American Kiwi

Justice - June 24, 2007

2007-06-27T12:09:00.000+12:00

Tonight’s topic is, of course, ‘Justice’. It is, truly, one of the most relevant topics to the 21^st century world. Most of you know me well enough to expect a mention of Tom Wright at least somewhere in this message, so I’ll waste no time and make a reference to one of his many books, ‘Simply Christian’. In it, he opens with 4 chapters under the heading ‘echoes of a voice’. He discusses the 4 key areas of relationships, beauty, spirituality, and of course, Justice.

He describes how in each of these areas – not least in the area of Justice – our search for them goes well unfinished. We can imagine what true justice might look like in the world; we can imagine a world where no one goes hungry, where wages are fair, where judgements and decisions are made apart from distortions of personal or other gain. But… we find ourselves completely helpless in our efforts to bring such a world into being.

In keeping with his metaphor of ‘echoes of a voice’, we hear, as it were, the voices of true relationships, true beauty, true spirituality and true justice ‘echoing’ as if coming from just around the corner. We walk curiously around the corner to find that the echo now seems – elusively – just around the next corner. We just can’t seem to ever quite get there.

Simply put, whether it’s things in our private lives, things in our families, things in our communities, things in our churches, things in our nations and yes – things in the world; ‘things’ are not ‘right’ – and these ‘things’ need to be ‘righted’. The biblical mandate, command, instruction, plea, instruction, etc. is for humans (as God’s image-bearing creatures) and especially the church (as the renewed version of that image!) to be GOD’S AGENTS in ‘righting’ what is not ‘right.’

Overview

Tonight’s message will follow the following basic outline: first, I will discuss ‘justice’ in ethical terms, and along the way show that ‘justice’ is, in fact, a thoroughly biblical theme; second, I will discuss how ‘justice’ works together with ‘mercy’ and ‘grace’, and highlight the need for all three – not just one; finally, we will look at a few things that perhaps keep us from being people of justice.

‘Justice’ in Ethical (and biblical!) terms

In the past weeks, we’ve talked about several of these Christian virtues (love, courage, etc.) in terms of being balanced between two vices. I think it is helpful to discuss true ‘justice’ in this way as well. Justice, like love and courage is not something or some action you DO, but a character, a virtue that is evidenced by how one reacts to or lives in certain circumstances. Last week the clear example was that true ‘patience’ is shown in un-patient circumstances.

Justice, then, is shown in the midst of in-justice. It has EVERYTHING to do with REACTING to injustice. We can OVER-react or UNDER-react. True Justice, I suggest, is between the extreme of OVER-reactive ‘vengeance’ on one hand, and the other extreme of UNDER-reactive ‘In-action’ on the other hand. Vengeance arrogantly tries too hard or in the wrong way to ‘fix’ the situation, and In-action, of course, does nothing. There is a time to act, and a time to not-act, of course, but the ‘vengeance’ and ‘in-action’ I am describing are mistakes for these reasons: On one hand, vengeance, thinking its extreme action will fix the problem, ends up making it far worse; on the other hand, in-action, thinking its passivity is ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’, leaves the injustice un-helped.

Also, how we THINK about injustice is HUGE. It is our THINKING about injustice that leads us to how we ACT concerning injustice – whether we act with ‘justice’ or one of the extremes of ‘vengeance’ or ‘inaction’. The aggressiveness of ‘vengeance’ is driven by attitudes of anger and/or hatred, while the passiveness of ‘inaction’ is driven by attitudes of apathy and/or carelessness.

Hopefully, as I’ve talked about our responsibility to respond to injustice and the ways in which we can respond wrongly, you have already thought of various Bible passages that confirm what I’m saying.

(On that note, I suggest that simply because a message or sermon is loaded with quotations of Bible verses, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is rightly dividing or rightly presenting the biblical material. The opposite is also true; just because a message or sermon may not quote many or any bible verses, doesn’t mean that it is expressing unbiblical ideas. Listening to a sermon or message is not an inactive or passive thing. You need to – you MUST – test every single thing that Peter, Shawn, I or anyone else says – especially Peter McGhee! :) )

At any rate, there are numerous verses that relate to these ideas. In Romans 12, a passage about not repaying evil for evil, but overcoming evil with good, Paul quotes the Law of Moses – ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay!’ which, of course, warns against the extreme action of vengeance. To demonstrate God’s heart against the other extreme of inaction, I would, perhaps suggest reading the opening chapters of Isaiah. Note the action-implied verbs in this famous but largely un-obeyed verse – Isaiah 1:17 “Learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Learn! Do! Seek! Reprove! Defend! Plead! That is NOT inaction! It’s justice!!!

If that’s not enough, take Micah 6:8 where he sums up what God requires for his people – ‘what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?’ Want more? Just about any book by an Old Testament prophet will do! If you have been deluded into thinking that the Old Testament ‘doesn’t matter for today’ then please read the words of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and John!!!

While you’re at it, you might want to consider actually paying attention to the excellent studies in Titus we’re doing! Perhaps you can count the number of times Paul uses the phrase ‘good deeds’ or ‘good works’ in one of his shortest epistles! Let me be clear, we’re not talking AT ALL about earning your way to God or being ‘good enough’ to be saved. But ever since Luther, we’ve almost been scared to death to tell anyone they should be doing anything! That’s precisely the role of the prophet!

OK, now that we’ve presented the case that justice is indeed a key biblical theme (!), let’s now consider how ‘justice’ works alongside the other biblical themes of ‘mercy’ and ‘grace’.

Mercy, Grace, AND Justice

First, and quickly, the difference between ‘mercy’ and ‘grace’. We’ve been talking about justice, as an attempt to ‘right’ what is ‘wrong’; to react appropriately toward injustice; to give injustice what it deserves. ‘Mercy’ is different to ‘justice’ in that ‘mercy’ does not give what is deserved. It pardons the criminal and lets him/her go free. Now, ‘grace’ takes it a step further, in that ‘grace’ gives what is undeserved. It is the language of ‘gifting’ or ‘gracing’ someone.

If justice is a biblical theme, and it is, then mercy and grace are most certainly also biblical themes. For some reason, I think we talk more about mercy and grace than we do about justice. In light of this, I think justice is particularly one of the more important areas of concern for the church today, especially for the comfortable, complacent, Western, affluent church. The people of God are called to be people of mercy and grace, yes (make no mistake!), but we are also called to be people of justice.

Not only do we need to show ALL three at various times, I want to suggest that we all will be met by all three at the hands of God Himself. God is not only infinitely merciful and infinitely gracious, He is also infinitely just. Like the mystery of God’s sovereignty AND our free will both being realities, I suggest that God’s mercy, grace AND justice are ALL part of His character.

God’s grace says that you will be given what you didn’t earn – i.e. salvation.

God’s mercy says that you will not be given what you deserve – i.e. punishment

God’s justice says that you will get what you deserve – i.e. rewards (good/bad)

God most certainly is an impartial judge, but he doesn’t have to blindfold Himself to do so. God’s judgements are perfectly in accordance with His character; and He is THE merciful, gracious and just God. Finally, let us consider some obstacles in the way of us becoming and being people of justice.

The struggle for True Justice

Half of these obstacles could be summarised by the great obstacle of all obstacles – our sin and selfishness. The other half could be put to simply ignorance. Ignorance of reality and ignorance of just how difficult things really are. We’ll look quickly at some examples as we close.

First, we are lazy. I found a quote by William Easterly, from his book, “The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good”

[A tragedy of the world’s poor has been that] the West spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over the last five decades and still had not managed to get twelve-cent medicines to children to prevent half of all malaria deaths. The West spent $2.3 trillion and still had not managed to get four-dollar bed nets to poor families. The West spent $2.3 trillion and still had not managed to get three dollars to each new mother to prevent five million child deaths.

… It is heart-breaking that global society has evolved a highly efficient way to get entertainment to rich adults and children, while it can’t get twelve-cent medicine to dying poor children.

Tonnes and tonnes of grain and resources have literally been parachute-dumped into poverty-stricken areas of the world, only to be quickly seized by local bullies or others with power. This and other troubling examples, show how simply ‘throwing’ foreign aid at the poor will not cause lasting change and has little or nothing to do with true justice. True justice is hard. This is what is encouraging about organisations like Tear Fund. They do the hard work and get involved in the communities they are trying to serve. They operate in ways that meet real needs in real and lasting ways. Aid without concern is dangerous. Aid to relieve guilt is dangerous. Lazy aid is no aid at all.

Secondly, we don’t care enough. This of course, has to do with the attitude discussed earlier – apathy. For too many of us, if everything seems fine in our lives, we would rather not think too hard or for too long about how things are in other peoples’ lives.

It’s probably not the best example, and not meaning to unjustly criticise any government, but it could be said that many welfare systems operate just well enough to keep people quiet. Actually moving people from being un-skilled and un-employed to being skilled and employed is very, very hard work. Many welfare systems don’t end up encouraging people to gain skills and work. Indeed, these are merely a few brief thoughts dealing with very complex and confusing issues, but I think it’s a fair summary to say that a good welfare system gives people a hand-up, not a hand-out. And this balance is simply too hard. I don’t think all the blame can go to government, either. The public doesn’t seem to care enough to pay the amount of taxes needed to develop and maintain a caring, working, balanced welfare project.

Which leads us to a third hurdle – justice is just simply HARD. It takes work. The fight for justice is against very tough, but real circumstances. One example might be the education systems like NZQA. There are very real and difficult inequalities in the world of education. How do we fix it? What does justice look like here? I’m thinking that helping the struggling ones is a good thing, and many attempts to do so look good in the short term; but how do we do that without lowering standards for them and crippling them in the long run?

Our work for justice needs to be a labour that is empowered and energised by love. Working for justice takes all of you – heart, mind, soul and strength. It takes endurance to keep going when things don’t work out like you thought. It is really, cool, hip and trendy to be all-out for fair trade or to sound the so-called ‘global warming’ alarm – and there are very real issues in both of these areas, but we need to be somewhere between jumping on the band-wagon on one hand, and scoffing at it on the other. With all these issues and more, there are difficult questions to be asked and difficult answers to search for. Justice is just simply HARD. But those that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up on wings like eagles. If you abide in Christ our life, our vine of spiritual strength you WILL bear the good fruit of justice. So – church – Learn to do good; Seek Justice.

Humility

2007-06-06T16:28:00.000+12:00

Northcote Baptist Church

3 June, 2007 – Evening Service

I really appreciated Peter McGhee’s sermon on courage last week. Among other things he highlighted how all virtues are flanked on either side by vices.

Now, I think we have a tendency to think about virtues in terms of them being on the other end of the spectrum with an opposite vice – suggesting that one hand you have a given vice and on the other hand you have the opposite virtue, with the goal of being all the way on the virtue side. The English language works this way, actually. The ‘grammatical opposite’ of humility is indeed pride, but humility isn’t just a grammatical term! It’s a virtue! It has to do with character! And in terms of character, I think it works differently. I agree with those (including Peter) that view virtues as being centred between two vices.

Last week, Peter presented the virtue of true courage as being between the vices of rash over-confidence on the one hand, and false fear on the other hand. I want to suggest this week that – like true courage – true humility is found between two vices. But first, a word about humility.

We often think of ‘humility’ in terms of doing humble things, and might expect a sermon to instruct us ho to be humble. But humility is not a ‘thing’ you ‘do’. It is a virtue that is evidenced in certain circumstances. Humility may be one of the most elusive virtues, because the harder you try to show it, the less truly humble you are! As for myself, I think I’m progressing toward full humility quite well - probably further than most!!! :)

As a short aside I’ll quote from the Book of Moses – meaning the books that were written by him. Deuteronomy 34:10 – keep in mind that this verse is within the books of Moses – “But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses.” Good ole’ Moses showing the humility! Now for those that are worried about Moses’ character right now, let me put you at ease. This section of Deuteronomy records the events after Moses’ death, so it would have had to have been written by someone other than Moses. It just makes for a quick joke.

OK, now let’s look at the relationship between the virtue of humility and the pair of vices on either side of it.

I looked for a while at Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and let me tell you, there is more that has been written in the field of ethics than you care to read! Different people have discussed ‘humility’ with different categories and using different contrasts, and it all gets quite extensive very quickly. Nietzsche actually called humility a weakness and a false virtue, saying it hid people’s weaknesses. Others contrast ‘humility’ with ‘vanity’, having ‘pride’ in the middle as the desired virtue. So the connotations tend to shift a bit, I think. Peter McGhee lectures in Ethics, so talk to him if you have detailed questions!

Basically, humility has to do with how we view ourselves. I’d like to suggest that true humility is somewhere between self-AGGRANDISEMENT and self-ABASEMENT. It’s just as important not to think too highly of ourselves as it is not to think too lowly of ourselves. We – get – this – messed – up – so – often!

Psalm 8 contains a beautiful passage that I think expresses the proper balance. To those that are a bit on the prideful, arrogant side, verses 3-4 say, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him?”

But lest we forget the dignity of being made in the very image of the Creator, verse 5-8 remind us how great we were created – “Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands. You have put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea; whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

We weren’t made to grovel around constantly reminding ourselves that we’re ‘just human’ – as if that had anything at all to do with being humble. We were made to rule over the earth! If you don’t believe me, read Genesis 1 again! That’s what David is drawing from in Psalm 8.

All too often we speak of humanity as if it were a mistake or something that holds us back! When we think and speak that way, we are actually more in agreement with Greek philosophy than the Scripture! Now don’t get me wrong, sin is real and has greatly distorted God’s original intent, but the creation is still beautiful and declares the glory of God and humans are still made in His image. It has been well said: “it’s not that humans are the problem, they have a problem - sin.”

I’m not trying to minimise sin or the wrath of God. Most certainly not! God’s holy, righteous nature demands that he must hate and punish sin, but we must remember that God is angry not with how he made us, but with what we’ve done with ourselves! Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because they were humans – made in God’s image, but because they had irreversibly shattered that image. I think the Flood and the destruction of Canaan should be understood in this light as well.

My grandpa has had to shoot and kill some horses that were dying in a field due to neglect. Their hoofs had overgrown. Therefore, they could not walk; therefore they couldn’t get enough food for themselves and were starving. They simply could lie on the ground as they literally were wasting away. My grandpa had horses of his own, and loved them. He literally hated shooting them, but he had to. Tom Wright describes this as happening with humans as well. In a sense, he says, when humans rebel and resist God and neglect each other, they become less and less human in doing so – bringing themselves to destruction. Again, humans aren’t the problem – they have a problem.

It’s not a problem for us to exert ourselves as human beings – morally, spiritually, physically or otherwise; but it is a problem for us to exert ourselves independently of God! As Psalm 8 says, we have been made ‘a little lower than God’! In other words, if you look around, you’re not going to see anything that comes closer to being God than a human being. No one is calling upon plants or animals to solve the problem of poverty. No one is depending on cats and dogs to sort out the violence in the world. This is the job of God’s image-bearing creatures – you and I.

I actually think that being made in the image of the Creator should lead to the appropriate kind of humility that we need. We are not, nor ever will be God – we are His Image. So, we have NO valid reason or motivation to think too highly of ourselves. On the other hand, we aren’t simply worthless collections of atoms – we are made in God’s Image! Makes sense, doesn’t it? God opposes the proud, and gives grace to the humble.

So, pride is bad – and self-hate is just as bad. OK. Now I want to show how both pride and low self-esteem can be a bit sneaky. We all have probably seen pride in its most obvious form – i.e. someone who has no problem letting everyone know just how cool they are! But there is another kind of pride that is masked with a kind of false-humility. This is a little more sneaky. Someone may think they are really cool, but always ‘play the cards’ so they appear really humble.

It’s also true with low self-esteem. We know what low self-esteem in its most obvious form looks like – someone who honestly thinks and acts like they are worthless. But there is another version of this that is masked with a kind of false confidence – a false bravado. This is quite sneaky. Someone really feels miserable about themselves, but exerts a lot of effort to convince everyone – including themselves? – that they are actually quite cool.

Of course, this is most common in Western, affluent culture. We have ‘stars’ and ‘famous people’ to compare ourselves with. On MySpace you can compare your profile with others – more comments, more friends, etc. This rank and file individualism is the very toxic wasteland that has people always thinking about how ‘they’ look or how ‘they’ measure-up to the culture around them.

This individualism show up in all kinds of ways in the Church. Our notions of ‘spirituality’ have everything to do with how spiritual ‘I’ am, what experiences ‘I’ have, how spiritually fulfilled ‘I’ feel, etc. instead of the kind of spirituality suggested in Galatians 5: love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, self-control.

As a matter of fact, both the false-humility AND the false-confidence mentioned earlier are most certainly present in the Church – except they are uber-spiritualised. We’ve got all these modern notions of what a ‘spiritual’ person looks like. We’ve got all these expectations of what ‘spiritual’ people do. Talk about pressure to perform!

Perhaps the most troubling thing I see in this regard is the rampant positivism in many churches today. This is not humility! If things aren’t going well, a humble person admits it and doesn’t use various positive Christian words to cover it up. God forgive us for being too structured and too busy to allow and encourage this kind of honesty and humility. God forgive us when our systems of church actually encourage fake-ness and positivism.

We must be a community in which people can be REAL – sharing their faults – and ALSO at the same time a community with doesn’t leave people unchanged. Now THAT is a tough balance. We have to be BOTH accepting and challenging. Forgiving and Rebuking.

So, we’ve talked about how being made in the image of God leads to appropriate humility. We’ve talked about the false-humility and false-confidence that is so fuelled by the individualism of our culture. And, we’ve talked about the need to be REAL in our church communities. To use technical language, we’ve discussed three things relating to humility: anthropology, sociology and ecclesiology.

But, I must say that a sermon can have an infinite number of ‘ologies’, but if it doesn’t have a good Christology, then it’s going to be an incomplete sermon. So, in closing, let’s review these three categories as we consider Jesus Christ right smack-dab in the middle of each.

Anthropology. Humanity. What does it means to be human? Jesus Christ is the MAN. The image of God (in which we are all created) doesn’t get ANY clearer than Jesus Christ, who (as Philippians 2 says) being in very nature God, didn’t consider equality with God something to be grasped at, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death – even the death of the cross.

THAT is a robust Anthropology. Go forth in THAT kind of humility.

Sociology. Culture. How do we relate to the world? Jesus Christ is the word made flesh – the light that has come into the world, and in the same way we need to ‘incarnate’ ourselves INTO the world – our light needs to shine in the darkness. But the darkness (in our case, the darkness of individualism) cannot overcome the Light of Christ, who (John’s Gospel says) was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him… But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.

THAT is an intentional, incarnational Sociology. Go forth in THAT kind of ethic.

Ecclesiology. Church. How are we to BE the church? Jesus Christ is the One full of Grace and Truth, and we must be so in our actions and attitudes toward one another. With Grace, we must forgive and accept each others’ failings; both being real, and encouraging realness in others. And with Truth, we must challenge and correct one another; all the while being open to this ourselves. We must love with the fullness of Christ, for (as John’s Gospel says) of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

THAT is an Ecclesiology of Grace and Truth. Be THAT kind of church.

May we, in our Christian communities, in relation to and life in the World and in our robust Image-of-God humanness, look to Christ as our pattern for true humility.

Hope: Anchor and Ethic

2007-05-24T11:36:00.000+12:00

Northcote Baptist Church

Evening Service – 20 May 2007

As I thought about tonight’s message further, and especially listening to Shawn’s excellent message this morning, I considered re-naming it to… “Hope – Death caught with its pants down.”

But, alas, I’m sticking with my original title, “Hope: Anchor and Ethic”

All too often, Christian faith (or so-called ‘faith’) is expressed in terms of “me” ticking a box of belief that I hadn’t ticked before, and therefore, I get to “go to heaven when I die.” The basic picture here is that, simply, your ‘affirmation’ ensures your ‘escape.’

I want to present a picture of hope that is more than a mere ‘affirmation.’ (‘I affirm the doctrine of eternal life…’ or ‘I affirm the resurrection’, etc.)

Rather than hope as ‘affirmation’, I want to present HOPE as ANCHOR.

An Anchor is something that gives you stability in a storm.

It is strong. It is firm. It does not move.

Also – and equally important! – I want to present a picture of hope that is more than a mere ESCAPE from this world. (‘This world’s not my home; I’m just a-passin’ through.’ Or the more modern ‘wipin’ off dust from my sandal sole, ‘coz I just got here and now I plan to go.’)

Rather than hope as ‘escape’, I want to present HOPE as an ETHIC.

An Ethic is something that ANIMATES your to ACTION.

It drives you. It moves you. It characterises you.

First we’ll look at HOPE as ANCHOR, and then as ETHIC…

To show how the SHAPE of HOPE progresses, please close your eyes and imagine this scenario…

Imagine walking down the street and seeing a man in the distance walking toward you. He’s dressed in a fire-fighters uniform, carrying the helmet. As he gets closer, you can see that his uniform is obviously not new, but has obviously seen many fires. By now, he’s close enough to see that the helmet’s face guard is broken. At the same time, you actually recognise that it’s your old friend from school. He has already recognised you and is smiling. As you stop and greet each other, you notice now that he has a few scars on his face that he didn’t have a few years back. (you can now open your eyes)

In a sense, I think that is one way of understanding how God’s revelation of Himself grows over time in the Scriptures. God’s rescuing character was always known, but as the rescuing history unfolds, more and more of His attributes are seen and the ones you’ve already seen become clearer.

In the first 5 books of the Bible, known as the Torah, the Pentateuch or ‘the books of Moses, the word ‘hope’ is strangely absent, though it could be said that the idea is there even if the specific word is not. Like many themes in the Scripture, the theme of HOPE gets richer and richer – fuller and fuller – as God reveals Himself more and more over time.

Now, just because Abraham and Moses and others didn’t have the Nicene Creed, etc., doesn’t mean their faith was somehow ‘less’ than others. Doctrines and Statements of Belief matter, but knowing God and doing His will is not so much an exercise of the brain, but one of heart, soul, mind and strength. As we shall see later, it’s what we DO with the revelation given to us that matters most. Unto whom much is given, much is required.

By the time of the first century, the people of God had plenty of experiences to look back on. The story was well developed. They had been delivered from the Egyptians, They had been judged, delivered, gone into exile, retuned from exile, and at that time the Roman occupation made them feel like they were in ‘exile’ in their own homeland! Expectations were high and varied. Many eagerly anticipated an ‘exodus-like’ deliverance from the enemy Romans. Some expressed their HOPE in terms of a complete renewal of heaven and earth. In the New Testament Gospels, one particular belief takes centre-stage (or at least very near the centre!) – Resurrection.

Not all Jews believed in resurrection in the first century, for example, the Sadducees didn’t. To put it simply, Jews believed that resurrection would happen at what was called ‘the Last Day’. They didn’t think that just Jews would be resurrected, but rather, ALL people would be raised ‘at the last Day’, and then God would judge humanity according to their deeds. Thankfully, Jesus not only believed it and taught it himself, but He showed them what it looked like!

The resurrection of Jesus, in and of itself, would have been the most surprising thing imaginable! Remember, they weren’t expecting ‘it’ to happen to ONE person before ‘the last Day’, but God was supposed to raise ALL people ON the last Day. Jesus’ crucifixion would have seemed like the embarrassing defeat of a would-have-been Messiah, who would-have-been the great deliverer they wanted.

Without the Resurrection of Jesus, none of the subsequent history makes ANY sense. You wouldn’t have bold Apostles, but instead scattered disciples looking for another Messiah. You wouldn’t have ANY of the New Testament. And so on…

So looking back, you see how their hope became more and more defined. The shape of their hope became clearer and clearer. The SHAPE of their HOPE was the SHAPE of the Resurrected Christ! As Tom Wright and others have well said, with the Resurrection of Jesus, the ‘first-fruits’ of God’s future came bursting into the present!

BEHOLD GOD IS MAKING ALL THINGS NEW!

As the Church expanded and grew the Resurrection was so much more than simply something amazing that had happened. It was a full, bright, crystal-clear colour picture of their HOPE. It was their ANCHOR. And it is ours as well.

And it was not only their ANCHOR, it also became their ETHIC.

We desperately need to grasp this – or should I say BE grasped by it.

We are often guilty of thinking about the Resurrection in terms of LEAVING this world. We ought to think about the Resurrection in terms of RENEWING the world.

Our HOPE has nothing to do with a great ESCAPE. Our HOPE is a future REALITY, that has manifested itself in the Resurrected body of Christ. Our HOPE is guaranteed by the deposit and/or seal of the Holy Spirit with and in us.

Let me be crystal clear about the point I’m making:

Christ didn’t die, rise again and give you His Spirit so you can simply ‘know you’re going to heaven when you die.’ At the end of the Story, We don’t so much leave Earth and fly off to heaven, but rather HEAVEN INVADES EARTH.

God is in the business of making ALL things NEW. If anyone is in Christ, they are a NEW CREATION. One day, He will Return and – not lead us in a great ESCAPE, but he will RENEW ALL THINGS. Every wrong will be righted. Every tear will be wiped away. Every injustice will be balanced. Every… thing… will be RENEWED.

And we talk and think like there’s really not much to do but sit around, sing songs, gather each week and WAIT for it to happen???

The HOPE of Resurrection is BOTH an ANCHOR and an ETHIC!

We are to be about God’s business of making all things NEW! Especially the areas that seem so hopeless! Through much prayer, and in the power of the Spirit, we CAN – and are MEANT TO – make a difference.

In Third world nations and Third form classrooms.

In the courtroom, the board room, the living room, and any other room.

We will not, of course, bring Heaven to Earth ourselves. But we are to be about God’s business of NEW CREATION. Not the world’s business of going out and trying to be successful, or fashionable, or comfortable, or popular or any other such disgusting and ungodly aspirations.

May we be people of HOPE. May it be the ANCHOR in our lives. May it animate us to the ETHIC of New Creation in our lives and all over the world.

But just like Love, Integrity and Faith – our Hope is often most revealed in the midst of SUFFERING.

As we now turn to take Communion together, let it sink in just how different the Way of Jesus is to the Worlds. It is a way that is NOT marked by ticking religious boxes of belief (as important as doctrine is), nor is it marked by aspiring to ESCAPE all things. It is a way of Faith, Love, Courage, Integrity and Hope… and it is seen most clearly in the sacrificial death of Christ our Lord.

May we live according to THIS Hope. This ANCHOR. This ETHIC.

Love That Hurts

2007-05-15T18:08:00.000+12:00

Love That Hurts

Northcote Baptist Church

Evening Service Sermon - 22 April, 07

Some people are hard to Love.

Why are some people less ‘love-able’ than others?

Why can’t everyone just be like me?

Don’t each of us wish people were just like ‘I’? (personality, beliefs, etc.?)

Well, like it or not, not everyone is as cool as ‘I’…

The whole point of Love is to learn to Love the people that we are least likely to Love.

Now…

I’m NOT going to talk tonight about how sick and wrong the world’s definition of ‘love’ is… You probably already know that.

I’m NOT going to read 1 Corinthians 13 – even though it truly IS one of the greatest statements EVER about love.

There are SO MANY Bible verses on Love that are simply Brilliant, but I’m NOT going to try and highlight all of them…

And No, I’m NOT going to list the various Greek/Hebrew words for love… J

What I AM going to do, however, is to talk about God. And you and me, of course…

God IS… Love.

If we are going to get even the slightest idea what love looks like and if we are going to even barely get a suggestion of what love in OUR lives might look like, we have nobody else to talk about than God.

We need to talk about God and His story WITH and IN the world.

We need to talk about OUR PLACE in God’s story.

God’s story, you see, is the Story of Love. Not some cheap, push-over Love that comes and goes, but a Love that is powerful-yet-gentle, uncompromising-yet-welcoming and just-yet-forgiving. We need to know, experience and share this kind of love.

To the Story we go.

God is pure, eternal, unbounded and unrestrained Love.

Trinity = 3-way love relationships

God has barely created Adam and Eve before He is wounded deeply by their rejection of Him. Whatever we think about ‘talking snakes’ and ‘trees with knowledge growing on them’, the point of the Garden story is that the first humans rejected God.

God was wounded. Only a PARENT with a child who’s gone astray can understand in the least bit how God feels when we disobey.

His justice sent them out of the garden – out of direct fellowship with Him - but His mercy and grace gave them clothes to wear. BOTH were acts of Love.

Later, (and many times in-between, of course) God was wounded AGAIN...

This time it was the entire human race. In Genesis 6, ‘the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that EVERY intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.’

A few verses later tells us that ‘the earth was filled with violence.’ We probably can’t imagine the level. (‘sons of God’ taking women in 6:2-4???)

His justice sent the flood… but His grace and mercy found Noah and saved Him.

This pattern continues in big and small ways – in personal and national ways. The Tower of Babel - Sodom & Gomorrah; the Israelites and the Exodus; the cycle of Judges and Kings of Israel; the divided Kingdom.

Through the captivity of His people in Babylon…

Through their oppression under Nebuchadnezzar…

Through their oppression under Roman rule…

God suffers because of the actions of humanity.

God suffers over the plight of the world.

God suffers with His people.

God suffers a lot.

Guess what else????

Right through the whole story…

...God’s PEOPLE suffer a lot as well.

Ouch.

Suffering when they’ve cut themselves off from God…

Suffering under oppression from others…

Suffering when tragedy strikes…

God’s people suffer INDEED.

What do YOU do with suffering?

The truth is, we don’t have much to do with suffering at ALL.

We’re safe and warm within our Western affluent lifestyle.

Right NOW there are suffering believers ALL OVER THE WORLD, and we’re sitting here very comfortable and safe.

So, what does GOD DO WITH SUFFERING???

He embraces it.

Jesus embraced the suffering and the shame of the CROSS.

Guess what led Him there? Love.

Suffering was the reality under the Romans. What did Jesus do with it?

He could have chosen the path of REVOLT. But NO.

He could have chosen the path of ESCAPE. But NO.

He chose the path of ENDURANCE.

He chose the path of Love. Love that hurts.

Jesus chose not to ATTACK

Jesus chose not to ESCAPE

Jesus chose to ENDURE

Please listen carefully as we look at how these three options are lived out in situations WE encounter. (HAVE PEOPLE REPEAT 3 OPTIONS)

Marriage Attack = trying to change, manipulate or control

Escape = separation, emotional withdrawal, affair

Endure = communication, sacrifice, mutual submission

Politics Attack =use power to force legislation, ‘Christian right’

Escape =withdraw completely from (Jehovah’s witness)

Endure =salt and light, persuade (take faith INTO party)

Business Attack =adversarial competition (banks, telecom/v-fone)

Escape =withdraw from business (commune / Amish, etc.)

Endure =Justice, Fair Trade – (Warning: UNSUCCESSFUL)

WHY do we Attack or Escape… and not ENDURE???

This is key.

We would rather have happiness than JOY.

The world RUNS on the pursuit of happiness.

The way of Love comes with – NOT happiness – but JOY.

Happiness is determined by what HAPPENINGS. Joy is present in ALL happenings.

MERE happiness…

Happiness wants to change the other person to make me Happy

Happiness wants to escape the UN-happy circumstances

Happiness wants to skip the weakness and have strength

Happiness wants to skip the foolishness and have wisdom

Happiness wants to skip the death and have life

Happiness wants to skip the dying on the cross and go straight to resurrection.

It would be a great tragedy if Jesus had been concerned with the pursuit of mere happiness.

Let us seek to Love like Jesus, ‘…who for the JOY set before Him…

Skipped the cross and went straight into resurrection?

Built a military army and tried to over-throw the Romans?

Ran out into the hills and joined the Essenes?

No.

“…for the JOY set before Him, ENDURED the cross, despising the shame, and THEN… only THEN… has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

The next verse in Hebrews 12 goes on to say, “consider Him who ENDURED such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged…”

I know this message seems like it’s all about walking around all depressed and sad… so let me be clear; THERE IS JOY, but REAL joy is on the other side of hardships. NOT from running around or away from them!

Which relationship do you respect more? The 14-year old couple with their hands ALL over each-other in the mall? Or the 75 year-old couple that has stuck together through thick and thin? Which represents Love?

I’m not trying to be depressing, I’m trying to be REALISTIC. There are moment of INTENSE and ABOUNDING joy in the Christian life, but the pattern for the Christian life is fixed by the DEATH and RISING of Jesus.

It’s not just abstract Theology. It’s a WAY OF LIFE.

Take up your suffering, weak, unpopular, unfashionable, foolish Cross and Follow Jesus. THAT’s the way of Love. True Love.

Love that hurts.

We have a God who loves so much that it Hurts Him. Matter of fact it Kills Him.

That’s not a cheap, feel-good, happy love. That’s a Love that confuses the wise, and gets mocked by scoffers… AND happens to be a Love that can and WILL change the world.

Love that hurts.

Mark 4:35-41 - Through The Storm

2007-05-15T18:06:00.000+12:00

Mark 4:35-41 – Through the Storm

Northcote Baptist Church

Morning Service Sermon - 22 April, 07

Last week Peter shared about the meaning of the cluster of parables Jesus gives in verses 21-34. I really appreciated the teaching on the Kingdom. It doesn’t happen like we may want it to. It is slower, smaller and more secretive than we often wish it to be.

This passage follows directly on from this, and continues the theme. We’ll work through the verses and then look at the continuing theme of the Kingdom…

Verse 35-36

To the Other Side

Jesus had been preaching to a BIG crowd (a GREAT multitude) from a boat. He had been teaching about how the Kingdom comes, and how its power works. And the evening of the same day, they take him – verse 36 says ‘in the boat as He was.’ Maybe just more of Mark’s quick-editing, fast-paced style.

Then, Jesus says, “Let us cross over to the other side.” Now, 5:1 tells us where they went. “Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes.” They had been in the Jewish area of Capernaum, and Jesus was wanting to go ‘to the other side’ – to the region of the Gadarenes – a Gentile area. I’ll say more about this later, but the Gentiles in this area were the owners of the pigs that Jesus was about to send the ‘Legion’ of demons into in chapter 5. (Remember, Jews don’t eat or even own pigs) And the man who had been possessed goes and proclaims it in the Ten Cities – or Decapolis (another Greek identifier). Then, they beg Jesus to go (remember, these are not Jews), and he heads back to the Jewish side and ends up healing the daughter of a synagogue ruler.

So, do you see the to-and-fro of the context? Parables to Jews; then over to the Gentiles with their ‘unclean spirits’ and ‘pigs’; then back to the Jews for some more faith lessons. It is in the middle of this flow that we look at these verses.

Other ‘little boats’

Jesus was not in the other boats, but in the boat with the disciples. He was ‘with them’ and they were ‘with Him’ – and they ‘still’ end up having no faith.

Verse 37-38

A Great Windstorm and a Sleeping Saviour

Then comes the wind and waves. Apparently, even to this day, the Sea of Galilee can get rough and rowdy quite quickly. This was no different. It was even beginning to fill the boat.

Now, to Jews – especially at that time – water meant more than just water. It symbolised chaos – the very chaos out of which God ordered the creation of the Earth in Genesis 1. Water features quite often in the Scriptures. The Lord Himself was seen (in the Psalms and elsewhere) to be the One who could calm the waters with His powerful word. It was the Lord who had opened the waters of the Red Sea to deliver the Israelites from the Egyptians. It was the waters which produced the monstrous and oppressive empires in Daniel’s vision. And, in the case of the disciples, the only thing on the other side of the water was Gentile land and Gentile people. Not exactly motivation for making the trip in the first place! But Jesus had said, ‘Let us go,’ so there they were – in the middle of this intense storm, fearing for their lives!

And Jesus was sleeping on a pillow in the stern. Sleeping we can understand, right? I mean, He’d just spent hours teaching – from a boat. But sleeping during this storm? The disciples are losing it. They wake Him up and say, ‘Don’t you care that we’re perishing?’ The irony is that while Jesus is sleeping in their hour of distress, they will be the sleeping ones during Jesus’ own hour of distress in Gethsemane! Indeed (NIV App. Comm.), their future slumber seems to indicate that they are the ones that don’t seem to care that Jesus is about to perish!

Verses 39-40

Jesus doing what God does

Matthew and Mark have the order of Jesus’ response slightly differently, but Jesus ‘arose’ (we’ll come back to that) and with the words from His mouth - like God speaking order out of chaos – stills the waters. His words, “Peace, be still” are as though He is quoting Psalm 46 to the waters, “Be still and know that I am God.” Believe it. There’s more to Jesus than meets the eye.

Isaiah 43 can be put along side this passage in its wider context with striking results. Indeed, “When you pass through the waters, I will be with You” – the “You” being none other than Jesus the Lord. In short, He’s acting like God!

His rebuking question to the disciples shows His disappointment that even with the private explanations of the parables and the wonders He has worked so far, they ‘still’ had no faith.

Verse 41

Only God can do that!

Their questioning response to each other shows that they still haven’t quite realised – or we might say they haven’t LET themselves realise – just who Jesus is. He’s acts like God, He speaks like God – and they are still unsure.

Whole Passage & Gospel

A Small view of the Big Picture

OK, now I want to show you something that is SO exciting for me. More and more as I study the Gospels, I am amazed at the precision and care with which they were written. The stories and content are carefully crafted by the writers. The Gospels are more than dry, lifeless, historical reports – they are majestic works of art.

Now obviously, some have asserted that the Gospels are such works of art that they are not historical reports at all. This is most certainly not the case. We could go into much more detail, but suffice it to say that 1^st century Jews didn’t write fiction like this. The Gospel narratives were birthed out of real history, real events and real life – otherwise we would not have them.

Now, I believe Mark has placed key words/phrases in this passage (and throughout the whole Gospel) that give hints, glimpses and fore-shadowings of the entire message he is presenting. The Big picture, the ‘gospel’ if you will, is seen in amazing ways through this passage.

Part of what made the Gospel a ‘stumbling block’ for the Jews was that it was going to mean including the Gentiles. This passage and the surrounding context strongly hint at this. They leave the Jewish ‘multitudes’ to ‘cross over to the other side’ – which, of course, was the Gentile side. That’s the Gentile-friendliness of the Gospel showing through there. Also, the Gospel shows how Jesus defeats evil on the Cross; and this passage features Jesus overcoming the chaos of the evil sea. That’s the evil-defeating power of the Gospel showing through.

Now, here’s my favourite (and perhaps the most obvious) bit. You have Jesus ‘asleep’ in the boat, and the disheartened disciples. Think of the disciples’ sorrow while Jesus was ‘asleep’ in the tomb. Then… here it comes… THEN, Mark says Jesus ‘arose’ and stilled the storm. HELLO! Jesus is RISEN! Is He not!!?? The Greek word for ‘arose’ here is from the root ‘diegeiro’ (dee-eg-i’ro) – having been raised thoroughly. Jesus, having been raised thoroughly, stilled the storm. WOW. I find it interesting that in chapter 16 verse 9, where it reads, ‘when He rose early on the first day of the week’ the Greek word for ‘rose’ is not ‘diegeiro’, but from the root ‘anistemi’ (an-is’-tay-mee) – having stood up. Almost seems better suited for the boat scene, doesn’t it? I wonder – and this is totally just my pondering here – if Mark is pointing forward to the resurrection in chapter 4, AND hearkening back to the boat scene in chapter 16. Maybe. Maybe not.

No time to explain, but there are fascinating connections with the Jonah story; showing HUGE contrast to Jonah and Jesus – indeed, Jesus said He was the ‘Something greater than Jonah.” Aren’t these pointers to the Gospel astounding? It is the God of Jews AND Gentiles. It is God who dwells WITH His people. It is God who we can trust even when He seems to be sleeping. It is God who RISES and defeats the Evil one. It is God whom we trust.

The Challenge to Us

On Board with The King

And it is precisely that Trust and Faith that we need so desperately in our World, and even in the Church. As we heard last week from Peter’s message on Jesus’ parables, the Kingdom is smaller, slower – and, as we see in our passage – sleepier than we sometimes want it to be. We dare not try to INFLATE, SPEED-UP or WAKE-UP God to re-make Him into the God we want.

Therefore, may we remember just what kind of Kingdom it is! GOD’s Kingdom. The Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has power over wind and sea and has RISEN in Power. But that powerful comeback of all comebacks was after the apparent weakness of the Cross. Let us not forget – there is GREAT power in apparent weakness. GREAT victory in apparent defeat. GREAT joy in apparent sorrow. GREAT life in apparent death.

At times it can seem that the only real things are death, weakness, defeat and sorrow. But – as the hymn we will now sing says – This Is My Father’s World - O let me ne’er forget! That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet!!

This Is My Father's World

This is my Father’s world, and to my listening ears
All nature sings, and round me rings the music of the spheres.
This is my Father’s world: I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
His hand the wonders wrought.

This is my Father’s world, the birds their carols raise,
The morning light, the lily white, declare their Maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world: He shines in all that’s fair;
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass;
He speaks to me everywhere.

This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world: why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!

This is my Father’s world, should my heart be ever sad?
The lord is King—let the heavens ring. God reigns—let the earth be glad.
This is my Father’s world. Now closer to Heaven bound,
For dear to God is the earth Christ trod.
No place but is holy ground.

This is my Father’s world. I walk a desert lone.
In a bush ablaze to my wondering gaze God makes His glory known.
This is my Father’s world, a wanderer I may roam
Whate’er my lot, it matters not,
My heart is still at home.

The Good, the Fallen, the New, the Perfect (notes)

2007-05-15T18:01:00.000+12:00

(given at 'Parallel' service - Northcote Baptist Church, 28 April, 07)

Last Parallel, we talked about Pantheism, Deism and Biblical Theism…

We also talked about how these IDEAS about reality affect HOW WE LIVE…

So, they’re not just abstract, floating ideas, but they MATTER. They affect how we THINK, how we FEEL, and how we LIVE.

Like if you think the world is DIVINE, and your body is DIVINE, you will think you need to try to get in TOUCH with the DIVINE inside YOU, you will FEEL that way about yourself, and you will DO things to try and FIND YOURSELF, etc.

And if you think that ‘matter doesn’t matter’, and that your BODY DOESN’T MATTER, you will THINK that way, FEEL that way, and ACT that way.

We NEED to think about reality the way it REALLY is. God’s PLACE, or God’s REALITY - ‘heaven’ – OVER-LAPS with OUR place, or OUR reality – ‘earth’. God made the Earth and our BODIES very GOOD. That good-ness has been distorted and screwed up by SIN. God is in the business of MAKING IT RIGHT.

I DARE you to think THAT way.

I DARE you to FEEL that way.

I DARE you to ACT that way.

Now…

Tonight, I want to continue along the line of Option 3. The GOOD option.

I want to give you another way – an OPTION 3 kind of way – of thinking about life.

People often think of Christianity in terms of RULES, etc.

I want you to KNOW the BIG PICTURE.

I want you to KNOW the STORY.

Jews - Exodus.

The Jews REMEMBERED THEIR STORY.

It gave them HOPE

It gave them IDENTITY as a PEOPLE

It gave them DIRECTION for LIFE

Their HOPE, IDENTITY and DIRECTION weren’t in the individual.

‘YOU’ matter HEAPS to God, but the STORY isn’t about YOU.

‘YOU’ get to play a PART in the STORY, but the STORY is about GOD.

The STORY is a BIG story – MUCH bigger than YOU.

The STORY is as BIG as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE…

AND…

YOU have a ROLE to play in this HUGE story.

Let’s see what the STORY is… Bird’s eye view…

GOOD – FALLEN – NEW – PERFECT

The GOOD

-God made the World GOOD – not ‘perfect’ but GOOD…

-It was not ‘

The FALLEN

-His AGENTS/IMAGE was shattered by SIN

-God has been at work since then in big, small, personal and national ways to RESTORE it…

-God calls HIS PEOPLE to be HIS agents of this RESTORATION

The NEW

-God’s PEOPLE had failed in their responsibility to be HIS AGENTS

-GOD HIMSELF stepped on stage in HIS OWN PLAY…

-HIS resurrected body was the PATTERN on which the universe will be remade

The PERFECT

-New HEAVEN, and New EARTH

-No pain, crying, death, mourning

-‘Tending the Garden WITH GOD in PERFECT REALITY, not ‘idealistic’, but ‘complete’, ‘fully real’

The GOOD, the FALLEN, the NEW and the PERFECT…

We have the NEW already! In JESUS and HIS SPIRIT!!!

NOW but NOT YET!!! (‘Made of different stuff than when I began…’)

WHAT DO WE DO???

LIVE The STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Be God’s AGENTS of RESTORATION

-…for PEOPLE

-…for the EARTH

Tell People the STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-please STOP telling people the SMALL version of the Story.

-START telling them the BIG picture!!!

-in order to FULLY tell it, you MUST LIVE IT!!! (or they won’t hear)

The Kingdom of Light & the Empire of Darkness (sermon notes)

2007-05-15T17:59:00.000+12:00

Inkerman Street Bible Chapel

15^th April, 2007 – Family Outreach Service

There are LOTS of ways to talk about Jesus as the LIGHT…

I’ve chosen to highlight the LIGHT against DARKNESS…

This theme runs ALL through the Bible…

God’s Kingdom of Light is always at odds with the Empire of Darkness…

(Like Star Wars, but different!)

Empire 101

Oppression & Violence

Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, British, etc.

Spears, Swords, Crosses, Bullets, etc.

Rank and Status

Pharaoh, Kings, Caesars, etc.

Those that ‘matter’ and those that don’t…

Deception

Brutality disguised as ‘strength’

Control disguised as ‘freedom’

Corruption disguised as ‘beauty’

Struggle disguised as ‘peace’

Roman Empire examples (images, coins, infrastructure)

‘Empire’ TODAY

Oppression & Violence

(large) Government, Corporations (small) families, gangs

Guns/Bombs, Sweat-shops, poverty AND phys/emo abuse, guns…

Rank and Status

Dictators/Presidents, Owners/Share-holders, Drug Lords, etc.

Those that ‘matter’ and those who don’t

Deception

Genocide disguised as ‘conflict’

Token Donations to Poor “ “ ‘foreign aid’

Inhumane working conditions “ “ ‘strategic production’

Unfair Business Trading “ “ ‘economic growth’

Forced Legislation “ “ ‘democracy’

Brain-washing of Females “ “ ‘fashion trends’

Unrealistic Life Goals “ “ ‘planning to succeed’

Empire cannot treat humans as equals.

It always favours the ‘elite’ over the ‘lower’ classes

Empire cannot provide anything truly beautiful.

Its appeal is always fake, idealistic and not real.

Empire cannot lead us to peace.

Its greedy nature will always violently protect itself.

In one way or another, the world runs on ‘Empire’.

…but then there’s the Kingdom…

The darkness of the Empire is no match for the Light of the Kingdom!

Even when darkness seems so widespread, accepted and powerful, it just takes a small candle-flame of God’s Kingdom to dispel it.

Kingdom people are about the King’s business

The Kingdom is patterned after the King

The King is Jesus.

The Kingdom v. the Empire

-The Kingdom doesn’t retreat from or escape the Empire (Essenes)

-The Kingdom doesn’t become like the Empire to defeat it (Zealots)

-The Kingdom overcomes the dark Empire with light (Jesus)

(…’overcome evil with good…’)

(Jesus absorbed the full weight of Evil on the Cross…)

Today…

-The King is looking for Kingdom people to do His will

(Disciples asked Jesus how to pray – ‘Thy Kingdom come…’)

-Kingdom people need to STOP serving the Empire

Empire dreams, plans, standards, goals, strategy…

Dream the KING’S dreams, plans, goals, ways

(Justice, peace, mercy, reconciliation, grace, forgiveness)

Living the Kingdom in a world of Empire is HARD!!!

Living IN the world, but not OF it is HARD!!!

It takes courage, commitment and COMMUNITY...

Matthew 7:1-6 (sermon notes only)

2007-05-15T17:55:00.000+12:00

“Speck Removal and its difficulties”

Matthew 7:1-6

QUICKLY placing this passage

Big Picture - Small / Detail - Big Picture w/ application

-In the BIG picture of the Bible

-Creation to New Creation (The Scriptures and the Story)

-In the New Testament

-Covenant to New Covenant (The Good News of the Kingdom)

-In two of 4 biblical gospels (parallel content in Luke 6:37-42)

-In Matthew’s ‘Sermon on the Mount’

-Humanity to New humanity (Jesus finally/fully reveals in resurrection)

-Jesus teaches/models New humanity

-Flow/Context – Jesus giving ‘new humanity’ teaching (with ‘authority’)

The passage…

NOT (1-2) God’s judgement methods are determined by ours…

+God’s judgements are ALWAYS just and perfect

+Instead is it OTHER’S judgement that will reflect yours…

+Those you ‘measure’ will ‘measure-back’ the same.

+‘judge’ also translated ‘condemn’

NOT (3-5) You have to be perfect to correct or warn anyone…

+It is about hypocritical judging, not judging/discernment/etc.

+“ensure your actions aren’t speaking so loud that they can’t hear your correction.”

NOT (6) Don’t give anything good to people who aren’t Christians…

+People who aren’t interested will rubbish your words

+Dogs/Swine – dog = gentile/enemy, pig = unclean

-(comm.) pig gives blank stare and tramples pearls

-(comm.) dog reacts to other dog – adversarial

Tips on speck removal

-Don’t do it if you can’t handle it yourself. (Don’t dish it out…)

-Wise people actually LOOK for correction (Prov. 9:8)

-Don’t offer advice you haven’t taken (practice what you preach…)

-Think about who you’re talking to. Will they listen?

The MAIN thrust… (looking on past the passage)

-The ‘summit’ of the sermon on the mount is 7:12.

-‘Law & Prophets’ = HUGE importance

-it’s the ‘do’ that matters.

-Hillel: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary (negative)

-7:24 ‘whoever hears these sayings of Mine and DOES them…’

BACK to the BIG picture…

It’s not just about avoiding unpleasant results, but (with God) co-creating good results. It’s about joining God in His work that He has prepared for us to do. New Creation work. Work of love, justice, grace, forgiveness and service.

Kingdom Surprise!!!

2007-03-28T12:53:00.000+12:00

(click on image to view full-size!)

heat v. light

2007-02-01T16:17:00.000+13:00

(WARNING: Some of you may not agree with me on this one...)

I am no longer excited by music simply because it is wears a 'christian' label, but there are a few bands that I like. I saw one of these bands play recently at a Christian event. They were sounding awesome. And then...

The lead singer began a rant in which he told people to have 'faith' that God was going to 'do' something that night, and that they needed to have 'faith' that it would happen. The crowd was told to get rid of 'cynicism' or anything else that would keep them from having this faith. He then invited them to 'receive' the healing (physical) power of God. Moments later he whispered into the microphone, speaking something that wasn't english (or any other language, I suspect).

Regardless of what you believe concerning physical, miraculous healing or speaking in 'tongues' (in my view, the 'tongues' in Scripture are the 'other languages' of the Gentiles), my concern was not so much that the lead singer had a different view than me, but rather HOW he was presenting his views.

It is no secret that the body of Christ is not in agreement on these issues. The crowd he was speaking to would have been largely divided on them. Doing what he did was disrespectful to the plethora of views in the crowd. Not only this, I think it was greatly unhelpful (perhaps even harmful) to new Christians who can be easily persuaded.

I'm sure that people who agree with him were very excited by what he did (given the scattered "woo-hoo's" that I heard), but I was thinking about a different group of people... namely, those that didn't agree. He was quite blatantly de-valuing their belief as not being as good or spiritual as his. Particularly, I felt for the new, un-grounded, insecure Christians who were likely to be left feeling that they must not be very 'spiritual'.

I know this sounds like the very cynacism that the lead singer told the crowd to get rid of, but honestly, my main concern is for these easily mis-led Christians.

There is ground that we all stand on as Christians (the death/burial/resurrection/divinity of Christ to name a few), but these issues need to be dealt with more carefully. All too often, we mis-handle them in at least two main ways.

1) We NEVER talk about them. This is bad, because it prevents us from sharpening each other. It only solidifies us in our own opinion, and allows pride to fester. It is only in respectful debate and dialogue that we will be able to learn from one another and have our beliefs both challenged AND strengthened. True, disrespectful arguments are a waste of time, but much can be gained from healthy debate.

2) We talk about them in in inappropriate contexts. This can be unhelpful in several ways, but the above example is particularly unhelpful because not only is it not a context in which people are permitted (nor encouraged) to disagree, but they are instead presented with a bully-like attitude if they don't. The underlying feeling is, 'If you don't agree, then you're just not spiritual.'

Which brings me to my main and final point. We need to be discerning as Christians. Indeed, 'discernment' is seen by others as 'cynicism'. We need to be able to discern between (as one Christian author puts it) between 'heat and light'.

Light is characterised by love. Love is the ultimate expression of Spirituality. Indeed, the Spirit can express Himself in many ways, but He will stay true to His personality as described in Scripture (perhaps the best example of the Personality of the Spirit is seen in Pauls abbreviated list in Galatians 5:22-23).

Discernment is needed to discern between that which is light and that which is simply 'heat.' Many things are thought of and said to be 'spiritual', but can sometimes be simply lights, smoke, mirrors, emotions or some combination of them. Don't be bullied by people (the same goes for me, of course) who insist you must believe what they do (especially if it isn't a basic Christian doctrine).

The light of love is un-mistakable. It is light against the darkness. It is love against hatred. It is justice against injustice. It is peace against fighting. It is protection against attack. It is honesty against dishonesty. It is reconciliation against separation. It is provision against poverty.

how spiritual...

2007-01-31T15:51:00.000+13:00

I've recently attended a large Christian music festival and, once again, I am left with mixed emotions/thoughts.

I am disturbed by the plethora of hyper-spiritualised events and performances that abounded all throughout the festival. In other words, I am weary of the tendency of modern Christians to view only some parts of their lives as 'spiritual.' As if the rest of their lives aren't supposed to be?

This spiritual compartmentalisation is usually on steroids at such Christian festivals. You can be worshipping 'hard' one moment, and then flip the switch and engage in other less spiritual activities, such as texting, flirting with girls/boys, eating, hanging out, dancing, etc. I even saw a young female worshipper with arms raised in praise, obviously not aware that the Playboy-bunny tattoo on her back was sending quite another message to any men/boys behind her.

In between bands, various advertisements played. Ranging from appeals to support poverty-striken children around the world on one hand (the goal of this group was to gain 1,000 sponsors - which I don't think they reached... 1,000 sponsors would have been less than 5% of the festival attendees.) to challenging teenagers to join the 'army' needed to make Christian music as cool as possible on the other. For me, personally, I know which one I will contribute to.

It seemed that every speaker, band and other various events had to be praised and exalted as being very important, spiritual, life-changing or whatever. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you're running such a festival, and charging people to get in, you're going to want to make it sound like the most spiritual thing since Pentecost.

I'm not Christianity-bashing (or Christian music festival bashing, either), I'm just concerned about the way our faith affects (or doesn't) our lives. Our entire lives, that is.

At the very heart of my concerns is the hyper-exaltation of certain people/places/times over other people/places/times. It seems to me that any time you hyper-spiritualise something, you end up hyper-UN-spiritualising something else.

This is dangerous.

This teaches young kids (indirectly, but very powerfully) that the gaps and spaces in between the 'spiritual' bits of their lives aren't as 'spiritual' as the other ones. So the all-too-common-result is a compartmentalised Christian mindset (and lifestyle).

In sharp contrast to this, the message of countless prophets in the Bible (Isaiah, Amos, Micah - not to mention our Lord Jesus) is that our moments of exuberant spirituality are worthless if we are not people of justice and mercy. Yes, it is not simply 'bits' of our life that are 'spiritual', but ALL of our lives are to be tempered, filtered and controlled by God's Spirit (for one of the best summaries of what this looks like practically, see Galatians 5:22-23).

We need to resist any suggestions (in any form or from any source) that some bits of our lives are more spiritual than other bits. The biblical challenge of discipleship to Jesus is a wholistic (all of your life) spiritual mission of love, patience, self-less-ness, humility, compassion, mercy and justice (and more). In God's strength, may we use ALL of our lives to this end.

An Open Letter to Japan

2007-01-17T09:44:00.000+13:00

An open letter to our Japanese neighbors around the globe.
Please don't make the mistakes of America.
The American lifestyle of comfort, convenience, style and success can be destructive to community, love and family.

私達の日本の隣人への公開書簡世界中から。
アメリカの間違いを作ってはいけない。
慰め、便利、様式および成功のアメリカの生活様式はコミュニティ、愛およびグループに有害である場合もある。

buying identity

2006-06-08T14:31:00.000+12:00

New Zealand is becoming more like America every minute.

And it's not a good thing.

Yet another Temple for Capitalism (a.k.a. shopping mall) has just recently had it's grand opening not far from my flat. So many people were flocking to this Marketing Mecca that traffic was jammed all opening-day long.

Lately I've been thinking more and more about how my standard of living (and all of the decisions I make to keep it in place) affects the world around me. It's not been a pleasant exercise for me. I've had to realise that many of the choices I make (most are daily) have very negative consequences. This has caused me to think more and more about many things. Take-away beverage (coffee, coke, etc.) cups, plastic shopping bags, plastic water bottles, rediculously in-efficient and wasteful product packaging, disposable goods and other such things don't just disappear when we throw them away.

Allow me to share with you some of the terminology that pushes this type of consumerism along. An article (advertisement?) in the Tamaki and Districts Times, celebrated (venerated?) stage one of the opening of the new Consumerist Worship Centre in Mt. Wellington known as Sylvia Park Shopping Centre. Here is an excerpt.

'Ultimately, Sylvia Park Shopping Centre will feature over 180 specialty stores, indoor/outdoor foodcourt, The Warehouse Extra, Foodtown and Pak n' Save, a top-line specialty fashion precinct that is set to offer consumers an unprecedented range of fashion labels from a single location, cafes, restaurants and a state of the art theatre and entertainment complex... ...Angus McNaughton says that the retail offering at Sylvia Park is the strongest and most diverse of any centre in New Zealand... ...there will be brands and stores making their debut appearance on the New Zealand market to provide shoppers at Sylvia Park with the most comprehensive fashion choices available.'

Another article features the 'new specialised retail store' Howards Storage World with this opening:

'...families strive to cope with increasing collections of electronic gadgets, toys for weekend warriors and wardrobes overflowing with clothing, shoes and accessories.'

Hmmm... Anyone see a pattern here?

The connection between our 'comprehensive fashion choices' and our 'wardrobes overflowing with clothing' is both humorous and deeply unsettling. Also unsettling are the use of the words 'strongest' and 'diverse' in a sentence about a retail centre that promotes anything but strength or diversity. True strength might cause us to realise that we don't actually need any more clothes. It might begin to reveal just how obediently we are dancing to the beat of the fashion drum (which waits till sales have peaked and then changes pace to generate another peak). True diversity has nothing to do with people letting clothing manufacturers tell them what looks good and why they should dress just like everyone else.

I know we just think it's just business and that it's harmless, but I think we really need to be aware of the impact that this has on our identities.

Our identities?

Yes. Our identities.

You see, if they can get us to agree with them that we are simply 'shoppers' or 'consumers' then they have succeeded in altering how we view ourselves - and our identity consists of how we view ourselves. We are not concerned with staying 'in fashion' until we are told that we need to 'make room in your wardrobe for the new season.' We are quite content with what we have until we are reminded by countless billboards, store-fronts and countless other forms of advertising that we are about to be left in the dust if we don't keep up with the times. The more I begin to see advertising and marketing for what it really is, the less I'm buying it (literally). We pray (if we even have time for praying anymore) 'lead us not into temptation' but happily gaze at magazines that tell us how we ought to dress (and also 'educate' us as to how we might have 'healthier' sex lives) and walk around malls looking for anyone to tell us what we just can't do without.

I'm no longer seeing these issues as spiritually neutral. I want to live my life thinking about serving others, not myself. I want my imagination to be captured by the call of the Gospel on my life, not held captive by the call of Globalist agendas. I want my identity to be informed and solidified by the Gospel of Christ, not by anything else. May we support and encourage one another in our true identity which we could never buy, but that was bought for us with Blood so priceless it could never be sold.

who's betraying who?

2006-04-09T22:47:00.000+12:00

The New Text on the Block
Somebody must have planned this...

Just before Easter 2006... Just before Dan Brown's book-made-movie (you know the name) hits the screens... A new 'ancient document' surfaces...

(yes, I just used 'new' and 'ancient' in reference to the same thing...)

The 'gospel of Judas' is it's name and generating much discussion is it's game.

'Judas' is one of a few dozen extra-biblical (non-canonical, apocryphal, etc...) writings, and may be trying to surpass the Gospel of Thomas in popularity. Most scholars seem to agree that the text is definitely a product of the Gnostics (a movement in early Christianity dubbed heretical by early Church leaders). Gnostic thought is known for it's concern for all things spiritual (and conversely it's boredom with physicality) as well as having a pre-occupation with 'special' knowledge.

Why the fuss? Well, 'Judas' seems to paint a radically different picture of the disciple that many people love to hate. 'Judas' is said to suggest that the 'traitor' was not acting against, but in accordance with Jesus' wishes. This has been suggested before, with some positing that the Greek word behind 'betray' might also be translated 'hand over.' At any rate, 'Judas' is said to be the first ancient document that supports this suggestion.

Axe-grinding anyone?
So what's the deal with 'Judas?' Is this a closer glimpse into history or just some 'early heretic' propaganda? Have we another Church cover-up on our hands or is the best response to 'Judas' simply a big yawn?

These are great questions that deserve serious discussion and investigation, and though cans of worms are fun to open, there are just too many with this subject. Whose version of history should we believe? What are the axes being grinded, whose are they, and which one is bigger?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, 'Judas' and others all have axes to grind, and so do I. I am a Christian and I'm aware of the effect that has on my evaluation of this subject. Having said that, let me offer my contibutions...

Necessary Evil or Savior's Sidekick?
Starting with the canonical gospels, they all four seem to paint the 'betrayal' in a negative light. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record Jesus' foretelling of the betrayal and His stern 'Woe' to the betrayer. John adds Jesus' command for Judas to do what he was planning to do and also Jesus' words that one of the twelve is a devil. Not exactly positive, light-hearted friendly sentiments! All four canonical witnesses make it clear that the betrayal is not secret to Jesus, so the real question is; what was Judas thinking? Well, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Judas' infamous 'meeting' with the chief priests, who were wanting to kill Jesus, and so indicate his 'pre-meditation.' Also of note, is the record in Matthew that Judas 'repents' of his 'sin' and subsequently hangs himself. To say that Judas had a guilty concience would be a slight understatement. My summary of the canonical Gospels is this: a possessed and bribed Judas collaberates with the chief priests and others who were seeking to kill Jesus, who has fore-knowledge of this, does nothing to stop him in his actions, and even excuses Judas from the last supper table. Afterwards, Judas 'repents,' gives back his bribe-money and commits suicide.

On to 'Judas' and the Gnostic perspective. 'Judas' paints Judas as the only disciple who truly understands Jesus, the one whom Jesus shares His 'secrets' with and the one whom Jesus says will 'exceed them all'. The Gnostic author(s) certainly seemed to feel that Jesus approved of Judas' actions, but what's going on? Why paint Jesus and Judas as partners in crime? Perhaps a look at an ancient reference to 'Judas' will help.

In A.D. 180, a Church leader named Irenaeus wrote about certain 'others' (widely accepted that the reference is to Gnostics) who wrote about Judas:

"They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas." (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

In this light, the 'Judas' account fits nicely into what we know about the Gnostics and their relationship to the Church leadership. The Gnostic pre-occupation with knowledge rears it's head once again in their portrayal of Judas as having more and/or better knowledge than the other disciples. I am led (no surprise) to the same conclusion Irenaeus came to concerning 'Judas' - it is indeed 'ficticious history.'

So what about Jesus? Did He 'approve' of Judas' actions? Does Judas get off the hook for simply obeying orders? My bias is that Judas knew the ramifications of his actions, acted anyway, and as a result took his own life in an expression of sheer self-hatred. As for Jesus' approval, now that's a tricky question, the answer which is found only after first making a distinction between Jesus' will (what He wanted) and His plan (what He knew would happen). I suggest that while Judas' actions were indeed sinful, Jesus was no more surprised by them than He is by any of our sins.

Our Part in God's Story

2006-03-08T10:24:00.000+13:00

The Bible tells the story that we are a part of. Not every detail of that story is meant to be reenacted. We are, rather, invited to join and continue the story. From God’s sovereign (un-hindered by time) perspective, the entire story is already completed, but we find ourselves between the Apostles and the End of the age, when all things are made new. We are to join God in faithfully ‘writing’ our portion of the story (I've been inspired by N.T. Wright's '4-Act' analogy, and Mark Strom's '5-Chapter' improvisation of it.) We learn to do this better by becoming familiar with both the plot and main character or the story. The fullness of both the plot and the main character of Bible’s story is none other than God, Who entered His own story as the Lord Jesus Christ, and continues in His Story as the Holy Spirit, the great ‘One who comes along-side.’ As He leads us into 'all truth,' He is the One who inspires our faithful ‘writing.’ He is the One who guides us in living out our part in His story. Do we trust Him to do this? Or must we insist on our faithless dependence on programmes, organisation, methodology, liturgy, tradition and human-effort?

Well, it's official

2006-01-13T15:12:00.000+13:00

Well, now it's officially public news...

You're looking at the two latest victims of that trendy thing known as...

Engagement!!!

Diane and I recently visited Missouri for Christmas, and at roughly 5:15 on Dec. 28th, in the sanctuary of First Baptist Church, Springfield, we got engaged!!!

It was so nice to see so many friends and family and for most of them to get to meet Diane! What a special time we had! It all went by so fast!

We are now looking at the most practical... err... cheap options for the wedding, reception and apartment together after we tie the knot!!!

The wedding will be here in Auckland, New Zealand and July 8th (pending confirmation), but for the 99.72% of you that can't make the wedding, we are coming to Missouri for a 2nd reception! You are all invited! More details to come!

It's such an exciting time in our lives!

Love you all,

Dale

good will toward us

2005-11-28T16:27:00.000+13:00

At the time of Christ’s birth, the angels said to the shepherds, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!” (Luke 2:14) Isn’t that an amazing idea that God extended His good will in our direction? He did so in the very act of Christ taking on our flesh and dwelling among us (John 1:14). It’s the act of incarnation. Christ gave up the comfort and prestige of heaven and willingly chose to live a life filled with discomfort and mockery. Our Lord went through times of loneliness, being misunderstood, physical exhaustion, hunger, agony, pain and yes, death.

Christ knew from eternity what would come with His incarnation. This Christmas, perhaps we can recognize our calling to be like Christ in this way. We are called to go into the world in the same way Christ did. All too often Christians instead choose to live cozy lives of faithful church service attendance, Bible studies, and friendships with other believers. We are quite comfortable to speak to each other in Christian-ese and continually listen to our favourite style of worship music.

Of course, I’m not trying to devalue the importance of Christian fellowship. Quite the contrary. I’m just saying that our calling is to so much more than fellowship. We must go into the world. We must learn the language of the world. To do this we must risk being… uncomfortable. This willingness doesn’t come naturally, but super-naturally. May we have the courage of Christ in us to motivate us to sacrifice our comfort, reputations, productivity, lifestyle or anything else that is keeping us from fully answering our calling to be incarnational.

biblianity incorporated...

2005-11-15T14:16:00.000+13:00

I think Modern Christianity misses the point in many, many areas. Evangelism, Prayer and Fellowship are just a few, but perhaps the one that comes to mind at the moment is the misunderstanding of the role of the Bible in our faith. Having taken various classes at a non-Christian university, I've been exposed to a bit of negative criticism of the Bible. Much of this criticism is un-warranted, but a bit of it may be the fault of Christians. What I mean, is many Christians talk as if the Bible was penned, printed, bound, gift-wrapped and handed down on a cloud by God Himself. This is closer to the tradition of the Book of Mormon than to the reality of how we got the Bible! The Bible is much more of a Real book than that. It's historical. It's authentic. It's... True. Real people, Real stories, Real events in real time and in real places. However, many Christians are in danger of worshipping the Bible! It Christianity, not Biblianity! I think the Bible has an important role in the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but the way some Christians talk, they sound like they care more about spreading the Bible than it's message!

It's not Bible-reading that changes us, it's Christ! How in the world was anyone changed before most people had access to the Bible after the Reformation? I'm guessing it had just a little something to do with them hearing the Gospel of Grace and being transformed by the renewing of their minds! The thing that I've really been passionate about lately is the centrality of Christ in our faith. Anything taking His place is idolatry. Even the Bible, as good as it is. One of my favorite terms lately has been 'the Apostles' Teaching' - a.k.a. the Gospel. This is what we are commanded to preach. Sounds a little weird to say, "Go Ye therefore in to all the world and preach the Bible," doesn't it? But that's sometimes what we do with our bumper stickers, billboards and picketing. We use the truth like a weapon and gun people down with it, hurling bible-verse after bible-verse at people. We don't speak in their language! What we need to do is to commit to knowing the Gospel, then we must commit to learning the 'language' of the world so we can communicate the Gospel in their 'language.' To learn their language, we need to have a friendship with them! We need to know them!

I think the 2nd verse to Coldplay's song 'Talk' on X&Y can be seen to beautifully express the frustration of non-Christians when Christians fail to speak their language...

(questions)
Are you lost or incomplete?
Do you feel like a puzzle you can't find your missing piece?
Tell me how you feel...
(response)
Well I feel like they're talkin' in a language I don't speak,
and they're talkin' it to me...

Paul said that he tried to 'become all things to all men, so that by all means he might win some.' What a beautiful picture of learning the language of the world! Before Paul preached at Mars Hill, he spent hours in the marketplace walking, talking, listening, looking and learning. Then, he applied the Gospel brilliantly to their context! We not only CAN do the same, we are CALLED to!

DEVOTIONal thought

2005-08-01T14:07:00.000+12:00

Yes, there was Grace in the Covenant of Moses, but in BOTH Covenants, the priority was not Duty, but Devotion. If God’s covenant with us is based on Devotion, why are our covenants with each other based on Duty?

Duty focuses on doing, Devotion focuses on being
Duty asks which programmes work, Devotion works with or without programmes
Duty records results, Devotion runs races
Duty evaluates, Devotion just values
Duty focuses on behavior, Devotion focuses on a Saviour
Duty insists on action, Devotion inspires it
Duty is hard work, Devotion works hard
Duty looks for methods, Devotion loves the mission
Duty needs a special emphasis, Devotion needs Spirit empowering.
Duty compares with others, Devotion communes with others
Duty is emotion for causes, Devotion is caused by emotion
Duty is passionate for service, Devotion serves with passion
Duty says do it for God, Devotion lets God do it though you
Duty is religious activity, Devotion is Spiritual Service
Duty calls volunteers, Devotion casts vision
Duty is natural, Devotion is Supernatural
Duty wants others to serve, Devotion wants to serve others
Duty loves structure, Devotion’s structure is love
Duty needs committees, Devotion needs commitment
Duty loves the end result, Devotion’s end result is love
Duty has specific instructions, Devotion needs no instruction
Duty spells out, Devotion spills over
Duty loves power, Devotion’s power is love
Duty manipulates, Devotion motivates
Duty loves to be successful, Devotion is successful because it loves
Duty tries to save it’s life and loses it, Devotion loses it’s life and saves it

The philosophy of Duty is Works, the truth of Devotion is Love

make poverty history

2005-07-16T12:53:00.000+12:00

make poverty history
Originally uploaded by americankiwi.

everyone needs a cause...

everyone needs a cause

2005-07-16T12:44:00.000+12:00

another thing I'm for...

The Condition of Love

2005-07-04T15:05:00.000+12:00

Find True Love Now.
What's More Fun Than Love?
Live. Love. Learn.

Perhaps you've seen the following tag-lines for one of the latest online dating services, called True. The success of such services says something about our view or definition of love.

We seem to want it really bad.
We seem to hope we "find" it someday.
Also, we seem to be extremely afraid of getting hurt by it.

Our concept of love is seriously jacked. From any religious/scientific/etc. viewpoint, biology shows us that the continuation of the human race requires reproduction. Fortunately, this seems to be spurred along by this thing we've noticed called attraction. This and many other means traditionally meet their end in what we have called the family. Regardless of your beliefs about marriage, sex, etc., you will no doubt agree that on a very basic sense, things are just better when the family stays together. Perhaps that is why we are often scared to start a family. We see so many families go through so much pain, we just opt out and spare ourselves the grief.

Just taking a wild stab in the dark, but just maybe the way we think actually does affect our actions. If so, then the way we think about love should be of the utmost concern. If we have a misconception of what love is, it can cause much harm in all of our relationships. Allow me to share what I feel to be our biggest misconception about love.

I think our ‘love’ is far too conditional.

By that, I mean that true (idealistic, but still true) love is unconditional. We tend to love things (or people) if they are beneficial to us or if they make us happy, etc. The moment the thing (or person) lets us down, or fails to meet an expectation that we had, our ‘love’ lessens, or we cease to ‘love’ it anymore.

We must stop thinking, choosing, and living this way.

If we continue to believe that love is something you find, we’re doomed. As the by-line from the recent film Closer rightly says, “If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking.” Love is not something you look for, it’s something you choose to do. In U2’s latest album, Bono prophetically discerns between true love and romance in the song A Man And A Woman:

True love never can be rent
But only true love can keep beauty innocent

I could never take a chance
Of losing love to find romance
In the mysterious distance
Between a man and a woman

I am a Christian, and I would like to see the Church around the world begin to exemplify the love that is characterized in so many Bible passages such as these:

“for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away.” – Song of Songs 8:6-7

“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” - Jesus in Matthew 5:46

“…Love…is not self-seeking…” – That passage that so often goes in one ear and out the other at weddings (a.k.a. 1 Corinthians 13).

As eloquently as these statements are, I also believe that this kind of love does not come naturally, but rather is supernatural. This is why I believe that we need Gods help to love this way. Left to ourselves, we humans are pretty selfish. May we learn to love others as I believe God does.

laptop woes in new zealand

2005-04-22T08:47:00.000+12:00

Check it out...

(if you didn't read my last xanga post (http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=AmericanKiwi&tab=weblogs&uid=245051788) my laptop was stolen...)

Now check this out...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3253754a4560,00.html

This article led to a Christian radio station putting me on the radio today and persuading a computer company (computerdirect.co.nz) to donate a new laptop to me!!!!!!...and...find free insurance for 2 years!!!!!!!!
They're gonna pick me up in the 'life-fm' van next week and take me to go get it!!!

WOW...

of course, (in traditional sarcastic form) I'm sure God had 'nothing' to do with the kind act of the computer company owner...

(if I knew where the theif was, I'd go up to him, stick my tongue out, and say, "Ha, ha!"...and then ask for my sound files back...)

-d-

...and that's the truth

2004-10-31T15:03:00.000+13:00

I was thinking about truth the other day. For the sake of making sense, I'll use the example of creation/evolution. Both sides of this 'debate' have intellectual people. It would also stand to reason (and I think few would disagree) that both sides have rather 'un'-intellectual people. Let me pose this question: Is the stupid person any less right/wrong than the smart person? Clearly not. Assuming we could 'roll back the clock' and watch the beginning of the universe (assuming you don't foolishly believe that the universe is eternal), we would then be able to KNOW what really happened, and which 'side' is right and which was wrong. The 'intellect' of the various people on each side wouldn't matter, they would still be right or wrong. In similar fashion, when a team wins a game, the least talented player is still a winner, while the most talented player on the losing team is still a loser (as far as the game is concerned).
This (in my obsessively analytical mind) raises what I have come to understand as a true observation that our level of intellect REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.

Now, does this mean we should accept (using the same model) creation or evolution with uncritical and senseless abandon? Of course not. What I do believe in however is the idea of TRUTH. It exists. Dog-gone-it. The question is (as posed eloquently by the agnostic society) "can one know truth?"

I think that depends on your definition of 'know' and your definition of 'truth'. I will not go into that right now, but I have some thoughts I would like to share.

Again, using the same medium, I will make a point. My Bible in Film professor, Mark Boyer, is an extremely well-read, creative, educated, intelligent man. I, on the other hand, am not very well-read, only mildly creative, some-what edcucated, and fractionally intelligent. In class, he was exasperating about how the 3' tall human remains (recently found) are evidence for evolution (which he admitted couldn't be 'proven'). Wondering why we were talking about this in a Bible in Film class? Just take ANY class with Boyer and you'll understand. Anyway, during class he snapped, "I wonder what the creationists are going to do with this!" I entered the discussion mentioning that I wasn't the least bit surprised by this find, and drew attention to the fact that the average height (based on the still-standing saloons, old cities, etc.) of our very recent ancestors (cowboys from just a few generations back) was significantly shorter than today. He readily agreed. I continued that it certainly (in my view) doesn't take thousands of years for such changes to take place. Seeing where I was going, and undoubtedly not wanting to spark an in-class debate, he then quickly segued (did I spell that right?) into the movie.

What was my point? Good question. (if you have 'endured' this far) His later comment was quite telling of the point I want to make. "Sure, you can't prove evolution, but you have all the evidence for it." If you are at all familiar with the evo/cre debate, you will know that both sides claim that 'all' the evidence is on their side. So, since apparently intellect and opinion are useless in the pursuit of TRUTH, how can we know it?

My father has a quote from Pascal framed on his study wall...
"Truth is so obscure these days and falsehood so established, that unless one is a lover of truth, one cannnot know it." (loosely recalled as best I could)

I love truth. I love the idea of truth. I love that all humans desire to know the truth. Why is this? As with any other philosophical question, they all just simply don't make sense without God. I have doubted the existence of God at times in the past, but I am convinced that my doubt in God's existence (whether past doubts, present doubts, or future doubts) is purely a result of my misplaced faith in my own intellect. This is true for me as well as others. Family members, past friends, current friends, strangers I meet on the road of life...everybody.

I have several beliefs that I believe are true. However, I don't foolishly believe that these things are true simply because I 'figured them out'. They are just TRUE. Yes it is possible that I am wrong, and I will spend the rest of my life with my eyes and mind open to new ideas and opinions. But the TRUTH has not, cannot, and will not change.

"Maybe there's no gray and I was wrong to tell 'em so
And maybe all that I've to do was done a long time ago'
Cause there was life before my life
There was provision before my need
There was redemption before my sin
For the sake of the world
I thank the Lord
That the truth's not contingent on me"
~Derek Webb

I say these things not so that all of the web-loggers out there will say, "Wow, Dale, that's deep." If you are thinking that, then you just missed my entire point. I only hope that all of us will feel a little smaller next to such an infinite concept, that we'll feel a little more simple than such a complex idea, that we'll feel a little more helpless in such a perilous world.

Love -n- Grace

-D-

Angels In The Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible)

2004-09-19T08:45:00.000+12:00

Introduction

In this paper I will survey many issues concerning angels as presented in the Tanakh (or as Christians would say, the Old Testament). Due to the extensive frequency of angels in the Tanakh, I will cover some of the most interesting passages. The first section will address the definition and word usage for angels. In the second, I will cite several passages, deal with varying interpretations, and sometimes add a few brief comments of my own. For my last section, I will address the main point of conflict between Christians and Jews concerning angels, as well as attempt to summarize the roles and themes concerning angels in the Tanakh.
Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim, and ‘sons of God’

Before we begin addressing various passages, I want to address where the word angel comes from. Webster’s defines the word angel as “a spiritual being serving God especially as a messenger or as a guardian of people,” and gives Old French, Late Latin, and Greek roots. (3) The English transliteration for the Hebrew word for angel is ‘mal’ak’. Strong’s Bible Concordance defines it this way: “messenger, a human representative; angel, a supernatural representative of God, sometimes delivering messages, sometimes protecting God’s people; the “angel of the LORD,” sometimes shares divine characteristics and is sometimes thought to be an manifestation of God himself, or of the preincarnate Christ:” This Hebrew word is translated different ways depending on the passage: angel (101 times), messengers (74 times), messenger (24 times), angels (10 times), and ambassadors (4 times). (7)
What many consider the first “angel” mentioned in the Tanakh may or may not be an “angel” at all. Chapter 3 of Genesis records that “God placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden.” There is a different word used here in the text. The usual rendering of this Hebrew word (k’rub) is cherub (cherubim, pl). Strong’s defines these as, “…a class of supernatural beings that serve in the presence of God; used as ornamental figures in the atonement cover of the ark of the covenant and in the temple as well as on the walls and doors of the temple.” It seems that these creatures have similar standing in relationship to God, but have a different role.
Another group of beings in the Tanakh that are commonly lumped into the angel “genre” are seraphim. Strong’s defines the Hebrew word (sarap) as “venomous snake, seraph (six-winged being).” It is rendered three times as ‘fiery’, twice as ‘fiery serpent’, and twice as ‘seraphims’. Like cherubim, these beings appear to have similar makeup, but yet another distinct role. It appears that this role has to do with abiding in the presence of God and worshipping and singing to Him.
It is sometimes suggested that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are indeed angels or heavenly beings. It is doubtful in my opinion (and also from the Jewish perspective, I believe) that this could be likely for two main reasons. First, the same Hebrew word for son is used and therefore makes no reference to angels. Second, the fact that these “sons of God” “took wives” and had children bore to them. It appears that the passage is referring to ordinary men and the universal “fatherhood” of the Creator God.

The Angel of the LORD, or an angel of the LORD?

Feminists might find it interesting that the first mention of an angel is an appearance to a woman. It is found in Genesis 16, where Hagar (Sarai’s maid) had fled away from Sarai. This is the first of many passages in the Tanakh in which the angel (Angel?) speaks as the LORD himself, and is even called so by those who interact with him (Him?). The indications that this is a manifestation of the LORD himself are many in this passage. For example, in the same fashion as the LORD called to Adam in the garden, “Where are You…” the Angel calls to Hagar, “…where have you come from, and where are you going?” He (Himself) also promised Hagar to “multiply your descendants exceedingly,” which (in chapter 17:20) is an action claimed by God Himself. Even more indicative is when she (Hagar) calls “the name of the LORD who spoke to her, You Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, ‘Have I also here seen Him who sees me?’” (8)
Shortly after this passage is another, more puzzling, lengthier, passage. Beginning in Chapter 18, this passage describes the LORD appearing to Abraham, him seeing three men, addressing them (or one of them) as their (His) servant, feeding them, them asking about Sarah and telling Abraham that she would bear a son, ‘catching’ Sarah when she laughed about it, the men going toward Sodom, and Abraham and the LORD bargaining over the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Chapter 19 records two of the ‘men’ (now called angels) meeting up with Lot, avoiding capture by men with ‘wicked’ desires, and rescuing Lot and some of his family before the city is destroyed. Several interesting points are addressed by Rav Elchanan Samet in an online article named, “PARASHAT VAYERA: Rashbam's Interpretation of the Story of Avraham and the Angels.” He posits the following: “when God seeks to treat a person as His "friend," out of an intimacy that allows even for free argument, then He does so through the agency of His angels. On one hand, the agent represents his Master, and the emissary is considered like the One who sent him…” (6) He suggests that the angel was not a manifestation of God, but a man-like angel who bore the exact message of God. My personal interpretation is that the three men that Abraham initially saw were two angels and the Angel of the LORD. The Angel of the LORD is the one who speaks as God (since He is), and He is the one who converses with Abraham after the two ‘men’ head for Sodom and Gomorrah. This would explain Abraham’s reverence in communicating how he does.
Once more, the Angel of the LORD shows up in Chapter 22. This time, it is when God is testing Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering. Right as Abraham takes up the knife to slay his son, the Angel of the LORD calls to him, this time from heaven, and stops him. Abraham finds a ram, offers it instead, and names the place YHWH Yireh (The LORD Will Provide). The Angel of the LORD has a couple of interesting things to say the second time He calls from heaven. First, he says, By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, …I will bless…I will multiply…” Second, He says, “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” The Angel swears by Himself, calls Himself the LORD, and blesses Abraham’s descendants for obeying His voice.
Another familiar passage concerning an appearance of God is in Genesis 32, where a “Man” wrestles with Jacob until dawn. The “Man” tells Jacob that he will now be called Israel, because he had “struggled with God and with men…” Later Jacob declares the name of that location to be Peniel (Face of God), because he had “seen God face to face,” and his life was preserved. Clearly this is not a ‘man’ but God in this instance. Jacob has several other ‘face to face’ encounters with God in the following passages.
Gideon has yet another encounter with the Angel of the LORD in Judges 6. He asks the Angel, “show me a sign that it is You who talk with me.” The Angel does indeed give Gideon a sign (consuming meat and bread with fire) to prove who He is. The following text is paramount: “Now Gideon perceived that He was the Angel of the LORD. So Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord GOD! For I have seen the Angel of the LORD face to face.”
Probably the most apparent passage testifying to the Angel of the LORD being God is in Judges 13. Manoah and his wife were pondering who the ‘Man of God’ who had a ‘countenance like the countenance of the Angel of God’ who had appeared to his wife was. The third time He appeared to them both. They asked Him what His name was, and He replied, “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?” After another sign with fire consuming an offering, the Angel ascended in the flame. The passage states that, “then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, because we have seen God!’”
Indeed, the Rash bam, quoted by Rav Elchanan Samet is (in my opinion) just off base in saying that – "When an angel appears, he is called in the name of the Shekhina.” My only question is why can’t the Angel be who He says He is?
Obviously, the Angel is at times speaking the exact words of God, and the text states that people talked to, ‘stood’ or ‘bowed’ before God. In light of these passages (and others), I am led to interpret the Angel of the LORD as a theophany (a direct appearance/manifestation of the LORD Himself). Every time this ‘Angel’ shows up, people tend to see it as a life-altering event, evidenced by the fact that they build altars, bow and pray, etc. To take it further, one would not be foolish at all in suggesting that every (or most) appearance of the LORD in the Tanakh is indeed in the form of the ‘man-Angel’ of the LORD. What a practical and memorable way to communicate with His people.

Angels with free will? Fallen angels?

Jewish doctrine holds that all angels are perfectly in sync with God. Here is a quote from Philip Birnbaum: “The myth of the fallen angels has been degrade in midrashic literature because of their sensuality. The Persian idea of two opposing empires, with Satan as God’s enemy, has persisted only in non-Jewish literature, in which Lucifer is identified with the rebel archangel, Satan. The so-called ‘fallen-angels’ appear in the Midrash under seven designations…all of which characterize their gigantic size and limitless boldness.” (1) This is very interesting in contrast to Christian popularization of nearly universal idea that Satan is the eternal “bad guy”. For many Christians it is hard to picture the serpent in the Garden as an agent of God, or Satan as portrayed in the book of Job as a servant of the LORD.

The Book of Daniel

The Angel of the LORD makes yet another appearance in the Book of Daniel. King Nebuchadnezzar, in the famous passage, has built an image of gold that was 60 cubits (90 feet) high, and all the people were called to the dedication ceremony. Shadrach, Meshach, and AbedNego would not bow down at the que, so the king threw them into a blazing furnace. Take a look at the King’s astonishment at what he sees shortly after putting them in: “…he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, ‘Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?’ They answered and said to the king, ‘True, O king.’ ‘Look!’ he answered, ‘I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” Later, in repentance, the king spoke: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and AbedNego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him…” So here we have yet another mysterious Angel, this time labeled as being ‘like the Son of God, making an appearance.
Traditionally, the Book of Daniel is said to contain at least two angels whom are given names. Gabriel is described as ‘one having the appearance of a man’ and is asked by another voice to ‘make this man understand this vision’. The next mentioning of Gabriel is when Daniel is still in his ‘vision’, and he was praying and the ‘man’ Gabriel was ‘caused to fly swiftly’ and reached him ‘about the time of the evening offering.
The second angel is traditionally named Michael. He shows up in Daniels second vision. “But the Prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.” He is apparently much help to Daniel, because Daniel later writes “No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.” Daniel paints a symbolic picture of the end times. He puts Michael in the signaling role of the end of the age: “At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people.” Due to the nature of the context of both of these accounts, and their visionary content and interpretation, it is difficult to sum-up the consensus as to what these texts intend to say.

Regular Old Angels

After reading thus far in this paper one could easily deduce that the only angels that exist are not even angels at all, but God Himself or another type of heavenly being. That of course is not the case in Jewish or Christian theology. Many ‘average’ angels appear in the Tanakh.
Psalm 91 declares that God gives ‘His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. They shall bear you up in their hands, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’
Psalm 103 elaborates on their prescribed duty: “Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, heeding the voice of His word.”
From these two passages alone, we get the picture that ‘regular old angels’ are created to care for humans and obey God in everything as well.

Jewish Angel v. Christian Angel?

As we discussed earlier, one point of conflict between Jews and Christians on angels is that Jews believe that all angels are good, and they worship and serve God just as He intends to. More specifically, they don’t ever rebel or act against God. Several Jewish writers have no problem identifying God as the creator of evil. For example, Satan is seen as an obedient servant in the Book of Job as he takes away every precious and good thing from Jobs’ life. Of course, we don’t have the time, nor is it the purpose of this paper to delve into the origin of the problem of pain and suffering, but this contrast of philosophy is noteworthy.
Of course, the main point of conflict between Jews and Christians that is relevant to this paper is not concerning many angels but one. Jewish doctrine on the angel of the LORD seems to be that it is merely an angel that is speaking for God. Many Christians, however, see the Angel of the LORD as the preincarnate Jesus Christ. Some Christians could care less who the Angel is, and others find it vital to the defense of their faith.
At best I will say that the Jewish view of “the angel” seems to be very consistent with the rest of their beliefs. God remains intact, and simply chooses to send messengers to reveal Himself. Also, the Christian view of “the Angel” is a nice fit with the Christian doctrine concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. For Christians, there is absolutely only one God, but that one God is eternally revealed in three persons. The Father, the Son (Angel), and the Holy Spirit. It is exciting for Christians to think about the pre-existence of their Savior. And the theophanies provided in the Tanakh (Old Testament) are a handy way of explaining what Jesus was doing before His incarnation (according to Christian theology).

Roles and Themes

As we have discussed, angels take on various tasks and are called different names in the Tanakh. They range from messengers of divine truth appointed and created specifically for that purpose, to fiery creatures that are simply created for the sole purpose of singing and existing in the presence of God. When they fulfill this task, they give glory to God, their creator. Some are ‘guardian’ angels, per se. Their job is simply to look out for humans, protect and guide us as we live our lives.
I have enjoyed learning more about the varying roles of angels in the Tanakh, as well as gaining a more full understanding of the points of contrast between Jewish and Christian angelology. I am grateful for the opportunity to study this topic.

Bibliography

Birnbaum, Philip. “A Book of Jewish Concepts.” Hebrew Publishing Co. New York, Revised Edition, 1975
Jewish Heritage Online Magazine, Angels: Angels in the Bible http://www.jhom.com/topics/angels/bible.htm Viewed 5/12/04
“Merriam Webster’s American English Dictionary.” Merriam Webster, Inc. 2003
Moore, George Foot. “Volume 1, Judaism In The First Centuries of The Christian Era, The Age of The Tannaim.” President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1927
Rabbi Melanie Aron, http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/970905-angels.html
Rav Elchanan Samet, Virtual Beit Midrashhttp://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/04vayera.htm
Strong, James. “The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” Zondervan. 2001
The Holy Bible, New King-James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1984
TutorGig.Com Encyclopedia. Angel TutorGig.com http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=Angel

The Trinity according to the New Testament

2004-09-19T08:43:00.000+12:00

For my New Testament class...

According to the New Testament, the one and only God is revealed in three eternal, equal, yet distinct persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is called the doctrine of the Trinity. Within the religion of Christianity, this is a very common doctrine. Most Christians would even say that it is the most important or even essential doctrine one could hold. I will demonstrate the accuracy of this doctrine using various sources.
Before I begin, I want to point out that I will be approaching the issue with the presupposition of the existence of the supernatural. Because my theory deals with a doctrine based on textual contexts, and not with the historicity of an event in the New Testament, this will not affect it much. Nonetheless, it should be known.
In my opinion, most Christians “believe” in the Trinity, not because of what they read in the New Testament (moreover, the entire Bible), but because they have heard this doctrine their entire lives. I recently interviewed two gentlemen from the Jehovah’s Witness church, and we had quite an interesting discussion concerning the Bible’s revelation of the nature of God. As I will point out, it really all comes down to the interpretation of various texts, based on the method of interpretation one uses.
It does seem (in my opinion) that the “ground” held by Trinitarians is slipping. Even movements “within” Christianity stray from the historical definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. I will discuss and refute the two main opposing groups: Anti-Trinitarians, and Modalists.
One of the most well known Non-Trinitarian groups is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of their most well known publications against the Trinity is the booklet, “Should You Believe The Trinity?” It poses the question, “Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God?”
As far as the “origin” of the concept of the Trinity, the Witnesses refer to various “triune” or “three-headed” gods that were “prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ.” (4) In my recent interview with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I learned several things about their reasoning. I believe that in order to refute a Jehovah’s Witness, or any anti-Trinitarian for that matter, you must learn to “scale the language barrier”.
The verses they use to prove that Jesus is not God, but only the “Son of God,” are the very verses I would use to draw a distinction between the Father and the Son. For example, when Jesus cries out from the cross in Luke 23:46, “Father into Thy hands I commit my spirit,” the Witnesses, reason that “If Jesus were God, for what reason should he entrust his spirit to the Father?”(4) At this point, I would reason that this is merely an example of two distinct persons of the Godhead that are demonstrating their relationship. Jesus has a relationship of obedience and humility to the Father. An example of this humility is given in an additional passage in the New Testament. Philippians 2:6-8 (NKJV) reads, “who (Christ Jesus), being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but …being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Not only does this passage describe Jesus’ obedience, but also it speaks of His equality with the Father.
I found an embarrassing misquote in the Witnesses booklet. It reasons that if Jesus were God, and He was dead (in between the crucifixion and the resurrection) for parts of three days, “then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.”(4) I was astonished when I looked up the verse in my own Bible to see that a very important word in the verse was radically different! My Bible (Amp) reads, “Are You not from everlasting, O Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O Lord, You have appointed…(emphasis added)” This is no minor discrepancy! Who is it that doesn’t die? All of my translations read the same, using “we” instead of “you”.
The Witnesses also view the Holy Spirit as God’s “Active Force”, not divine, and definitely not a “person” of any sort of ”Godhead”. There are many different interpretations of various passages of Scripture. The line seems to be between the idea that the Spirit is “from” God or “of” God, and the idea that the Spirit “is” God, or a “person” of the Godhead. I think a powerful passage for the deity of the Holy Spirit is Acts 5:3-4, which reads (NLT), “You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money…like this. You weren’t lying to us but to God.” First of all, I don’t logically know how a person can “lie” to a “force” or “power”. Second, the thought of lying to the Holy Spirit is extended logically to the fact that the lie was to God. Many passages refer to the Spirit as “he”, which suggests the “person-hood” of the Spirit. The original Greek word that is translated “he” in most Bibles (except probably the New World Translation), is ekeinos (Strong's Greek #1565). It is a demonstrative pronoun that can mean “that”, “he”, or “those” as well as others. The Jehovah’s Witnesses would love for all of these passages to render the term the impersonal “it”, but only once in the entire New Testament is it rendered this way (1 John 5:16 - If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. KJV). In addition, the booklet states that “when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu’ma) is used, the neuter pronoun ‘it’ is properly employed.” I looked up the term “pneu’ma” in my Strong’s Greeks concordance and it simply labeled the term as a noun, not neuter. It seems that the context does and should suggest the rendering of the terms. And the context of many passages about the Holy Spirit imply that the Spirit has “authority”, “will”, a “name”, “feeling” etc. All these should lead a translator to render the term as “he”.
For every suggestion from Scripture that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is a “person” of the Godhead, the Witnesses have a “different” hermeneutic. For every direct attribution of “personhood” or deity, they have a different or “better” translation for the word used. As I mentioned earlier, the “language barrier” is difficult to scale.
The next group is not as “abrasive” as the Witnesses. They include themselves within evangelical Christianity, although their modalistic view of the nature of God may have serious implications.
Put simply and possibly offensively, modalists believe that God is like a chameleon in that He can “change costumes” between all of the persons of the traditional Trinity. Sometimes He is/was the Father, then also He is/was Jesus the Son, and also sometimes He is the Spirit. Here is a belief statement from T.D. Jakes’ church, The Potter’s House: “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” (1)
At first read, this may sound just like the traditional Trinity. But there is a language barrier here as well. In Modalism, the “manifestations” are not coequal, coeternal or distinct from one another. This is not only different from the traditional definition of the nature of God, but it is also hard to swallow in light of passages such as Matthew 26:14 where Jesus prays to the Father, which couldn’t happen unless the persons of the Trinity are eternally distinct. This is not the only example of relationships within the Godhead. The Son loves the Father, the Father loves and is pleased with the Son (Matthew 3:17), the Father sends the Son (John 3:16), the Father sends and gives the Spirit (John 14:25), the Spirit testifies of the Son (John 15:26), etc.
One can feel quite “worn-out” after tromping through the battlefield of biblical terminology and semantics. Next, and lastly, I want to summarize and support what I feel the New Testament says about the nature of God.
Why the Trinity? The One and Only God wanted to reveal Himself. That is what it’s all about: The way in which God chooses to reveal Himself to humanity. Three persons. Forever distinct. Forever equal in nature. Forever God. Christopher Hall quotes Gregory on the Father: “The Father is the begetter and the emitter; without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner.” (3) Seeberg summarizes various “apologists” concerning the Son: “…they thought of Him as God, in God, and with God, and hence selected a term such as ‘Logos’…” (5) Last but not least, I love the way Tillich addresses the deity of the Holy Spirit. “It is the Spirit in whom God ‘goes out from’ himself, the Spirit proceeds from the divine ground. He gives actuality to that which is potential in the divine ground and ‘outspoken’ in the divine logos…. The divine life is infinite mystery, but it is not infinite emptiness. It is the ground of all abundance, and it is abundant itself.” (6) I’ve also heard it said that the Father initiates, the Son implements and the Spirit empowers. Sounds good, huh?
In closing, I’d like to quote Hank Hanegraaff (Christian apologist). “We can never ‘comprehend’ the Trinity, but we can ‘apprehend’ it from Scripture.” As far as what my opinion on the study of the nature of God is: it is wonderfully complex.

Index of Supporting Scriptures
Matthew 26:14 Matthew 3:17
1 John 5:16 John 14:25
Acts 5:3-4 (NLT) John 15:26
Habakkuk 1:12 (Amp)
Philippians 2:6-8 (NKJV)
Luke 23:46
John 3:16
Bibliography
1. Belief Statement. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2003, from http://thepottershouse.org/PH_beliefs.html
2. Strong, James LL.D., S.T.D. (2001) The strongest Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
3. Hall, Christopher A. (Christopher Alan). (2002) Learning theology with the church fathers. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois
4. Jehovah’s Witnesses Publication. (1989) Should You Believe in The Trinity? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Brooklyn, New York.
5. Seeberg, Reinhold. (1952). Textbook of the History of Doctrines (Charles E. Hay, Trans.). Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Michigan.6. Tillich, Paul. (1951). Systematic Theology: Volume I. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.

My Understanding of Religion

2004-09-19T08:37:00.000+12:00

At Southwest Missouri State University, all Religious Studies majors have to write this paper. Here's mine...

Religion is (in my opinion) the most controversial subject extant today. If you are ever in the mood to argue with someone, just bring up religion. It is at the core of every difference of opinion, and behind every conflict. I personally do not see this as a challenge, nor does it discourage me from discussing religion. I am aware that some people hate discussing religion, but frankly, I enjoy it. I think people have lost (or never had) the ability to debate. This is true not only in religious debates, but most any area. The first thing we must do is not take offense with someone disagreeing with our point of view. Secondly, we must know why we believe what we believe. In my opinion, a person does not really believe something unless they know why they believe it.
Aside from how controversial religion is, I also would like to comment on what I believe religion to be. Religion is quite an interesting word. It is hard to define it without excluding a certain group of adherents to what we would normally call a “religion”. ‘A belief in God’ doesn’t apply to Buddhists, ‘a system of moral guidelines’ doesn’t really apply to Taoist thought as well as a host of other “religions”, and the list goes on. This is why I strongly prefer the term worldview. Everyone has a worldview. You cannot be a conscious human being and not have one. I define a worldview as a system by which one interprets the way the world operates. Sharing your worldview means answering the famous list of foundational questions, such as: how, when, where, who, why and what.
Because everyone has a system by which they interpret this existence and on which they base all of their decisions, it goes without saying that a worldview should be of the utmost importance to the one holding it. A worldview is not something you choose by spinning a wheel, tossing dice, or Russian roulette. It should be carefully weighed out and constantly reviewed and tested as one lives out life. Also, it should be noted that one need not know every detail concerning his/her worldview in order to posses it. I would even go further to say that it is not possible to know every detail of any particular worldview. As we journey through this existence, we should continually be open to new ideas and learning experiences. Failure to do this is the perfect example of close-mindedness. I do, however, believe that we can be so “open-minded” that our brain might fall out. I am not advocating relativism, or the idea that “all beliefs and worldviews are created equal.” Some individuals take the principle of open-mindedness further that it should be taken. It is NOT close-minded to have a STRONG belief or worldview. However, it IS close-minded to NOT listen to or consider another’s view in light of your own. In closing, I will also say that a “religion” or “worldview” is something that should affect every aspect of your life. As I discussed earlier, a worldview is a system by which one interprets how the world works, and on which all decisions are made. What could be more important or foundational? In a world full of choices to make, what standard or system will we embrace to guide our steps? In truth, every person has, in fact, already chosen a standard or system to under-gird their decisions. I believe that one who claims a given “religion” or “worldview”, yet has not come to this decision on their own, cannot truthfully and whole-heartedly adhere to it. And just as strongly, I believe that the assertion that one has not associated with any particular “religion” or “worldview” is a self-refuting assertion. All one has to do is ask that person why they don’t associate with any “religion” or “worldview.” Their response will likely be a rather specific explanation of the worldview that led them to the assertion that they don’t hold to any specific worldview.

Rich Mullins- two great insights

2004-09-19T08:33:00.000+12:00

(when asked what kind of legacy he wanted to leave)
“...If my life is motivated by my ambition to leave a legacy, what I’ll probably leave as a legacy is ambition. But if my life is motivated by the power of the Spirit in me, if I live in the awareness of the indwelling Christ, if I allow His presence to guide my actions, to guide my motives, those sorts of things, that’s the only time I think that we really leave a great legacy. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. My ambition to be a good guy is a fleshly ambition. And when Christ calls us to take up our cross and follow Him, a lot of us think that what that means is that were supposed to lay down our vices, and we’re supposed to cling to virtues. But I think that unless Christ is Lord of our virtues, our virtues become dangerous to us, and dangerous to the people around us."
“I think that when Christ calls us to take up our cross, what He means is You must die not only to whatever vices are in your life (which He will eventually kill out), you must also die to whatever virtues are in your life. You life is not valuable because you’re an articulate speaker. Your life is not valuable because you’re a generous person. Your life is not valuable because of any of that…If we empty ourselves of everything, and allow God to be present, then it’s no longer us, it’s Him. Then it becomes a spiritual thing. And that which is born of the spirit is spirit. And that’s when I think Christianity really begins to make sense."

(talking about Christian legalism and self-righteousness)
“I think I would rather live on the verge of falling, and let my security be in the all-sufficiency of the grace of God, than to love in some kind of pietistic illusion of moral excellence. Not that I don’t want to be morally excellent, but my faith isn’t in the idea that I am more moral than anybody else, my faith is in the idea that God and His love are greater than whatever sins any of us commit.”

Amen,
-Dale

Creed for the Modern Thinker

2004-09-19T08:12:00.000+12:00

This is really good stuff. Enjoy. (written in 1980)
Dale

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy's OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything's getting better despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated.
You can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes, ufo's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha Mohammed and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think his good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation sin heaven hell God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes The Nothing
because when you ask the dead what happens they say Nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that-lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

From Nice and Nasty by Steve Turner. 1980 by Marshall, and Scott.

Religion...Open or Close-minded

2004-09-19T08:04:00.000+12:00

Religion.
World View.
Faith.
Belief System.
Denomination.
Conviction.
Morality.
Free Will.
Predestination.
God.
Monk
Nun.
Buddha
Mohammed
Jesus
Angels
Spirit
Christ
Prophecy
Bible
Koran
Joseph Smith
Mormon
Jehovah’s Witness
Revelation
Resurrection
Reincarnation
Meditation
Prayer
Heaven
Hell

Religion is one of the most (if not THE most) controversial subjects known to humanity. The evidence of this is quite obvious. It seems that as far as religion is concerned, either two people agree totally and can engage in a lengthy, harmonious conversation, or they disagree. And we all have seen various instances of what that can look like. When two persons reach a point of disagreement, there are logically two paths they can take. They can either change the subject in order to have a more congruent discussion, or they can choose to substantiate their opinions to one another. There are logically two possible ends to the latter path. One being that one of the two persons changes their opinion in light of the perceived weight of the other persons’ position. The other end, which is also the most common, is when the conversation eventually ends with the two still in disagreement.
It is interesting to me that in the case where two people disagree and decide to engage in a debate, the debate usually turns into a heated argument. Sure, the levels of “heat” may vary. But usually one or both of the persons involved is quite animated in their defense of their position.
Why is this? What is the big deal?
We want to be right. And whether we can admit it or not. When you believe differently than someone else concerning a given subject, you believe that they are wrong, at some level, concerning that same subject. Some would say such a person would be close-minded to say “dogmatically” that another person is wrong. I would encourage that person to reconsider what it means to be open or close-minded. A closed-minded person will not consider the opinions of others. An open-minded person will. That is it. Open or closed-mindedness has to do with whether or not a person will consider others’ opinions. Not whether they agree or not.
I believe that we have a misconception of what it means to be open or close-minded. It is very common for a person with a strong opinion to be called close-minded. Why? I disagree. I believe that regardless of how “strong” of an opinion a person has, as long as that person is willing to hear other opinions and test his/her opinion against it, he/she remains open-minded.
The problem is that we have lost the ability to debate effectively. We live in a society that embraces differences of opinions as long as they don’t grow too strong. The instant an opinion grows “too strong” the person holding it becomes “close-minded” or “dogmatic.” What ought to take place is a scholarly debate. The two people should substantiate their opinions to one another. Surely it is agreed that if a person has a “strong” opinion, they should be prepared and willing to defend and support it. A correct opinion should be easily defended.
Now I have just used a term that is very controversial. Correct. How could anyone be so “close-minded” or “dogmatic” to believe that his/her opinion is “correct?” Unfortunately, this is the way a lot of people think. The idea of such a thing as true and false or right and wrong is all but dead. It is popular to think that wrong exists only in certain situations. One “sneaky” way of presenting this idea is seen when we hear someone say something like this…”Yeah, I think that’s definitely wrong, but I can’t tell someone else that they shouldn’t do it.” Here’s another example I myself heard from a gas station attendant during a discussion about the pornographic magazines in the store. “Well, no, I wouldn’t want my daughter doing that when she grows up, but otherwise I don’t have a problem with it.” It seems that people have regressed to the point to where they don’t care about others…until it affects their world. Just like the man in the gas station. He “has no problem” with pornography…until his daughter would want to be a part of it. There has been a major paradigm shift in this country. What used to be a “dirty movie” is now an “adult feature.” Strip clubs used to be low quality. Now many are frequented by business groups and financially secure individuals who are willing to pay a high price for this “entertainment.” This is what we get from the idea of ‘relative truth.’At any rate, people should be able to talk about anything. A debate doesn’t have to be a shouting match.

Pre-marital Gratification

2004-09-19T07:56:00.000+12:00

In today’s culture and heritage, it is common to find the person who holds the opinion that it is not only acceptable, but quite beneficial to “test the merchandise” (sexually speaking) before any serious commitment is made between a man and a woman (hopefully we can assume that we are talking about a man and a woman).
The view is supported by some of the following thoughts…
“Sex is such a BIG part of a marriage relationship, so it would be crazy to enter into marriage without knowing how sexually compatible the two of you are.”
Carnal reasoning and empty philosophy supporting this behavior is such as this….
“I’m not saying that we should go out and have sex with everyone we are interested in, but it is definitely smart to do so when you find someone you are seriously considering marrying someone.”
Clearly these thoughts are only derived from our natural tendency to justify what we have always known and always will know to be improper behavior. As humans, we fall into temptation so easily and the first natural reaction is the great deal of guilt that we feel for what we have done. So, the natural thing that we then do is to come up with a really good reason, excuse, pardon, or exception to the rule, which makes our mistake look not only justified, but in some cases, an “acceptable personal decision”.
Time and time again we hear people say, “Oh, but I am really in love with her!!!”
Or, “We are merely showing our love for each other in the most natural way possible….”
Or, “Hey, to each their own. We all have to make choices we will pay for later…”
Or, “It is different with us, we have a special understanding about that kind of stuff…”
Or, “Hey, sex is not any worse that any other stuff that you can do….”
Empty philosophy to me…
God clearly has designed sex to be for within marriage and not to be abused or toyed with. Sex is God’s blessing and gift to two people who are not only in love, but are totally and 100% committed to each other.
Here is the point that I must make concerning this topic. A popular non-Christian view is that the goal of pre-marital sexual experimentation is to avoid the “devastating” possibility of winding up spending the rest of your married life with a sexual partner who is not as good as you. They obviously think that unless the two people in a sexual partnership are not equally matched with sexual level of ability, the sexual partnership will simply be unfruitful. NONSENSE!!!! This idea suggests that only people who are “good” at sexual intercourse have any business participating in it!!! How ridiculous!!! Here is what I hope to be a useful analogy: In sports, there are different “levels” of talent. In the sport of basketball, you have many different levels ranging from Professional and Olympic, all the way to small local leagues or pick-up games. Not only can the basketball players with the least amount of natural talent have fun playing the sport, most commonly they usually possess a great attitude towards the game and those they are playing it with. We have all seen what can happen when tempers and egos collide in professional sports.
To take this analogy a little further, we observe that to be perfectly honest to ourselves, we must admit that what really is fun about sports is who we are playing with and how well we get along and help each other from a “team” perspective. I believe that this concept applies directly to a successful marriage. The two partners or “teammates” have to be not only committed to each other in love, but they must strive to “get along” and “help each other”. This goes for other activities other that sex. Is it not clear that when one basketball player is more gifted with natural ability that the other, the last thing that he should do to promote a “good basketball experience” for all persons involved, is to be cocky, or impatient with the others’ shortcomings? Is it not clear that this also applies to marriages?
My point in a nutshell, is that I believe that the physical QUALITY of the act of sex isn’t and shouldn’t be the criterion of a successful sexual relationship. And furthermore, I believe that what really and truly edifies a relationship is the level of love and commitment that is in it. God designed sex as a gift of ecstasy to bless two people who are totally in love with each other and committed to one another. The mindset of a spouse or mate should not be, “How much will he/she give me?” or “What has he/she given me lately?” Instead, “How much can I give him/her?” or “What have I done for him/her lately?” At the very heart of such attitudes, we find the Christ-like, unconditional love, which I believe to be the only kind of love that can ever begin to be the foundation of both a successful marriage and a healthy sexual relationship experience. This may seem simplistic and ridiculously idealistic, but we have forgotten what to shoot for in a marriage. We simply think that if we have found a person that we don’t argue with, we have an ideal marriage. NOPE!!! Folks, we owe it to ourselves to strive for the ultimate marriage achievement. The kind of marriage that God wants us to be blessed with!!! Let’s not settle for the worlds’ idea of a successful marriage, but strive for the blissful uniting of two people that are crazy about pleasing one another for as long as they are together, both sexually and non-sexually. Let’s face it…how long are your bodies going to be “sexually admirable”, and when that passion fades, what will be there to sustain the marriage?
In closing, is it a mere coincidence that our divorce rate has steadily risen over the years, as has the growing acceptance and encouragement of premarital sex? How are we to clearly discern, reason, and evaluate the condition of a relationship if our minds are clouded with passion and intimacy, which were designed for after we make our final decision and commitment? My belief is that experimenting sexually before marriage NEVER helps that relationship. I have never heard ANYONE say, “Man, I am glad that me and my spouse had sex before we got married!!!” Let’s not kid ourselves. Stay pure and save that beautiful God-given gift for the right time.

Church is an interesting word

2004-09-19T07:53:00.000+12:00

Church is an interesting word. What does it mean? Well, last I checked my Greek dictionary it still means “called-out ones”. How should that meaning affect us today? Well, I think it deals with identity. We define what people are by what they do. Police officers wear uniforms, have guns and protect people. Firemen know how to use a hose, are always ready, and drive red trucks. Sadly, what the world expects from Christians is attendance at “church”, always smiling, opinionated, oh, and don’t forget that fish symbol on their car. That is not the identity Christ wanted for those who bear His name. We are “called out” to prepare people for heaven. To “go and make disciples of all the nations” and “teach them to observe His commands”.

Many church (lower-case “c”) leaders would say, “Yep, and that’s what we’re doing here at (fill in the blank) church.” I would say that yes, this does happen at some “lower case ‘c’” churches. But while most of us will admit that it doesn’t happen at enough churches, I rarely see anyone say that it doesn’t at their church. That is the first problem with many church bodies today. They think things are “fine” at their church. And while things might very well be “fine” at their church, things aren’t “fine” in the world. Let’s think about the attitude behind saying that things are “fine” at a church. I would bet that the person, who says that, when questioned, would say that they, of course, didn’t think that their church is perfect, but it’s healthy enough. I want to make sure and point out that I am not killing all churches. There are some really good churches in this world. What is the difference from a “good” church and a “bad” church, though? Well, again, I think it has more to do with identity.
Let’s remember that (as we’ve heard again and again) the church (upper or lower-case “c”) is not a building. It is a body of believers. Called-out ones. So can’t we admit that the things that make a good church are probably the same or close to the same things that make good church members? And can we admit that it’s just as wrong to think that we are “fine” spiritually as our church is (as mentioned above). Again, few people are proud or conceited enough to say that they are perfect, but virtually every day we tell many people that we are “fine”. And again, I’m not killing people either. But I think it is important to realize that churches and the Church are made up of called out Christians, and the health of churches and the Church has, does and always will depend on the lives of the members.
Having said that, let’s take a moment and list some of the things that DON’T define the health of a church.
Good music
The right witnessing program or structure.
Location, location, location.
Size
A good pastor
Style of worship
A building to meet in.
Etc…
Every item in this list is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with any of these items; they just won’t get the great commission done alone.

On The Origin of the Opportunity

2004-09-17T16:44:00.000+12:00

So...(as if there millions of people that have been waiting to hear), this is how I stumbled upon my opportunity.

I heard about a trip to New Zealand at my prarents' house, Christmas '03. A man named Dr. Bernard Holmes (who is a native of NZ) was attending Christmas with us, and he was leading the team (of which my older sister, Sherri 31, was a part). The trip was for an entire month, and I assumed that it would cost a small fortune. We would be assisting a local church with its' ministry.
I kinda thought, "Wow, that would be cool, but I can't afford it and I could never get off work." After I heard how much the trip would cost, however, I had to think again. Church members were going to provide housing and 2 meals a day! This left us to cover only the plane ticket, occasional meals, and souvenirs. We thought the tickets would be around $1200. That's basically it! For a month, only $1200!.
I eventually decided that if God wanted me to go, He would make it happen. So, I asked my work. I knew I would have two weeks of vacation to spend. Keep in mind, it is hard to even take off both of your weeks together, much less to be gone for an entire month! Well, God had other plans, because not only was my boss going to support my desire to go, but he commented, "Well, this sounds like something you should definitely do."
So, now that I had permission, I still had to come up with the funds. I recieved an email from Dr. Holmes requesting credit-card info. from all the team members, so he could purchase the tickets. I decided to trust God, and gave him the info.

You wouldn't guess how much my federal income tax check was for.

Yep, $1200.

So I found myself boarding a plane and heading for NZ. The trip went great. We all were learning a great deal, and serving in various areas of ministry at the church we were at. Then, about 2/3 of the way through the trip, the chairman of the elders sat me down in the sanctuary one day, and offered me the youth pastor position that had been available for 1 1/2 years. I was floored. I initially thought, "Why New Zealand?", but after consideration and some council, I began to think, "Why NOT New Zealand?"

I met several times with the elders, and agreed to take the offer back to the U.S., and pray and seek more council, then make a decision.

I had 4 plane trips to get back, and I was coming back alone. Auckland to Tahiti, to L.A., to Denver, and finally to Kansas City. As I was about to sit down on the last plane, I realized there was a girl in my seat. She asked me if she was in my seat, and began to gather her things. I offered 3-4 times to sit in the seat intended for her, and assured her that it was no problem, but she insisted that I sit in my scheduled seat. I (as other passengers were trying to sit down) agreed. A husband and wife were sitting next to me. He confidently introduced himself. I gave him my name, and he asked me where I was from, I answered and returned the question, and he said he was from around Orange Co., California. I knew of a very famous church in Orange Co, so I said, "Hey, cool! Maybe you've heard of Saddleback Church, Rick Warren (teaching pastor), Purpose Driven Life (book)?" He chuckled and answered, "Well, actually I am the executive Pastor of Saddleback." It turns out that he (Glen Kruen) was the perfect individual to answer some of the questions I had. We talked church the whole plane ride. He and his wife were very encouraging. He offered very biblical, practical advice. He was not out to 'fan the flame', but he didn't 'pour cold water' on my opportunity either. It was not a coincidence. God had planned this encounter.
Well, after prayer and seeking more wise council, I decided once more to trust God, and walk toward the open door and ask as I walk, that He would close the door if it wasn't his plan.
Every door concerning this decision has been wide open since.

Trusting Him,

Dale

blogging by email

2004-08-14T05:39:00.000+12:00

Hey, this is a neat feature…

I can post via email, and it automatically publishes it.

Cool.

Dale