. Surprisingly yes. A friend, who questions the validity of the Churches celebration of Easter, called this a "sick theological mistranslation." While "sick" is probably not the best word to describe it, mistranslated in this case is probably true.

However, it is interesting because given the erudition of the translators of the KJV, which is still praised for its style and accuracy, their choice of the word "Easter" reflects that the word communicated something to the readers of the time.

Here's an entry from the The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia the the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids: 1980 by J.C. Connell who, questions that usage, but also says the "Easter" (festival celebrating the Lord's resurrection) might have been held in Apostolic times:

Easter (KJV) rendering of "to pascha" in Acts 24:4; correctly tr. "the Passover" in the other Eng. VSS. KJV trs. all the other twenty-eight instances of "to pascha" as "the Passover." "See Passover."

The derivation of the name "Easter" is uncertain, but according to Bede (De Ratione Temporum, XV) it is derived from "Eastre", a Teutonic spring goddess, to whom sacrifices were offered in April. The pagan festival prob. gave way to the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection.

It is held by some that the annual celebration of the Lord's resurrection was observed in apostolic times. They see an intimation of Easter in 1 Corinthians 5:7, 8 which is very doubtful. The earlier written evidence for an Easter Festival appears in "the paschal controversy" over the correct date for Easter, which began with the correspondence in A.D. 154 between Polycarp , bishop of Smyna, and Anticetus, bishop of Rome (Euseb. Hist. V 23-25). By this date, therefore this festival must have been generally observed throughout the Christian Church.

He also questions the KJV translation when he says "...correctly tr.[anslated] "the Passover in the other Eng.[lish] VSS [versions]. Probably, because at that time Acts, the church at large at not yet started celebrating the Lord's resurrection. But he also calls into the question the derivation of the word "Easter" from the pagan goddess...something which other scholars today are doing.

Connell also says that, with good reason, that 1 Corinthians 5:6,7 probably does not refer to the celebration of the Lord's resurrection.

However, he does not question that "Easter" or the Lord's resurrection, was celebrated by the church at large by A.D. 154. I suspect that this is because Paul instructed Timothy to "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead..." (2 Tim. 2:8) was being taken literally by the church and that they did this "remembrance" or celebration early on, certainly by A.D. 154.

Easter Info

2011-04-17T13:09:00.001+02:00

- Here is an article that gives how many Christians celebrate Easter
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter
  April 4 at 7:54pm ·
- Paul Luedtke And here's a blog showing how Pastor John Piper celebrates Easter.
  
  http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/holy-week-at-the-pipers
  April 4 at 7:54pm ·
- Paul Luedtke And how about the way Linda Schab
  
  http://on-the-write-track.blogspot.com/2010/04/easter-blessings.html
  April 4 at 8:03pm ·
- Paul Luedtke and then how the Christian Research Institute describes it.
  http://www.cresourcei.org/cyeaster.html
  April 4 at 8:11pm ·
- Paul Luedtke http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1154&bih=754&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=christian+easter+pictures&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql&oq=christian+easter
  April 4 at 8:13pm ·
- Paul Luedtke Heh, Easter is like God, you will find him if you seek him.

Do Christians Need to Slaughter Lambs or Celebrate Passover?

2011-04-17T13:07:00.002+02:00

At Eastertide, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. During the week leading up to it, they celebrate Palm Sunday, when Jesus entered Jerusalem in the back of a foal. They celebrate "Holy Thursday" when Jesus celebrated Passover and had is "last supper" with his disciples and asked them to remember his death through eating bread and drinking wine. On "Good Friday," they remember the Crucifixion of Jesus. Finally on Easter Sunday, they celebrate Jesus resurrection. All are deeply meaningful and important to their faith in Jesus.

But must Christians celebrate Passover. Must they slaughter Lambs to keep the festival?

Christians no longer need to kill lambs to celebrate Passover. Equally, Christians no longer need to celebrate Passover at all. In the New Covenant, where Jesus fulfills the Passover, Christ is ourPassover. But Jesus asked us to remember his death by breaking bread and drinking the cup. That was his institution of the practice of "The Lord's Supper." However, if Christians wish to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus by recalling how the Passover prefigured Christ's sacrifice of sin as our Passover lamb by recalling the original Passover, that is certainly within "Christian Liberty." We are free do to what ever is not contrary to God's word or God's will. But Jesus' church is not legally bound to do so.

Were Christians commanded by God in the scriptures to celebrate Jesus' Death or His Resurrection? Which one?

2011-03-29T09:57:00.000+02:00

Good question. Actually, neither. The Bible never gives a command to celebrate Jesus' death or resurrection. However, the Jesus commands his disciples to celebrate the Passover supper using bread and wine in remembrance of his death.(Luke 22:19) This we do at Easter. Paul says the Lord's supper commemorates his death until his return (1 Cor 11:26). This we do "as often as..."

As for his resurrection, Paul said to Timothy "Remember Jesus Christ raised from the dead... (2 Tim 2:8). This is as close as we get to a command. But the early Christians began to worship on "the Lord's Day" or the day of his resurrection which is effectively our Sunday. Here we find an application of the freedom of the Christian. Christians now worship on Sunday and not the the Sabbath. Likewise. Christians are not required to celebrate Easter or Christmas for that matter. But Christians began celebrating both, possibly because of the prompting of the Holy Spirit and because of Paul's command to Timothy.

If we are to "test the spirits" we ask , is the celebration of the birth of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus anti-biblical. Well, both stories are contained in the Scriptures. And there is no command against it. So Christians are free to remember Jesus in these Biblically described ways.

If the Gospel is Good News, then we have reason to celebrate. We can celebrate every day! But the birth of Jesus and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus are so important in this Good News, what better reason do have than to celebrate them!

Jesus or Squirrel

2010-08-15T14:12:00.002+02:00

One Sunday a pastor was using squirrels for an object lesson for the children. He started, "I'm going to describe something, and I want you to raise your hand when you know what it is." The children nodded eagerly.

"This thing lives in trees (pause) and eats nuts (pause)..." No hands went up. "And it is gray (pause) and has a long bushy tail (pause)..." The children were looking at each other nervously, but still no hands raised. "It jumps from branch to branch (pause) and chatters and flips its tail when it's excited (pause)..."

Finally one little boy tentatively raised his hand. The pastor quickly called on him. "Well," said the boy, "I know the answer must be 'Jesus' ... but it sure sounds like a squirrel!"

Forgiving God

2010-08-15T14:00:00.001+02:00

Forgiving God

Forgiveness is something that Jesus told us is of supreme value. God forgives us so we are to forgive others. Jesus even says that if we don't forgive others, God doesn't forgive us. We forgive when we have been wronged. We forgive when we have been hurt by someone. Is there ever a time when we need to forgive God?

At first thought the very idea of forgiving God is something that goes against our spiritual sensibilities. God doesn't wrong us, so why should we forgive him. Who are we to think that we can forgive God?

Forgiving God needs to happen when we feel hurt by God. Even though the Lord never wrongs us, he does allow painful experiences to happen in our lives. He, in effect, hurts us. This hurt can cause resentment in our feelings toward God which of course blocks our friendship relationship with him. "Forgiving God" means coming to grips with the fact that God "leads us into temptation" (but does not tempt us, as God does not tempt man to sin) so that we might be strengthened in our faith. It has to do more with resolving our feelings of resentment through overlooking God's actions, than actually "forgiving" God. We accept God for doing what we do not accept in other people because he is God. I do not accept when others bring pain into my life. I hold them guilty. But God is able to use these painful episodes, to cause growth in me.

There are times when my father allowed me to go through things that caused me to learn lessons. At the time I resented my father for allowing these things to happen tome. But in hindsight, I see that he needed to let me experience the consequences of my actions so I would learn. It is this realization that my father did something valuable for me that allows me to excuse him or overlook his actions toward me.

It is the same with my heavenly father. When I realize that all of the pain I am suffering here on earth will be over when I experience the fullness of salvation when I am glorified in heaven, helps me to overlook, "to forgive", God for what he must lead me through to help me to grow.

All relationships must be kept free of bitterness and resentment through forgiving our those who hurt us. Our relationship with God is similar in that we too must deal with and resolve the bitterness, anger, resentment and other hard feelings that we have toward God so that our relationship through faith, will grow richer and more intimate. We do "forgive" God for allowing painful experiences in our lives. But we do not forgive him for having wronged us for the Lord never wrongs us. But just as Job resolved his bitter and angry feelings toward God through gazing anew at his wonders, so we can "forgive" God when we realize our own ignorance in comparison with God's surpassing knowledge. Then we can once again enjoy and rejoice in our God who loves us and cares for us enough to disciple us through pain.

Paul Luedtke

Nyon, Switzerland

Are we humans beings with spiritual experiences or spiritual beings with human experiences?

2010-07-01T17:01:00.003+02:00

So, Joshua Case asked this on Facebook and I couldn't resist. Not sure it's all that bright, but I enjoyed thinking about it.

"Let us create man in our image...male and female he created them." All attempts to separate mankind into constituent parts usually fail dismally. "Man" is created in the image of God. "Man" is living soul because of the "breath of God was breathed into him. Yet "he" is made of the dust of the ground (as material beings we are chemistry). So beings created in the image of God makes us spiritual. But made in the image of God also makes us human, because that is how God intended us to be. But we are human because we only have the image of God in us.

"things...long settled"

2010-07-01T16:17:00.000+02:00

"...things...long settled." So mused a friend.

I come to places and time in my life where I encounter things that I thought were settled years ago. I identify with his thought.

In my 56 years I have learned many things. And lately I lament that I've forgotten many things. The things I forget don't get put into practice. So it seems that I never learned the lesson in the first place. And yet, at one time, I was practicing that lesson. Very frustrating and humbling to have to recall a long forgotten lesson and put it into practice once again.

Very humbling.

A Life Lesson from Cycling

2010-06-21T13:03:00.004+02:00

The stiff wind in our face is hard...
...and trains us for the thrill and distance that we get when the wind is at our back.

Is God Selfish?

2010-02-10T18:01:00.005+01:00

Recently a young German friend sent me an email with a good question. She wrote...

"Hey Paul, How are you doing? yesterday evening I had a really good talk with a friend here who's becoming interested in Christianity and thinking that there could be more to it. She asked me one question I asked myself some time ago but didn't feel necessary to find the answer to it.

I was talking to her about my believe that every person has a "god given" emptiness inside of him/her that can only be filled by God himself. now the question: Isn't it selfish of God to put an emptiness in us that ultimately only he can fill?

Does this has something to do with our fallenness again? cause we were whole and complete back in paradise. we're perfectly in balance with God and needed nothing. can u give me some help, points, bible texts where I could start thinking and meditation on?

Thank you so much,

Julie"

What a great question! But I noticed that in fact the premise upon which it was based was questionable. This is what I wrote in response...

Dear Julie,

Does God really give us a "God-given" emptiness? I don't think you'll find that in the Bible. What God does offer us is his love.

We are created to be in relationship with him. When we don't come to God in faith and live as his child, we experience an emptiness. Augustine said, "You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you." (Augustine Confessions 1.1.1) This is not a god-given emptiness. It the emptiness we feel because we have not included God in our lives.

Blaise Pascal has often been quoted as saying that, "There is a God-shaped hole that can only be filled by God." But this is not really what he said. He said, "... the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself. (Pascal Pensees 425).

We all experience this emptiness or a lack of completeness because when Adam and Eve sinned, it caused a break in the relationship that humankind had with God. The sin of Adam and Eve separated us from God. And because of that separation, we feel the void of God's absence. That could be called a "God-shaped hole." And yes, because we are fallen at birth because of that "original sin" we experience a separation from God. We all try to fill that emptiness with good things and some not so good. But the void created in us by God's absence can only be filled by God himself. That is why Jesus came to bring us to God. (1 Pet 3:18).

I hope this helps. Do share it with your friend. God is not selfish. He did not put the hole in us. When we don't come to him as his child, we put it there ourselves.

Grace and peace,

Paul

Remembering H.O.J. Brown

2009-11-05T10:26:00.002+01:00

"Having followed Christ in this life,

He now sees what he always believed."

- the words that mark the life of Harold O.J. (Joe) Brown) found on his gravestone.

In Memory

2009-11-05T10:23:00.004+01:00

We honor the great people we have admired, and who have passed on,

by becoming the people that they strived to be.

The Way of a Ship on the High Seas

2009-02-13T03:36:00.000+01:00

“There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand:

the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden.

Proverb 30:18-19

Reading the Bible as Story

2009-01-23T10:24:00.003+01:00

In Scot McKnight’s book, “The Blue Parakeet” the idea of reading the Bible as story is a major theme. He says we must read the Bible as story. It is a whole series of stories written in different ways for different reasons. The earlier stories affect the later stories. As he says, none of the stories is the final story. But together they all tell “The Story.” It is a true story. It is a story with power. But most of all it is God’s story

Story is a very important word these days. We hear is quite often on the lips of young people. Some people say they think in stories (probably not most). They have been influenced by the post-modern period that we have all passed through. For post-modernity, story is more important than fact, than science or truth. Truth is something that those in power or those with money use to control the less powerful. (Those who write the story, control the glory). But stories can communicate without appealing to truth or being totally true. Since post-modernity distrusts truth as either being nonexistent or unknowable, it has appealed to story as a way to understand people and the world around us without having to be true. Stories communicate and there is wiggle room in them because the story can be “true” for you but not necessarily true for me. It can tell something of value without having to be true. And that’s okay, because I still understand something about you and the world around me without needing the obsolete and or even dangerous idea of truth.

As a Christian, I can’t accept that truth is non-existent, obsolete or even dangerous. The idea of truth is foundational for us to understand that there is an ultimate reality. There is objective truth no matter how hard it might be, a times, to discern it. Jesus said he was the truth. He said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. So, truth must stand.

But…as we try to understand the world around us, we realize that everything has a story. I have my story…the story of my life. You have your story. The town we live in has a story. The nation we live in has a story. The whole earth has a story. There is a true story for everything. For us to understand each other and the world around us, we need to listen to all the stories. Our existence is a series of interlocking stories.

Many people are uncomfortable with the word story to describe our existence. Some prefer fact and factual accounts. Others prefer more the objective perspective of “provable” history. Still others look to the empiricism, objectivity and precision of science. But all these are simply different ways of telling the story of something or someone. All are trying to communicate something in a fashion that will tell the real story.

I suspect the reason people have a hard time thinking of the Bible as Story is because stories aren’t always true stories. They are often fictional. We tell stories to our children before bedtime. Bedtime stories are meant to put children sleep. Novels are stories. Sometime they are pure fiction. Nowadays we have seen the rise of the “historical novel” where the background is carefully researched history, but the story line is fictional. The characters are real, but they could have been because their character and actions were taken from the accounts of real people living real lives and their real events. We fear that mixing fiction and history will cloud the truth.

The reason for approaching the Bible as story is because in reality, it is a story. It is God’s story of himself creating, interacting, redeeming and bringing to culmination the world around us. We must not deny that it is a story…God’s Story. But it is a true story. It is a powerful story. God tells us this story so we can understand him and his love for us. It tells us how to love him back and love the people he so loves.

As student of the Bible and theology now for nearly 30 years and I have seen people treat the Bible in ways that was never intended. People see the Bible as if it were written in the 20th century. They see it as a textbook. They want it to be history has they read it now. They want the biographical accounts of figures as though they were written from the perspective of a “modern.” Some think they can distill science out of the Bible. Some appeal to the precision of Greek and Hebrew languages and surmise that because of this precision one can simply exegete the texts based on a grammatical-historical basis and arrive the real meaning of a text based simply on the reading of an isolated bit of text. Still others see the Bible as communicating directly to them with no notion of it place in history or the culture from which is came.

The Bible is a series of writings done from 1500 B.C. to nearly 100 A.D. It uses many different ways of speaking: history, poetry, narrative, parable, metaphor, fiction, prophetic, apocalyptic and more. All demand that the reader pay attention to the way the writer wrote. All demand that the reader keep the writer’s words in their historical and cultural context. All demand that the reader keep in mind where the writer’s words…his part of the story…fits into the overall story. But most of all, the reader must keep in mind that the Bible is telling a story through the patchwork of stories, accounts and different kinds of writing.

Yes, the grammatical-historical method of reading the Bible is good. Yes, because of the descriptive nature of the accounts, we can see direct correlations between the physical world of the writer and how we see our world. Yes, there is a certain precision in the language. But, we must not make the mistake of expecting more precision from the language than it can give us. We must be careful not to think that the Bible is scientific. It does not have that optic. We must be careful that in exegeting the passages we study, that a too reductionist approach will not yield the message the author was conveying.

We need to remember that the Bible is story…God’s story told through the stories of the writers that he chose and that he gifted to write the story. And such, we need to become “his-storians.” We need to read the story. Listen to it time and time again. Get to know the fabric, the warp and the woof of the story. We need to learn when something is speaking figuratively or factually. We need to know when the meaning of a text must be qualified by its historical setting and background culture. We need to learn to ask the right question as we read so that we can get the right answers.

The more we listen to the story, the more we’ll understand the story. That is why even those who don’t know the Greek and the Hebrew (while being very important for translation and exegesis) can still understand the story. The story communicates. God made it that way. He speaks a language we can understand because it is a story of our earth, our world and the people around us. As “his-storians” we can hear his voice. But we will only hear it when we listen to God as the master storyteller. After all, it is his story.

"All doesn't always mean "all."

2008-12-19T22:51:00.014+01:00

Back in July, while on my across-America bike ride, I read a short inspirational letter. It started with the first verse of Genesis 3. “Did God really say?” These are the words of the serpent casting doubt into the mind of Eve about what God had told Adam and her. Then the writer quickly moves to the Gospel story of a boy whose father brings him to Jesus for healing. The man asks “if” Jesus can help. Jesus says,

All things are possible for one who believes. ~ Mark 9:23

Our writer, trying to be helpful and encouraging says, “All means all.” And we should never let Satan tell us otherwise. All things are possible for the believer.

The well-meaning writer arrived at an overstated conclusion through a mistaken notion of how to do word study because…

“All” does not always mean “all.”

Our writer’s method of word study was to go to Strong’s Concordance and simply looking at the definition found there. If you know Strong’s it is very limited in it’s lexical entries. Just looking at those definitions is not good Bible Study. In translation and word study, we use a concordance to see where and how words are used in the Bible. This gives us a range of meanings. Then we use the context of the Bible to determine which meaning to use. The Greek word "pas" (or all) found in the text, can also mean “each,” “every,” “everyone,” everything” “whole,” “all things.” In the NIV the translators chose the word “everything” to translate pas in Mark 9:23 (in contrast his our writer’s version). And what is more, one translated word does not give the full meaning meant in a text.

“All” does not always mean “all.”

After Strong’s, good word study would include looking in a Bible Dictionary or taking a look at a Greek Lexicon like Brown, Driver Briggs. Then good word study would take a look at a theological dictionary like Colin Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. There we find some other ways to think about the word "pas." Then we look at all the verses in the Bible containing our word, thanks to our concordance, and see how the word is used. Then we decide which meaning fits our verse.

But just looking at the lexical entry in Strong’s is not good Bible study and does not yield the meaning of a word or the meaning of the text that contains it. And as we will find, “All does not mean all.” And this goes for the Hebrew word col as well.

Why is this so important to me? This past March, my father died of pancreatic cancer. Like nearly all Christians do, I prayed that he would be healed. But like 97% of everyone who is stricken by this cancer, he died in the first year after the diagnosis.

But the Word says that [it is the LORD] “who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases,” (Psalms 103.3) But all, does not always mean all. God only heals 3% of all pancreatic cancer patients. Steve Jobs of Apple fame is one of them. But he is rare. The rest like my father die of the disease and within the first year. People die of disease all the time. Sometimes, all means all and sometimes it doesn’t.

Here are some other examples of when all does not mean all.

“I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.” Genesis 6.17

“All” didn’t mean “all,” Noah’s family and all the animals and fish were not destroyed by the flood.

“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.” Genesis 6.19

The fish were not included in all living creatures.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14.26

The Spirit teaches all things, but not everything. Man cannot contain all knowledge because he is finite. Therefore all cannot mean all. But it can mean everything that we were meant to know: the totality of what God’s will for us is and not an iota more.

“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all — how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” Romans 8.32

Does this mean he will give everything we desire or everything that exists? No, he gives us all things that we were destined for. We do not get all things? All does not mean all.

“To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” 1Corinthians 9.22

Does Paul become a murderer, a thief, or a prostitute? No he does not become all things. He becomes everything that God might intend for him to become. All does not mean all.

“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” Colossians 1.16

God did not create sin. God did not create angels that were fallen. God did not create sinful man. Man became sinful, but God did not create him that way. He did create everything and all things that he intended to create…the fullness of his intention. But “all things” does not mean “all things.”

“I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4.13

Here “all” translates pas. Paul does not mean we can do everything. God is not going to make me brain surgeon over night. He has not made me a wonderful preacher like (put the name of your favorite preacher here). No, we cannot do everything. But we can do all that God intends for us to do to bring him glory.

It is a hermeneutical error to look up a word in a concordance and cite its definition as the meaning for every like word like it. We have to look at how the word is used in order to arrive at the meaning of the text. It is a hermeneutical fallacy to impose the lexical meaning of a word on all incidences of the same word in the Bible. Every word takes on the nuance of the immediate context.

“All” often needs to be understood as a general promise that is not meant to be exhaustive in fulfillment. Even with God all things are not possible. God cannot go against his own nature. He cannot go against his character. God cannot sin. He cannot do all things. “All” does not always mean “all.”

So when we look at Mark 9:23, what is Jesus getting at?

The story is about a man who brings his boy to Jesus. The boy is stricken with a condition like epilepsy. But the condition comes from an evil spirit living in the boy. The man already brought the boy to Jesus’ disciples but they could not heal the boy. The man Jesus asks for help in the conditional. Jesus says, “If you can? Everything is possible for him who believes.” Jesus then proceeds to cast out the demon and heal the boy. This is completely possible for Jesus. And we believe in him because he can. We also believe Jesus when he says “Everything is possible for him who believes.” But evidently everything is not possible for someone who believes. In this case, prayer was necessary to express belief. So, all does not mean all. We cannot do everything. But we can do everything that the Lord empowers us to do for his glory.

I can do everything, and all things that God intends and wills for me. I can stand against what the world says is not possible. All things that God wants me to do I can do.

We can do all kinds of things, but not everything. God does not heal all our diseases. He does heal all classes of disease, and every disease until the one he allows to kill us.

This mighty assurance of Jesus is meant for us to take heart that when Jesus asks us to do something, we can do it, because he is right there with us giving us the power and his will to do it.

“All” does not always mean “all.” But we can do all things that come from faith in Jesus.

Amen.

Christianity is not a religion...really?

2008-10-14T11:33:00.007+02:00

“Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship.” I sometimes hear this when conversing about what it means to be a Christian. When I hear it, I often appreciate the intention of the speaker because it’s good to draw a distinction between what some mean as religion and what Christian believe.

But…I always cringe because strictly speaking it is quite proper to speak of faith in Christ as religion. But, what the Christian means by religion and what the average person on the street means is different.

For the Christian, the word “religion” is the life that one lives out of faith in God. Religion is the life that comes from seeking to live the will of God and the values of God.

This understanding comes from the way the English word translates several Greek words from the New Testament. One word is "deisdaimonia" and is used in Acts 17:22 and 25:19. This word comes from two other words: "deos" meaning awe, fear or reverence, and "daimonion" meaning demon or god. Literally the word means awe, fear, or reverence of demons or of God. Paul uses the word when he describes what he has seen in Athens. He speaks of the Athenians as “deisdaimonia,” or religious, when he refers to their “objects of worship” (Acts 17:23) and to an altar that had the inscription “to an unknown god.” Paul has chosen this word meaning “awe of god” to describe the attitude of the Athenians toward their objects of worship and the inscription, to an unknown God. “Religion” or “Religious,” in this case refers to man’s orientation of awe or reverence toward the gods or God.

In Acts 25:19, when talking to King Agrippa over the court case of Paul, Festus the then governor of Caesaria Maritima, used the word "deisdaimonia" to refer the belief of the Jews and their conflict over Paul’s message of Jesus’ resurrection. Here, religion translates "deisdaimonia" and refers to the belief of the Jewish accusers of Paul.

Another Greek word in the New Testament, is "threskeia" meaning religion or worship. It is used Acts 26:5, James 1:26 and 27. In the Acts passage, Paul uses “threskeia” and referring to the worship or belief of his former sect, the Pharisees. The Pharisaic worship or belief is a subset of the greater “belief in God” or religion that was Temple Judaism. Paul uses the word to speak of a particular belief system within a belief system.

In James "threskeia" is used in 1:26 firstly to refer to ones belief or faith in God, but then in verse 27 he uses the adjectival from "threskos," or religious, to describe the kind of behavior that belief should spawn or promote in the believer’s life namely: “to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

A third word that is translated “religion” is "eusebeo" often transated to worship, or show piety, and is found is 1 Timothy 5:4. This verb is a close neighbor to the New Testament words "eusebeia" meaning godliness or piety, and "eusebes" meaning devout, pious, godly, reverent. The word "eusebeo," a verb, describes the Christian belief of the people to whom Paul is referring. He seems to choose the verb form to describe the active belief of the Christians that should be put into action through caring for their own families.

Finally, in Hebrew 10:11, the word "leitourgeo" meaning to perform religious duties. It is the verbal form of "leitourgia" meaning religious service, ceremony, service. The writer of Hebrews speaks of the duties of the priest in the Hebrew system of Temple worship as religious. Here religion is the execution of organized traditional Jewish worship.

Today in common usage, the word religion has quite a range of meaning. Most use the word to refer to some type of belief in God or some type of traditional organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism and the like. It can also mean something that someone practices consistently and continually.

Many Christians are uncomfortable referring to their belief in Christ as simply another of one the world belief systems. As well, many Christians are uncomfortable with being called religious when this simply means being a member of a church, or a part of some sort of organized “religion.” Of course this discomfort is for good reason because Christian belief goes much deeper that simply following traditions, or holding merely intellectually to a system of believe or a code of ethics. Being a Christian involves both “head” as a way of believing, but also “heart” because being a Christian means loving God. For the Christian following the form Christianity without faith is not possible. To simply have intellectual ascent without true love for God from the heart is not true belief. That is why some have chosen to say, as in the words of Bill Hybels, “being a Christian is not a religion but a relationship.”

But is this strictly true? Is it right to say Christianity is not religion? Or is it intellectually wrong to refer to faith in Christ as a religion? No, not really, if one looks at how the writers of the New Testament thought of religion. For them religion was simply how one orients themselves toward God through faith, or worship, piety, or even idolatry. It was a serious way of acting in the world with regard to God or the gods.

For the Christian to refer to his religion or the way he or she believes about God is a mark of identity. I am a Christian. I have a religion, a way of orienting myself toward God. Christian belief is the religion where faith is a relationship with the living God through his son Jesus Christ made possible by the power from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Religion is not how we get to God or how we please God so he’ll let us into heaven, rather it is our orientation toward God and the life we live having found God, or rather, after he has found us. My religion is living relationship with God that affects every part of my life and causes me to live out the wonderful values of God. Love of God and people, joy in life because of God, forgiveness when people have wronged me, serving the needs of others, having the certain hope of spending eternity with God, not letting the evil of the world take over my life but rather pursuing a life of goodness and holiness, treating God’s creation with awe, respect and care, are all part of what it means to have belief in Christ as the religion of my life.

By all means, we need to distinguish between what “religion” means to the average person on the street and heartfelt faith in Jesus. But, to say that being a Christian is not a religion, well…you’d be on thin ice or even in error.

So, if you want, you can say, “being a Christian is not a religion, but a relationship.” It sounds nice and it even alliterates. But James, Jesus’ half brother might respond by saying:

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. - James 1.27

Legalism and Liberalism

2008-05-29T08:42:00.016+02:00

I recently read an article by the leader of a large Christian organization where he says that “Legalism and Liberalism are not the design of” the Gospel. The article, which was in reality a weekly letter meant for the inspiration and encouragement of members of the organization, likens the extraordinary design of the Tower bridge London to the form and function of the Gospel. He says the all the aspects of Jesus message such as “Humility, mercy, brokenness and peacemaking embrace righteousness, holiness, courage and zeal. are all in balance.” Like the bridge whose form and function allow the bridge to be a “strong and sure” means of transmitting vehicles and people over the bridge as well as an aesthetically striking landmark, so the Gospel is balanced in it’s beauty and power. Others have said in the Gospel, “Love and justice embrace.”

It is a very good analogy. But, in a further point, the author says that the Gospel and is not legalistic or liberalistic. The phrase goes nicely in the author’s chain of alliterating phrases. I believe with all my heart that the Gospel is not legalistic. But is the Gospel not liberalistic?

A look at various definitions of liberal and liberalism show a range of meeting:

1. "Open to new behavior and opinions, willing to discard traditional values"

If this is the meaning of liberal then I believe it is wrong to say the Gospel is not liberal. Jesus was a "liberal" of his time. He definitely challenged the traditional values and was openly professing new behavior and opinions. As a preacher of the Gospel I hope I help people discard their traditional values that are not in accord with the Gospel.

2. "favorable to individual rights and freedoms"

If this is the meaning of liberal then I believe it is wrong to say the Gospel is not liberal. Jesus upheld the rights and freedoms of individuals. This one of the watch words of the Reformation which contributed to the formation of "liberal democracies". The United States is a liberal democracy, meaning that is favorable to individual rights and freedoms. Freedom of religion is one of the great watchwords or our liberal society. Would we have it any other way? Would Americans tolerate the persecution and restrictions of the beliefs of others? Would we prohibit, Muslims to bury their dead in the United States because they are Muslim and not Christian?

3. "concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience rather than technical or professional training"

If this is the meaning of liberal then I believe it is wrong to say the Gospel is not liberal since it is indeed concerned with broadening a person's knowledge through the Spirit-led journey of searching for truth. The Gospel is about bringing people New Life and not turning them into religious encyclopedias. John Piper said something like "Brothers, we are not professionals."

But if liberalism refers to theological liberalism which does not hold to the inspiration and authority of Scripture and therefore denies that the Bible is God's word, then I could say that yes, the Gospel is not liberal. Salvation of the people God loves depends on “conserving” the reality of the truth of the Scripture and the truth about the Scriptures.

If liberal means that the death of Jesus on the Cross is "cosmic child abuse" instead of an atoning sacrifice the redeems a fallen world, the the Gospel is not liberal.

If liberal means the libertine throwing off the morality of Jesus concerning such aspects of like as monogamous marriage, the sanctity of life, living with integrity, loving another through taking care of the poor, the Gospel is not liberal.

My reason for taking up this issue I am very concerned that Christians turn their back completely on the word liberal. We should not always be conservative as being conservative is not always in keeping with the message of the Gospel. I am a liberal when it comes to the Christian traditional value of not taking care of the environment. I am a liberal when it comes an end-times theology which does not promote good and right treatment of people and the world in the here and now. I am a liberal in challenging the current tradition of tolerance that does not allow Christians to live and be Christian in all theatres of their life.

Most of all I am liberal with regard to the habit of many American Christians who always make conservative and liberal black and white categories. I am not always conservative. I am often liberal. But I am not always a liberal and I am often conservative. It all depends on whether being liberal or conservative is in accord with the Gospel.

Christians need to be careful in always thinking that the word liberal is a dirty word. It’s not. Thankfullly, the Gospel is liberal in it’s outlook on the life and freedoms of people. It is liberal in that God wants all people to be saved.

I am tenaciously conservative in holding on to the liberality of the Gospel.

"“…he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches."

2008-02-03T11:38:00.002+01:00

In Revelation, we find a striking series of phrases that the Apostle John uses as he brings the prophetic message for The Church. These seven phrases are used in conjunction with seven messages to seven churches of Asia Minor which is now Turkey. These are messages from God for the guidance, direction and correction of these churches. Some believe that he brings seven messages because it would signify to the first readers and hearers of the Revelation, that God was speaking to the whole church, since the number seven is a complete number. Each time he completes one of these “revelations” from God, he end by saying, “… he who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.” These are among the most striking words that God speaks to the Church in all of his Word. They draw us in to give real ear to what he is saying. As a start to really give ear, we need to know who it is that John is speaking of: who is the Spirit. In John’s first writing to the church (the Gospel), he gives us just such a basis for understanding.

Near the end of his earthly life, and before he left and went to the Father, Jesus promised the coming of “another Counselor” (in the NIV). He said this to the disciples so that they would know that Jesus was not leaving them alone but that the “Counselor”, by which he meant, “the Spirit of Truth” or “the Holy Spirit”, would be with them. He said that, “… the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14.26). Jesus was giving the Spirit to mediate his continuing presence but also continue to reveal with Jesus had taught them. He also would have a role in bringing new information and even give the prophetic gift. His role is to reveal what belongs to Jesus and to make it known. That is why he is called the Spirit of Truth. Jesus who is the Truth and speaks the Truth sends the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. The Apostle Peter reflects on this when he says that it is the Holy Spirit who was the instrument that God used to bring us the writings of the Old Testament and the New (2 Peter 19-21). The “Counselor” brings the truth to the church.

The word “counselor” comes from the Greek word “paraclete” which is made of two words: the preposition “para” meaning alongside, beside or with: and the verb “kaleo” meaning to call. Literally it means the one called to come along side. Various English words have been used to translate the word “parakletos” such as counselor, advocate, intercessor, helper, one who encourages and comforts.

This Spirit that John is speaking of in his first writing, is same Spirit of whom he speaks in the Revelation. It is the Spirit who is the “one who comes along side ” the church and guides it into all truth. In these seven messages John brings insight to what the Spirit comes along side to do. Each church is given either a commendation, and/or a rebuke, and/or an action and a reward for overcoming.

• To the Church of Ephesus, the Spirit commends them for their hard work and perseverance. But he rebukes them for having forsaken their first love and calls them to remember that first love and to repent.
• The church of Smyrna was commended for having suffered persecution and poverty because of their service for the Lord. The Spirit brings no rebuke to this church but that they should not fear and be faithful.
• To the church at Pergamum, the Spirit commends them for holding on to the faith. But he still says that they have compromised the values of the faith. So he charges them to repent and be true to the faith they have held to.
• The Spirit says to the church as Thyatira that they have shown love, faith and service. But they are chastened for their immorality. They too are called to repent.
• The Spirit says to the church of Sardis that they have been effective, yet their effectiveness is only superficial so they are to wake up, repent and be worthy of their deeds.
• The church at Philadelphia is commended for being faithful. The Spirit has no rebuke for them only the charge to hold on.
• Finally, the Spirit says to the Church at Laodicea, they are not commended for anything but he rebukes them for being lukewarm. He charges them to be earnest and repent.

These seven messages to seven churches are the kind of thing that the Spirit did in the past of the Church. He was given to come along side the Church and take from what is from Jesus and make it known to us. The Spirit said to the churches in John’s time to continue hold to the true values of God and his kingdom that Jesus taught them. There is nothing new in what the Spirit said to the churches only to hold on to the values that Jesus had already taught. The Spirit said to the churches, where there was fault and error, to repent to change and be the kind of people the God could reward. The seven-fold message to the seven-fold church was given a seven-fold promise of blessing for those who “had an ear to hear.” Reading them warms the heart, awes us at God’s goodness and can only cause to be thankful. Those who are faithful, who repent and overcome will:

• be given right to eat from the tree of life which is in the paradise of God,
• not be hurt at all by the second death,
• will receive the hidden manna, and a white stone with his/her own special name written on it,
• receive authority over the nations and the morning star,
• be dressed in white and will never have his name blotted out from the book of life,
• will be made a pillar of the temple, never to be left by God and will have the name of God and the name of the city of God written on him as well as a new name
• and the right to sit with God on his throne.

These are rich blessings that are also rich in symbolism that requires a knowledge of all of God’s Word to understand. We need the ears of the fruit of our study. But our study of the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, which needed in order to understand these unbelievable blessings, will be a richness in itself.

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. Today, do we have an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the Churches? The Spirit commended, chastened and challenged to action the seven-fold church representing God's Total Church. Do we have the right ear to hear? Are we willing to take stock in the things we can be commended for? Are we willing to hear the things that we must be rebuked for? Are we willing to be challenged to action and change what God wants us to change? Are we ready to be students of all of God’s word so we can understand the rich symbolism and information from which John draws to bring us a message from the Spirit? Are we ready to be thrilled by the rich blessings that God promises to those who have ears, who listen and overcome by hearing the message of the Spirit?

“He who has an ear, let him hear what he Spirit says to the Churches.” The Holy Spirit is here to take what is from Jesus and give it to us. He is here to guide us into all truth. Do we have an ear to hear his truth, take it in and let it change us so that we can be overcomers in a world that has lost it ability to hear the voice of it master.

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.”
Amen.
Maranatha.

We trice our puddings...by and large - S. Maturin in "The Ionian Mission."

2008-01-19T11:14:00.001+01:00

One of the great jokes in all of O'Brians novels came when Stephen Maturin, "practised" (made sport of) a fellow ship mate, a professor named Graham, when Graham decried, "the nautical mind" which Stephen promptly defended by choosing a "faux ami" to put the pompous Graham in his place.

"Puddings. We trice'em athwart the starboard gumbrils, when sailing by and large."

Of course this shocked the whole wardroom with whom he was dining, and actually eating a pudding called 'spotted dog,' The saying brought a priceless response from them.

"Graham's surprise was nothing to that of the wardroom:

'By and large?' they said. 'Gumbrils' starboard gumbrils?' Jack's spotted dog hung in his gullet for a moment before he understood that someone had been practising upon the professor's credulity, an ancient naval form of wit, played off many and many a time on newly-joined young gentlemen, on himself long, long ago and by Pullings and Mowett on Dr Maturin in former years: but never to his knowledge on any man of Graham's eminence.

"Puddings we have sir,' he said swallowing his own, 'and plenty of them. There is a wreath of yarns tapering toward the ends and grafted all over that we clap about the fore and main masts just below the trusses before we go into action, to prevent the yards from falling; then there is a pudding on the boat's stem, to act as a fender; and the puddings we lay round the anchor rings to stop them chafing. But as for gumbrils, why I am afraid someone must have been practising on you. They do not exist.'

The words were scarcely out of his mouth before he wished them back: he knew Stephen extremely well, and that detached dreamy expression could only mean a consciousness of guilt.

'Unless,' added quickly 'it is some archaic term. Yes, I rather think...'

"But is was too late. Captain Harris, the Marine, was already explaining by and large. With a piece of fresh Gibralter bread and arrows drawn with wine, he showed the ship lying as close as possible to the breeze: '... and this is sailing by the wind or as sailors saying in the jargon, on a bowline; whereas large is when it blows not indeed quite from behind but say over a quarter like this.'

'Far enough abaft of the beam that the studdingsails will set,' said Whiting.

'So as you see,' continued Harris, it is quite impossible to sail both by and large at the same time. It is a contradiction in terms.' the expression pleased him and he repeated , 'A contradiction in terms.'

'We do say by and large, said Jack. 'We say a ship sails well by and large when she will both lie close when the wind is scant and run fast when it is free. No that that is what your informant meant.'

'I think not, sir,' said Graham. 'I think you first supposition was correct. I have been practised upon. I am content. I shall say not more.'

By and Large

2008-01-19T11:08:00.002+01:00

[Q] “Where does the term by and large come from?”

[A] It’s a nautical expression, from sailing ship days.

With by and large the modern landlubber means “in general; on the whole; everything considered; for the most part”. When you start to read up on the origin, it’s easy to get confused because dictionary editors and writers on word origins (this one included) have a lot of trouble understanding the terminology. With the help of books like William Falconer’s Dictionary of the Marine of 1769, I think I’ve sorted matters out.

Imagine a ship at sea travelling west. If the wind were blowing from exactly north or south, sideways on, it was said to be on the beam (the beam being the side of the ship at its widest point, usually by the mainmast). If the wind was blowing from any point in the half-circle eastward of the line from north to south, from nearer the stern, the ship was said to be sailing large. This comes from the idea of something being unrestricted, allowing considerable freedom (as in a fugitive being “at large”), because ships sailing large were able to maintain their direction of travel anywhere in a wide arc without needing to make continual changes to the set of the sails.

To some extent sailing ships were able to make progress into the wind, that is, with it blowing from forward of the beam. Those with good handling capabilities could get within five or six points of the wind (there are 32 compass points in a complete circle). In such cases, the ship was said to be sailing by the wind, by here having the sense of “towards”. If the ship were pointed closely into the wind, but with some margin for error in case the wind changed direction slightly, it was said to be full and by (sailing by the wind with her sails full of wind), or close-hauled, because the lower corners of the main sails were all drawn as close as possible down to her side to windward. If the helmsman by mistake turned the ship closer to the direction of the wind than it was capable of sailing, the wind would press the sails back against the masts, stopping the ship dead in the water and possibly breaking the masts off; in this case the ship was taken aback, the maritime source of another common metaphor.

You will appreciate that a ship could either sail large or it could sail by the wind, but never both at the same time. The phrase by and large in sailors’ parlance referred to all possible points of sailing, so it came to mean “in all possible circumstances”. You can see how that could have become converted in layman’s language into a sense of “all things being considered”.

From Dave McClatchey: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bya1.htm

Sorry Rob, everything is not Spiritual

2008-01-15T19:26:00.000+01:00

Rob Bell has a nicely provocative title to one of his latest DVD sermons called "Everything is Spiritual." Later he says that he means everything in life is spiritual. While think I know what he is getting at, these two statements are not true to what scripture has to say about "spirituality" and what is spiritual.

One of the things he says is that in Hebrew, the word "spiritual' does not exist. He says that for the Hebrew mind, everything in life is spiritual, meaning it comes from the life giving Spirit. In the beginning...the Spirit hovered over the waters. The Spirit is the creative power. So the creation is of the Spirit. But is everything that happens in this world of the Spirit or from God? Is God pleased with everything in this world he created?

The short answer, is no. God is not pleased with everything in the world. The life-giving Spirit who made us and the universe is not pleased with what has happened. Was it "spiritual" for Adam and Eve to disobey God and eat the fruit he forbade them to eat. No. Was it "of the Spirit" that Israel turned away from the God that made them a nation and blessed them so he could bless the world. No. Is it "spiritual" for us to murder, to be angry, to divorce our spouses, to not provide for our children, to make war against innocent nations? No. It is not of the Spirit.

Paul the Apostle tells us that there a lot of things that our not Spiritual. He says thing that things like " sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like, are contrary to the Spirit. He says, " I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal. 5:19ff He says these anti-spiritual things are from our sinful nature. Clearly not of the spirit.

But Pauls says that the " But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Gal. 5:22 ff. Paul makes a clear distinction between that with is spiritual and that which is not.

So we cannot really say "Everything is Spiritual". Rather we should say, everything that God himself made is spiritual. The way that God intended us to live, is spiritual. But anytime we create something that goes against the nature of God, like gas chambers for killing millions of people, we create an unspiritual object. Anytime we live life in a way that that is against the nature of God, like hating our neighbors, we are unspiritual.

But...if Rob is saying, that there is an artificial divide between the sacred and the secular, then he is right. Natural is not unspiritual and, supernatural is spiritual. God made the natural, God is supernatural. The natural is of the spirit. Work is no less spiritual than play. Church work, is not more spiritual than work outside the church. Both where made by God, they are spiritual.

So let's not hear any more of this nonsense that everything is spiritual. God wants us to use our head's so nonsense is not spiritual.

Sorry Rob, but, I just thought (in all humility) I'd keep you from being unspiritual. But we're both spiritual even though we both at times act unspiritual.

Shalom

Stages of Faith

2007-09-09T12:36:00.000+02:00

A friend recently asked whether I had heard of James Fowler, saying he was reading a lot about him. My friend included an article my Mr. Fowler on “Stages of Faith” (see http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm ). The rest of this won’t make sense until you read it. I found it interesting, but I immediately flipped into my Counseling Pschology mode and responded to my friend with the following.

“No I've not heard of him but it appears that his book come out in 1981. (Fowler, James W. (1981). Stages of Faith, Harper & Row ISBN 0-06-062866-9).

It is difficult to evaluate his theory since the article is completely devoid of any research data, references etc. It appears to be a psychological thesis, which is fine. But as one who firmly believes in the integration of psychology and theology (general revelation and special revelation), I would like to see him actually interact with both the psychological theory and reseearch on the topic of faith was well as the the biblical explanation of faith i.e. what it is, how it is formed, who it is formed in etc. He doesn't really do this. He lightly refers to Biblical sections without really doing the theological work. I do realize that this is a synopsis of his views. But to really know the value of this article, one would have to go much deeper into his research.

I did find a rather critical view of his work in the Wikipedia
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_faith_development ). After reading it, I would counsel caution on too quickly accepting his ideas.

Having said this, I do believe that within human development, faith does progress. Information about God, usually precedes any sort of faith, although many seem to react directly to the "sense of the numinous" and begin believing in something bigger than themselves. The simple ability of a child to believe in a Jesus who loves him/her, saves him/her and what's him/her to be in heaven with him is hardly the faith of a 60 year old who has interacted with much more information, experiences, traumas, and realities. When a child passes through adolescence, the process of individuation usually causes a "crisis of faith" where the child must decide if he/she is going to believe in the faith of his parents or his church, or if he/she is going to believe for themselves.

Someone who is confronted with the existence of God either intuitively or externally usually goes through a process. I think the Engel's Scale (see
http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/engel.php ) while a bit dated, does show a progression of thinking and information as a person comes to faith and develops in faith. I think there is validity in this.

Faith, I think, is ultimately a matter of believing in God (Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.") in the way he has revealed himself. That is what I hope to point people toward."

Jesus, the Savior of the World: What does he save us from?

2007-08-23T21:13:00.000+02:00

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matt. 1:21
They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” John 4:42
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. Luke 9:24
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” Luke 19:10
"And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Acts 2:21
"With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Acts 2:40
And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 2:47b
He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ Acts 11:14
...he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:5

Richard Niebuhr Still has a Message for Us Today

2007-08-23T05:16:00.000+02:00

A God without wrath brought human beings without sin into a kingdom without judgment through ministrations of a Christ without a cross.

- H. Richard Niebuhr, Describing the Protestant liberalism of the day back in 1937.

H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (Hamden Connecticut: Shoe String Press, 1956), p. 193.

Soren Kierkegaard on Life

2007-05-28T22:05:00.000+02:00

"Life must be understood backward. But it must be lived forward "

Praying and Magic

2007-05-21T09:10:00.000+02:00

Praying is that wonderful thing that God has given us to stay in constant mindful contact with him. The ever-presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer brings continual spiritual presence of Christ. But it is prayer that brings our minds and hearts close to the Lord. However, today as in Jesus day, we are tempted to make prayer something that it is not.

Jesus taught his disciples about prayer. For him, prayer is a normal part of the life of a believer, which he shows when he said “When you pray…”. In his teaching on prayer in the Gospel of Matthew, he warned people about prayer becoming an external exercise. He said “… do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men." He said we should be cautious about wanting to be seen as great prayers. We need to people who pray continuously, but not presumptuously. He says to avoid this by praying individually and secretly. We are to go into our “room and close the door.”

Jesus warned against the magical use of prayer. He spoke against “babbling like pagans who think they will be heard because of their many words.” They believed that many words had power. Believing in magic is when one uses words to control a supernatural power. Jesus says it does no good. God is not a power to be manipulated. He is personal and “knows what we need before we ask.” So praying is not about saying a lot of words, it’s about having personal contact with the living God who hears us through simple prayer.

In John’s gospel, Jesus reminds us that the Father doesn’t just respond to our words, he responds to our whole lives. “If you abide in me and my word abides in you, then ask whatever you wish and it will be done for you.” Its clear that God does not answer our prayer based on the number of times we pray, but he answers based on a life fully consecrated to Jesus.

In the same way that people of Jesus’ time thought that that many words were necessary in prayer, many thought God answered based on the number of people praying. But Jesus said that even prayer in small groups is what God is looking for. He says again in Matthew’s gospel “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” God doesn’t look for large numbers. He looks for the unity of those praying.

Jesus was concerned that people might become weary or discouraged in praying, so he told a parable about a women who persistently went to a judge for justice. Because of her persistence, and because she believed in the office of the judge, he answered. Jesus says we should pray persistently, in full belief that God answers, and to not give up. God wants us to “cry out day and night.” He never wants us to give up. Jesus is not concerned about how much or how often we pray, but that we pray, believing that God will answer, and that we never give up praying. It is a life of uninterrupted prayer that God wants us to have, so we can be close and so he can provide for us.

"And without faith...life is not possible."

2007-05-14T17:07:00.000+02:00

"Faith is believing in what you know is not true." Waggish wisdom at best. "Faith is believing in what you hope is true." This is getting more to the heart of the matter. It takes faith to believe some things, because everything is not obvious. Like... we all believe in gravity. We've never seen it, but we believe in it because we all seem to be held to the ground. And it's better than believing "there is no such thing as gravity, the Earth sucks."

Most of don't really understand the physics formula for gravity:

We just believe it because it works. But since we have no reason why, we take it on faith. But that doesn't mean faith is mindless or irrational. We believe in gravity, not believe we can see it or understand it, but because we see the evidence of it.

We all walk through life, seeing evidence for things and believing they exist but not really understanding why or how they exist. Take for example this text your reading. You take it on faith that your eyes are able to read this text. But do you know for sure that what your eyes are seeing is reality. No, not really. You no have way of proving that what your eyes see, really exists. But, you will keep on reading, and believing that there is a connection between what you see and that you see.

You get up in the morning, put your feet on the floor, having faith that because your stood on it last night, you can still stand on it today. You test this every moment. We are all empirical reality testers. And because your test comes up positive, you believe in the existence of the floor. And you will continue to believe until the day your feet fall through the floor. I feel (the floor) therefore I believe. My sensation is connected to reality.

Not one of us could live in this life without faith: believing in the reality of things we can neither prove or understand.

We feel love for others. Love, where does it come from? From me, from others? We don't know, but we feel it. We know it exists, because we feel the result of it. We can't explain it, we don't understand it, we just believe.

This is the way it is with faith in God. We look around and see the results of God: his creation. We can't prove how it got here, but here it is. We realize it's beyond us. It's immensity, complexity and beauty all reflect the handiwork of an intelligence far beyond our own. So even thought we can't prove his existence or even understand his existence, we believe, because we see the results of his existence.

We have this sense or feeling inside of us that there is something out there. It's bigger than me. It's more real that me. I can't see it, but it's there. Some have called this "the sense of the the numinous." We feel it, but we can't see it. But it's result are there. God's presence, the sense of the numinous, is taken on faith because our sensation is somehow connected to reality.

No one denies the reality of gravity. It is too real. It works everyday. Everyone has a sense of "something beyond." Our eyes tells us it's there, the physical reality around us speaks us it. That sense of something beyond, the wonder of what we see all speak evidence of the reality of God. Do we believe it? We should, we believe so many things that we cannot explain, or understand.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, for anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he reward those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6.

Interpretation is Today's World

2007-05-14T14:53:00.001+02:00

In his book, "Is There a Meaning in this Text," Kevin Vanhoozer says that postmodernity is "a culture of interpretation." By this, he characterizes a major part of both the philosophy and methodology that is at the center of postmodern thinking. Everything is open to interpretation. And that is true. But does that mean that everything is open to endless speculation as to the meaning of what is being interpreted. Let's narrow our scope for now, to the interpretation of texts.

With the rise of "reader-oriented interpretation" of literature, where it is the reader herself that brings the meaning to the text, we have seen many people think that there are as many meanings of text as there are readers. Everyone has there own interpretation. Again, while that may be true, does that signify that the meaning of a text changes with the reader who reads it? This question is important to anyone of faith in Christ who approaches the Bible to learn of God and his ways.

Is is possible that, as Vanhoozer thinks, "meaning is independent of our attempts to interpret it?" I have always understood that, if "all scripture is God-breathed" as the Apostle Paul told his protegée Timothy, then the meaning lies with God who inspired the text. Our job is then to discover the meaning and not establish it. But in the postmodern way of thinking, "The purpose of interpretation is no longer to recover and relate a message from one who is other than ourselves, but precisely to evade a confrontation. The business of interpretation is busyness: constantly to produce readings in order to avoid having to respond to the text."(p. 16)

In some circles, this is what I hear being done with scripture today. Since, so the argument goes, there are many church traditions, and each has it's own interpretation of the scriptures, then each reading and interpretation is valid. So, if you come upon a section of scripture that you find uncomfortable or unpalatable, then you simply look for a church tradition or theologian or any private reader of the scripture who has something to say, and remark, "there are other interpretations." What Vanhoozer says seems to ring true, people appeal to a constant process of readings, re-readings and deconstructions, to "avoid having to respond to the text."

So if one doesn't like having to say that sin is one the roots of the human problem, don't worry, there's another interpretation. If you don't like the idea the people who don't live with God in this life won't live with God in the next life but will be in a hellish place where all evil is gathered together in one place, don't worry, there's another interpretation.

But, what if the meaning of the texts of the Bible have a transcendent nature to them, one that transcends all efforts we make to read into the text? What if God's message really is that we need to be saved from the evil that ensnares us and that pulls us to where there is "weeping and gnashing" of teeth. What if through God's love he did sent his son as a sacrifice of atonement for us so that we would not have to pay the penalty of sin? What if we really do need to respond to God's message before we die, so that when we are held accountable for our life on Earth by God, he will be able to forgive us based on that faith in God's message Jesus great act on a cross, and experience the completion of redemption that God promises to all who believe his message.

I believe that a limited use of deconstruction theory is quite helpful because it keeps going back to the text to see what it really means. But a deconstruction that arrives at an endless process of deconstruction with no solid reconstruction, leaves us with no Word of God respond to, to guide us and shape us. It seems that the Good News as is plainly read in Scripture, is a lot better than any attempts to deconstruct it into a something that is not reality and will not save us.

Vanhoozer says that "We need to examine the theory and practice of contemporary interpretation to see if it is "in the faith" for some readers contrive to deprive the Bible of it's authority through interpretation." Does the purpose of the current practice of interpretation as practiced by some, follow Soren Kierkegaard's cynical insight when he says, "Look more closely, and you will see that it [the practice of contemporary interpretation] is to defend itself against Gods Word."

The Touch of the Master's Hand

2007-03-26T18:48:00.001+02:00

THE TOUCH OF THE MASTER'S HAND

By Myra Ross Welch (1926)

'twas battered and scarred and the auctioneer
Thought it scarcely worth his while
To waste much time on the old violin,
But he held it up with a smile:

"What am bidden, good folks?" he cried,
"Who'll start the bidding for me?"
"A dollar! A dollar!" then "Two! Only two?"
"Two dollars, and who'll make it three?"

"Three dollars once, three dollars twice . . .
And going for three . . . " but no.
From the room, far back, a gray-haired man
Came forward and picked up the bow.

Then, wiping the dust from the the old violin,
And tightening the loosened strings,
He played a melody pure and sweet,
As a carolling angel sings.

The music ceased, and the auctioneer
With a voice that was quiet and low
Said, "What am I bid for the old violin?"
And he held it up with the bow.

"A thousand dollars! And who'll make it two?
"Two thousand! Who'll make it three?
"Three going once? Three going twice?
"And going . . . and gone!" said he.

The people cheered but some of them cried,
"We do not understand!
What changed its worth?" -- Swift came the reply,
"The touch of the Master's Hand."

And many a man with life out of tune
And battered and scarred with sin
Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd
Much like the old violin.

A "mess 'o pottage"
A glass of wine
A game and he travels on.
He's "going" once
And "going" twice
And "going" . . . and almost "gone"

Then along comes the Master, and the foolish crowd
Never can quite understand
The worth of a soul or the change that's wrought
By the touch of the Master's Hand.

Universalism and the Death of the Gospel

2007-02-04T13:17:00.000+01:00

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3,4

Having lived in Europe now for 21 years, and having seen the result of what Theological Universalism has done to the Church and to the belief of thousands, even millions of people, I am horrified that Universalism is rearing its ugly head in writings of people who might call themselves Evangelicals. As I have observed the visible church in Europe, I have seen that among many professors, pastors and lay people, the dominant thought about the Doctrine of Salvation is that the Grace of God did not need the death of Christ to bring reconciliation between God and people. Rather, Gods’ loving Grace is universal is scope and application. In its scope, there is nothing that God’s grace cannot over come and in it’s application, there is no one to whom God’s saving Grace will not be applied. They say that when all is said and done, “every knee will bow and every tongues confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

This thinking has permeated the church is Europe with the result of the emptying of it seats and decimating it’s influence. People no longer see the Church as the place where the “good news” is announced and practiced. The church is no longer needed for one to “work out their salvation with fear and trembling.” No… it is said glibly, “God will forgive… that’s his job.”

Nevertheless, Universalism is not compatible with the Gospel that Jesus himself came to announce and this is evidenced by the how people have left the church and left following Christ. Thankfully, the “faith once given” still brings people to belief and discipleship of Christ. The true message has that power. J.I Packer once said good theology works. Universalism is an example of the converse, bad theology that does not work. It has been a disaster for any church that has embraced it. The European church “stands” as primary evidence of the deficiency of the teaching of Universalism. American Unitarian/Universalism is it’s second. And so-called “Trinitarian Universalism” as embraced by many theologically liberal churches in North America is the deciding vote. In embracing it, they have lost their Gospel and continue to see an exodus of people, shrinking membership and fewer and fewer people answering Jesus’ call to “come follow me.” Universalism has been the death of the Gospel.

Universalism is “another Gospel”, the type of which Paul the apostle warns against in his letter to the Galatians. Even though it is experiencing renewed discussion among those calling themselves “evangelical”, and among “emergent” circles, it is not new. The early church examined the idea of universal salvation and rejected it. Origen, was a proponent and was ultimately judged has a heretic. In 544 A.D. the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned universalism as heresy. The great theologian Augustine in his “Enchiridion” championed the defense that for grace to be applied, faith was required.

In spite of the Scriptures’ overwhelming emphasis on the need for faith to be pleasing to God, faith that brings personal relationship, there are those who seem to do Jeffersonian exegesis and cut out the parts of the inspired scriptures that they don’t like. While Universalism may be, “an exegetical possibility”, only a partial and selective reading of scripture to lead to the conclusion of Universalism. When doing exegesis, one does catalogue the possible meanings of the reading of a text. But then good exegesis seeks to see how the various readings come together in support of God’s intended and inspired meaning. While there are texts in the Bible that when read in isolation, might point to universal salvation, the overall reading of the scriptures does not leave us that possibility. Citing God’s universal love for the world (John 3:16) and his desire that “all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” as biblical evidence for universal salvation, insults the intelligence of anyone taking to time to combine good exegesis with the theological doctrines of God’s love, grace and justice. The Scriptures, read in their totality, when speaking of the Judgment, never explicitly, implicitly or otherwise give a hint of an idea that God will give people the option to have faith and accept his salvation after death. Rather, it is what we do in life for which we are held accountable and judged.

It seems to be in vogue today to say that C.S. Lewis supported Universalism. But in fact he himself said the opposite. “When a reader asked why Lewis disagreed with George MacDonald on universalism, Lewis answered, “I parted company from MacDonald on that point because a higher authority — the Dominical utterances themselves — seemed to me irreconcilable with universalism.”(1) Lewis’ reading of the scriptures led him to believe that, “All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.” (1)

I have at times said that I would love to be a Universalist, that is, if Jesus’ teachings in the Bible left me that option. They don’t. And as Ivo Meyer, (a Catholic priest and spiritual guide at John XXIII Catholic Parish in Geneva Switzerland, now with the Lord, but who I had the honor of knowing) once said to me, “No faith, no grace.”

In writing this, I do not want to be harsh. But I fear in speaking directly, one may think that I am. But my heart’s desire is for everyone to have the joy of knowing Christ and being known by him. Like God I want “ all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4) Universalism is not that truth and will not lead to the truth. But the Lord has given us freedom to follow him or not. And God loves everyone so much that he not going take away that choice.

In the “Great Divorce”, C.S.Lewis’ amazing story on the reality of Hell, he says…

“There are only two kinds of people in the end:
those that say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’
and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’

(1) Beyond Mere Christianity: What Shall we make of C.S. Lewis
http://www.equip.org/free/JAL400.htm

Internet references.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.html
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Universalism/universalismalook.html
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2737&C=2489
http://cwhisonant.gotdns.com/documents/docs/universalism.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/universa.html

...if civilization is to survive...

2007-01-03T23:22:00.000+01:00

Today we are faced with the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Undelivered Speech, 1945

Aboard at a Ship's Helm

2006-12-15T15:59:00.000+01:00

Aboard, at a ship’s helm,
A young steersman, steering with care.
A bell through fog on a sea-coast dolefully ringing,
An ocean-bell—O a warning bell, rock’d by the waves.

O you give good notice indeed, you bell by the sea-reefs ringing,
Ringing, ringing, to warn the ship from its wreck-place.
For, as on the alert, O steersman, you mind the bell’s admonition,
The bows turn,—the freighted ship, tacking, speeds away under her gray sails,
The beautiful and noble ship, with all her precious wealth, speeds away gaily and safe.

But O the ship, the immortal ship! O ship aboard the ship!
O ship of the body—ship of the soul—voyaging, voyaging, voyaging.

by Walt Whitman

Dancing Christmas LIghts

2006-12-13T23:42:00.000+01:00

Click on the title above for a great light show.

Merry Christmas

Meditations of a Voyage

2006-12-05T15:56:00.000+01:00

Meditations of a Voyage
Unknown

The fish jumping in the morning light, like silver daggers flying.
The fluffy clouds in morning flight give way to another night dying.
The decks awash with salty spray, the sails are full and pulling.
Another sign of a tradewinds day and the "Morning Winds" keep going.
As the ocean reflects the Azure sky, and my long night's watch is past
The sailor asks the question why?
Why did I leave my loves to sail behind the mast?
This voyage around the world has taken me to unknown shores
God's greatness He has shown me, by opening my uncharted doors.

Satan's Judo

2006-12-02T11:11:00.000+01:00

When I was a young child, my father told me about how police were trained in Judo to control violent people. One of the principles was that the one uses the weight and power of the other against them. The person’s own strength and weight was used against them to control them.

As I look at the church and those of us in the church, I see a similar thing happening. God has given us all strength and “weight” which I see as a person’s influence. Each of us has been given great gifts. But more often that I would like to believe, Satan causes gifted and influential people in his schemes to subvert Jesus’ church. We unwittingly exercise our strengths in a way, that brings the spiritual battle between us. We know we are in conflict with the Evil one and his minions, but the battle becomes even more diabolical when we fight each other. When Satan deceives believers (Rev. 20:10), this is often the result.

In order to put the battle back where it belongs, with the “powers and principalities” (Eph. 6:12), we need each other. We need to not use our strengths and influence against brothers and sisters in Christ, but in a way that helps us each of fight the spiritual battle (Eph. 6:11) that Satan brings to us in trying to bring down the church.

Jesus said, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” While we have the confidence that the cosmic struggle between God and Satan is over, nevertheless, we fight a spiritual battle as the “gates of hell” try to prevail. Let’s not become ammunition for the enemy, let’s love one another and so prevail for Jesus in the ways of Jesus. Let’s turn the tables on Satan in not being “unaware of his schemes.”(2 Cor. 2:11) Being aware of his schemes allows us to use his power and influence against him, not fighting as the world fights, but through the “knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5) to “take every thought captive” and not let Satan use our minds and actions against us.

“Fight the good fight of the faith”… not against God and not against each other.

Crossing the Bar

2006-12-01T15:46:00.000+01:00

Sunset and evening star,
And one clear call for me!
And may there be no moaning of the bar,
When I put out to sea,

But such a tide as moving seems asleep,
Too full for sound or foam,
When that which drew from out the boundless deep
Turns again home.

Twilight and evening bell,
And after that the dark!
And may there be no sadness of farewell;
When I embark;

For tho' from out our bourne of Time and Place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face
When I have crossed the bar.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

"I will never leave you or forsake you."

2006-11-30T15:24:00.000+01:00

“I will never leave you or forsake you.” Joshua 1:5

Abandonment. A very real event and a very common theme in the world today. Many have had parents or a partner leave…no further contact. So many children of divorced parents internalize the leaving of the parent as abandonment. The sudden death of a loved one often leaves one feeling abandoned, even though it’s nobody’s fault. In the case of suicide, the abandonment can be more painful real. Even emotional distance in family, relationships and the work place cause people to suffer from a sense of desertion.

The problems of associated abandonment or perceived abandonment are well known. Many go through life fearing rejection. As a result they find it difficult if not impossible to form meaningful and intimate relationships. New relationships are simply out of the question as the woundedness of abandonment continues to cause people to withdraw and become emotionally and even physically isolated. With this comes loneliness. The person feeling abandonment often suffers from shattered self-esteem and self-worth.

Christians are not exempt from the problem of a sense of abandonment. In the same way some feel abandoned by parents, they also feel abandoned by God. When traumatic events happen, God can seem far away and even absent completely. With so much pain and suffering in the world, many have no sense of the presence of God… “he has abandoned us to our fate.”

But nothing is further from the truth. Abandonment has no part of the experience of a person of faith because it is not the reality with God. He promised his covenant people that he would never leave them or forsake them. (Joshua 1:5). His continued presence, from their release from captivity in Egypt until they became a great nation, was evident. Even when Jesus, the Son of God returns to heaven, he says to his followers, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:20). We can count on God’s presence now and forever.

This part of God’s story can be the greatest gift of great comfort for those who suffer from abandonment and loneliness. The reality of God’s forever-presence needs fresh apprehension. Meditation on this great truth can help us internalize it and bring healing. But went a person is really stuck in their feelings caused by abandonment, it is you and I that are the presence of God in that person’s life. And when we ourselves are stuck with feelings of estrangement from God, it is the people of God who have the presence and wisdom of God that we need. The “demons” of abandonment don’t have to dog us!

Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.” Deut. 31:6

Jesus, the liar, lunatic or the Lord

2006-11-21T21:42:00.000+01:00

Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different than anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips...

...I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

From C.S. Lewis' , "Mere Christianity" Macmillan Publishing Co, New York, NY. Copyright 1952.

The Set of the Sails

2006-11-20T21:28:00.000+01:00

One ship drives east, and another west
With the self-same winds that blow;
'Tis the set of the sails
And not the gales,
That decides the way to go.

Like the winds of the sea are the ways of fate,
As they voyage along through life;
'Tis the will of the soul
That decides its goal,
And not the calm or the strife.

by Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Attitude

2006-11-10T20:22:00.000+01:00

"The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life.

It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do.

It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company ... a church ... a home.

The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day.

We cannot change our past ... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable.

The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you ... we are in charge of our Attitude."

- Chuck Swindoll

How the Mighty Have Fallen

2006-11-08T10:25:00.000+01:00

The story of Ted Haggard is not over.

As someone who is pleased to be called by the name "Evangelical", this event is difficult and must be processed. In thinking it though and seeking guidance, I came accross one of my mentor "à distance", someone who I esteem highly. Gordon MacDonald knows from first hand experience about fighting and losing a spiritual battle. The link below brings you his thoughts, which at this point, are are a much more qualified voice than my own.

Gordon MacDonald Article

American Election Day 2006

2006-11-06T10:01:00.000+01:00

Aren’t elections wonderful! Don’t they stimulate us! Don’t they make us think! We have the privilege of helping to choose those who govern us. Democracy, government by the people.

And how interesting! Elections are polls of opinion. We get to see some broad opinions. Yes it is difficult to see the individual opinions, and individual reasoning but the broad sweeps are interesting and instructive.

I hope you’ll excuse me for sounding so wide eyed, but I purposely chose to recapture a sense of awe of what is going on.

This American election seems to have been a multiple referenda:

On the many issues of the war in Iraq
On the content and style of the President Bush
On the American economy
On the environment

It seems that abortion and gay marriage, where there are strong majorities against each, have not been the issues people where most concerned about.

But what about the weightier issues of
fairness of economy for all peoples of the world
social injustice all around the world
helping the poor and dealing with poverty and hunger
drug addiction and the horrors it creates for user and producer countries
and the list goes on. How do we know what is priority?

As Christians we are to be in submission to the laws and rulers of a land. But we are also to live and promote righteousness, that is, we are to promote the values of God. So when we live in democratic countries, we need to promote the values of God. God wants us to act in a loving way toward everyone. He want justice for everyone, helping the down trodden. He wants people have the opportunity to seek him. God’s priorities are found all through the preaching of the prophets, the teaching the Jesus and the writings of his followers.

When we have elections, these must be the guiding lights to be our priorities. Fortunately, we can do much of that in the public arena. But the issues of righteous that involve personal and corporate faith must be lived in communities. Faith is a matter of the heart and not something we can legislate. But the values that come from faith, which are the values of God, can be.

At election times, we need to work hard to help people realize that we are voting our conscience and not forcing faith on people. Faith cannot be forced. Moral values however can be agreed upon and enforced. Elections need to continue to be referenda on values. For it is the values that we put in place that will guide us, and our elected officials, in how to govern a country and a world

And thanks be to God, that we have him to guide us as we sort through the difficult issues of picking elected leaders and the values that govern us.

Paralyzed with fear...

2006-11-03T23:39:00.000+01:00

"For the truth is that I already know as much about my fate as I need to know. The day will come when I will die. So the only matter of consequence before me is what I will do with my allotted time. I can remain on shore, paralyzed with fear, or I can raise my sails and dip and soar in the breeze."

- Richard Bode, First you have to row a little boat

Straight Paths

2006-11-02T19:36:00.000+01:00

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. – Proverbs 3:5-6

We are curious creatures. We have been created in the image of God, yet we often act like there was no God at all. Large amounts of our time are spent looking after ourselves, by ourselves. And no wonder. In the past, society has educated us to be independent and self-sufficient. We are blind to the fact that this is an illusion. Part of he truth is that we must really on each other. But even society as a whole cannot exist on it’s own.

One of the great myths of our time is that education will bring freedom and peace to the world. Education will solve all our problems. With education, even AIDS can be defeated. Man’s great learning passed on to man, the great humanist endeavor, while having noble intentions, will ultimately fail as a savior.

God has made us in his image, a fact that needs to turn us to seeing things from his perspective. Our great gift of reason is to be informed by information outside of ourselves. In the world around us there are two great books, as Galileo once said: the book of creation and the book of the scriptures. Our life in this world must certainly include delighting ourselves with the study of of the world. But even the world, was created by God. The life we live was created by God. And so it is reasonable, that our life and our life lived passionately looking at the world around us needs a humble attitude of seeking God through “acknowledging him in all our ways. Then we’ll know how to walk in this world.

Greatness

2006-11-01T20:42:00.000+01:00

He who serves his fellows,
is of all his fellows greatest.

- E. Urner Goodman

I Shall not Pass this Way Again

2006-10-31T10:24:00.000+01:00

I expect to pass through this world but once.
Any good thing, therefore, that I can do
or any kindness I can show to any fellow human being
let me do it now.
Let me not defer nor neglect it,
for I shall not pass this way again.

- William Penn

Wit and Judgement

2006-10-30T10:22:00.000+01:00

Less judgment than wit is more sail than ballast.

- William Penn

Begging the Question

2006-10-30T09:52:00.000+01:00

Something has changed. Okay, so what else is new. Lots of things change. But this one sticks in my craw every time I hear it…the metamorphosis in current usage of the meaning of the phrase “That begs the question.” I always understood that is referred to a statement that contained a logical fallacy where one took for granted or assumed the thing that was being proved. And another name for this is a “circular argument.” For example, someone says, “lying is wrong, because one should always tell the truth.” Another example would be "The Bible is God’s word because it is always right.” Here the speaker is assuming the very point he or she wants to prove: because the Bible is always right, therefore it is God’s word. So one would be correct to reply, “That begs the question.”

A second and similar meaning comes from when one is using what one is trying to prove in the argument. This can come across as a subtle way to evade an issue. One might then say, “You are begging the question” or “that begs the question.”

However, a new usage has arisen that has no connection with it’s original. In current usage “beg the question” has come to mean, “that raises the question” or “that forces the question.” An example is: "The church is having a problem with attendance. That begs the question, what are we going to do about it?” Here the speaker is rather simply saying, “that raises the question.”

The original meaning of the phrase is, admittedly, difficult. In looking around to discover why this is, I found that it is a 1581 translation from Latin, petitio principii, found Aristotle’s book on logic, “Prior Analytics.” Some say that “beg the question” is not the best translation for people now, because at the time “beg” meant “I humbly submit.” Perhaps an easier translation would be, “I think you are assuming what you are trying to prove?” Or, “isn’t that a circular argument?”

So why does the new usage bug me. The original meaning was a (rather clever) way of calling into question someone’s reasoning. The new usage subverts this original usage and makes it a kin to “I beg to differ.” “Begging the question” ceases to call attention to a circular argument and simply means an unsolved issue needs an answer.

The meanings have nothing to do with each other and become confusing. They are confusing because they have nothing to do with each other. This does not beg the question. But it does raise the question, how will you use “That begs the question.”

The Road Not Taken

2006-10-28T17:19:00.000+02:00

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

--Robert Frost

Deconstructionism

2006-10-26T11:48:00.000+02:00

I hear many people today use the word "deconstruct." In fact, since the '90s we are hearing many people use the term “deconstruct”, deconstructionism, or deconstructionist. The reason for this is that “deconstructionist” philosophy and methodology in interpretation of literature, history, laws, scientific postulates etc. has become an important part of the way people do interpretation.

One could define deconstructionism as:

“a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.

Deconstruction focuses on a text as such, rather than as an expression of the author's intention, stressing the limitlessness (or impossibility) of interpretation and rejecting the Western philosophical tradition of seeking certainty through reasoning by privileging certain types of interpretation and repressing others. It was effectively named and popularized by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida from the late 1960s and taken up particularly by U.S. literary critics.” (Oxford American Dictionary)

Deconstructionism urges us to re-look at the text. In doing so it asks us to always go back and see what the text might be saying and it might be interpreted differently. It encourages us to examine the sources and see if there are more sources than were originally used in the interpretation of the text or event. As Christians, this is good since we always want to be going back to the text and let it speak to us.

Deconstructionistic thinking warns us that we must be careful how we “absolutize” or privilege certain interpretations over others. It is wrong to accept an interpretation simply because it is written by a ruling class, a powerful party, or a “savant” within a group. We must let the text speak and be careful how we use referential thinking.

These positive aspects are good, making deconstruction a valuable idea and method. There are several weaknesses and problems in the deconstructionist approach one must be aware of.

1. It denies the importance of the author’s intention because it is not knowable. In doing so it leaves interpretation completely open to the “limitless possibilities of the text” and the limitless possibilities of a “reader oriented” approach to the text. Umberto Eco addresses this is his book “The Limits of Interpretation.” He says that texts cannot be interpreted any old way since the text has structure and operates according to various rules. He hypothesizes that the text forms it own “ideal reader” which limits the person the “intention of the text.”

2. Many deconstructionists see a limitless number of possible interpretations and therefore make the text meanlingness. Since everything is relative to the reader, the text will always means something different. The problem with this is that this limitless relativism does not allow us read a text and arrive at some precision of meaning.

3. Many deconstructionists base their understanding of the text on the idea that since we are all fallible readers, or since we all come at a text from different perspective, we will never really know an intention of the text. This leaves the meaning of a text open to an eternal drift based the relative reading of whoever is reading it.

Some correctives that we might apply:

1. All texts have authors and who had an intention. While we might not have absolute certainly of their intention, we must still be reading a text realizing that the text has intention not only because of it’s linguistic structure, but because with was written for a reason.

2. There are not limitless possibilities for interpreting a text (unless of course that was the author’s intention eg. James Joyce,Ulyssess). Readers must be aware of what they are bringing to the text. The reader must know the difference between “reading into” the text (isogesis) and reading from the text (exegesis).

3. While we are all fallible readers, a study of a number of interpreters will limit the interpretation to “cultural” groups and therefore give us the ability to see how “isogeis happens” by giving us a range of interpretations. One can compare the relative merits of each an arrive and a more “accepted” reading. This will hopefully give us a majority opinion and a better understanding of the text.

Being Close to God

2006-10-26T11:34:00.000+02:00

What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? -- Deut. 4:7

Come near to God and he will come near to you. --James 4:8

Intimacy…it is one of the things we most need and crave as human beings. Without it, we become lonely. Without the closeness of intimacy, we become strange…crazy lone-wolves.

We long to be known by others for who we are. We long to have that same depth of knowledge of others. To be intimate seems to have been created into us.

Intimacy…closeness with God is also created into us. God’s purpose in creating us was for us to be known by him. God knows us through and through (Psalm 139). But he also wants to be known by us. This is why he reveals himself to us in the Bible, in history, through creation, through Christ and through each other. God wants to be known…for who he really is.

That is one of the reasons why he has given us prayer, for through it, we are close to God. In what precedes the “Shema” (Deut. 6:4), where Israel’s basic understanding of God and their relationship with God is revealed, prayer is part of the core of their faith. When we draw near to God through the self-disclosure of prayer, we are nearer to God, and he is nearer to us. When we listen to what God says to us while we pray, we are nearer to God.

Prayer is one of those ways God has given us to be close to him. It’s a great pity not to take advantage of it.

Pray and be close to God.

Discussion:

• Is it your experience that you are close to God when you pray?
• Does it ever happen that you are not close when you pray? Why do you suppose that is?
• Are there barriers to closeness with God?
• How can we deal with those barriers?
• What else would you like to say about intimacy with God?

Come let us walk in the light of YHWH

2006-10-25T13:31:00.000+02:00

In the last days, the mountain of YHWH’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains. It will be raised above the hills and all nations will stream to it.

Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of YHWH, to the house of the YHWH of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.”

Come, O House of Jacob, let us walk in the Light of the Lord. (Isaiah 2:2,3,5)

Since the beginning, YHWH has made people to need him, to want him, to desire him. But since nearly the beginning, mankind has been of a creature of self-interest instead having interest in the YHWH, who made them. Even the nation of Israel, who YHWH established in order to reveal himself to the world, walked away from their creator. After all that YHWH has showed and done for them, they still focused on the whims and desires of kings and rulers, ironically, appointed by YHWH, rather than their own god-king.

People universally show a penchant for self-interest. Humanism, that once great movement that valued people for the reason of the innate greatness of mankind because they were created in the image of YHWH, was corrupted into a godless worship of the creature. The gift of reason, the handmaiden of theology, once so clearly understood to be too marvelous to have come into existence without out YHWH, became the standard by which everything was judged, even it’s creator. The creation around us instead of being cared for and nurtured because it was made by YHWH and reveals YHWH, has been mindlessly exploited and polluted to serve the purposes of it’s appointed caretakers.

In the midst of the grim history of mankind’s self-preoccupation, YHWH used individuals like Isaiah to call people back to their senses. He calls the people chosen by YHWH to reveal him to the world. Isaiah calls his people to bring the world back to the light. He calls Israel to be the light so that the nations again will see the light of YHWH. Israel, the people chosen by YHWH, were to be the nation where the people of the world would come for the wisdom of YHWH so that they might walk in the way of the YHWH.

And hasn’t this happened? Isn’t it amazing that even though Israel, for all it’s faults, was still used by YHWH to bring light and understanding to the nations. YHWHÂ’s new order for the world, announced by Isaiah is still being worked out by Israel’s Davidic line. Jesus, Israel’s messiah in the line of David, is seated in the temple of the “mountain of the Lord.” The nations are streaming to it to find the ways of YHWH and know his wisdom. All around the world, YHWH’s creatures stream to the “mountain of the Lord.”

YHWH’s people, anyone who is a part of the faithful “remnant” seeking his promised chosen one, are being used by him to bring the nations to the light. In spite of imperfections, in spite of inborn arrogance, YHWH’s redeemed show his light. God’s new order is being established in the world and will be established in the new earth.

Come let us walk in the light of YHWH.

True reckoning...a perfect pilot

2006-10-15T21:32:00.000+02:00

What ship, puzzled at sea, cons for the true reckoning?

Or, coming in, to avoid the bars, and follow the channel, a perfect pilot needs?

Here, sailor! Here, ship! take aboard the most perfect pilot,

Whom, in a little boat, putting off, and rowing, I, hailing you, offer.

—W. Whitman

Al Gore and the Environment

2006-10-15T11:42:00.000+02:00

The movie "Inconvenient Truth", a documentary by former Vice-President Al Gore which I saw this past Saturday night, was a surprisingly good summary of the many types of evidence for both the fact of global warming, but also it’s consequences. In spite of some unfortunate use of out-of-context video clips used as examples for points made, as well as partisan jabs, the film shows that if global warming related consequences materialize, the world will experience a drastic increase in weather related disasters, but also a rise in sea-level that will cause inestimable damage to property and infrastructure, mass migration and possibly economic ruin. This of course depends on the reliability of the science that Mr. Gore is drawing from, as well has his synthesis of it. But as an outdoorsman who has seen glaciers melt in France and Switzerland during the past twenty years, I can only say that global warming is a fact. And if there is a real correlation between warming and carbon dioxide concentrations, then it's time to get to work.

As a Christian, I take this problem seriously because of our theology of Creation. God's creation shows who he is. He gave it to us so that we might know he exists, something of this power, his character and his beauty. But our Earth also shows how sinful actions and priorities by people have an affect on the world which reveals God. Sin has the affect of separating people from God. As we destroy the Earth, our actions keep people from having a revelation from God through the creation.

God has created the Earth as home for all people. Christians are to love all people. Loving God and loving people really is our motivation the care of the Earth. Do we love our children and our children's children enough to leave them a home that will be a joy to live in?

American Christians, who are part of a country that contributes 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions, should insist that our government take a leading role in their reduction. The task seems daunting, but if our faith in God is real, the respect and stewardship of his creation should be motivations for shouldering this responsibility of taking care of God's world and the people that Christ died for.

A Coroner Decides a Soldier's Guilt, but is it Justice?

2006-10-15T11:31:00.000+02:00

Journalists in war zones run a great risk of being killed. They know this. They take the risks for the purpose of getting accurate news as well as for a paycheck. But when they are killed on a battlefield in order to gather information one must ask, who killed them: the bullet of the combatants, or their own will to be on the field of combat? It seems clear the answer is the latter. But this logic is being question by British courts.

Today we are seeing the relatives of slain reporter Terry Lloyd wanting to blame the death on American forces who in during a battle in the Iraq war, "illegally" fired on vehicle that witnesses said was carrying the wounded Lloyd from the scene to a place where he could get treatment. A British "coroner has ruled that a British journalist who died in Iraq at the start of the war was unlawfully killed by American forces." (CNN report Oct. 14, 2006)

This is a troubling perspective, one that comes from people who are grieving the loss of their loved one, wanting "justice" for his death. But it's a perspective that comes from a detached point of view. In spite of videos and testimonies, a civilian court is in error to think that battle conditions can be put on hold so that everyone who is wounded in battle can be evacuated. The stress, confusion and chaos of a battlefield cannot preclude the possibility that a vehicle, not clearly part of a side in a fight, and not flying a flag of truce, be fired upon.

What is more troubling is that there seems to be an effort to use the death of this British citizen, by his family members and others, to make a value judgement on the behaviour of the American troops as well as a cultural statement about America, not to mention political statement condemning America's and Britain’s action in Iraq. Notice this quote from a report by CNN:

"The evidence of how Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed has shown that this was not, I wish to stress, a friendly fire blue on blue incident or a crossfire incident. It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the end of the initial exchanges in which Mr. Lloyd had been hit by an Iraqi bullet."

... "U.S. forces appeared to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys in an area in which there were civilians travelling on a highway, both Iraqi and European."

How is it known that the soldiers acted deliberately to kill a journalist and that with the motive of vengeance? How is it known that the commanders of the soldiers permitted them to act as "trigger-happy cowboys", a statement itself that has a cultural slur as well as calling into question the training and professionalism of the commanders and soldiers?

These two statements imply value judgements that go far beyond the facts of Lloyd having been killed on a battlefield by American soldiers. It brings judgement on the motives and methods of the soldiers, judgements that are not supported by the evidence given. Unfortunately, statements such as these are not helpful in a cross-cultural situation and should be apologized for.

Has justice been served? This is not a war crime covered under international law. The accidental killing in, which must be emphasized, the midst of a battle cannot be seen as illegal or unlawful.

The death of Mr. Lloyd is a sad and tragic thing. Condolences are to be offered to the family and friends. But to blame soldiers in the heat of battle for the illegal death of journalist who willingly entered and manoeuvred on a battlefield between warring sides, is not to be accepted as justice.

What things are first?

2006-10-13T12:24:00.000+02:00

"You can't get second things by putting them first: you can get second things only by putting first things first. From which it would follow that the question, 'What things are first?' is of concern not only to philosophers but to everyone. What is a first thing? The only reply I can offer here is that if we do not know, then the first and only truly practical thing is to set about finding out." - C.S. Lewis "First and Second Things" from God in the Dock.

"Seek first the his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well." - Jesus, Matthew 6:33

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. - Paul, the Apostle 1 Corinthians 15

First things, are kind of magical. They have a life of their own. They are the forefront of life. But we often place second things first, and try to have second things before putting first things in place in our lives. Without the first things, seconds things, really secondary things will take priority resulting in living life in a topsy-turvy, missing-the-point way. So where to begin...

Faith is a first thing. We can tell because without faith, there is no true life and no true spiritual life.

Patrick O'Brian on aging

2006-10-12T11:50:00.000+02:00

"As for the blue devils of which you complain, my dear, do not expect too much from my remedies: youth and unthinking happiness are not to be had in a bottle, alas. You are to consider that a certain melancholy and often a certain irascibility accompany advancing age: indeed it might be said that advancing age equals ill-temper. On reaching the middle years a man perceives that he is no longer able to do certain things, that what looks he may have had are deserting him, that he has a ponderous great belly, and that however he may burn he is no longer attractive to women; and he rebels. Fortitude, resignation, and philosophy are of more value than any pills, red, white or blue."

-Stephen Maturin speaking to Jack Aubrey

from Patrick O’Brian
The Truelove

First things first...

2006-10-11T19:54:00.000+02:00

This is a first...the first time I've posted a my thoughts in a blog. While an exciting prospect, it's very intimidating to start putting ones thoughts out on the Internet for all to see. Afterall, who has that much to say to such a diverse world. Real motivations are hard to accept and I'm not going to say exactly why I've decided to take the plunge. But I've journaled and enjoy doing that. Maybe this expereince will make a difference in how I communicate both with myself and to others.

First time things are kind of magical. I love first time things. I celebrate them when they happen. I was described myself as a shameless experience seeker. That's because I seek first time things. So it's natural that when the opportunity comes around to do a brand a new thing, like having a "blog" I'd shamelessly pursue that experience. So, here I am again...another first time thing.