I like this phrase..."The Age of Reason"-echo-echo-echo-echo. I don't know, it just seems...well...intellegent. I know that it was a period prior to the "age of enlightenment" but Thomas Paine is not where I am going with this.
Shouldn't there be an "age" of reason just like we talk of an "age" of accountability. Shoudn't there come and time in our own lives where we reach a place of reasoning in our spiritual development. I think so...and I think that leads to our own individual "age of enlightenment".
To back up a little, so I have obviously been on this maturity kick (read my last blog). But my pleading for maturity is not satisfying enough. I wanted to understand where we were losing it in our faith.
First, I have embraced that fact that is not a flaw in our faith (Christianity). We read in Corinthians that God does impart a "secret wisdom" and in Chapter 14 it elaborates that we should be "mature in thinking".
Second, I believe there is much evidence to support (both scripturally and secularly) that reasoning preceeds enlightment (just like in our human history). The jist is that we must ponder before we realize. But since this claim is not what I am blogging about, I will proceed. (you can inquire later for a more evidenced explanation)
So to conclude, I am seeing less maturity becuase people are not making the investment to reason. I encounter assimilated opinions, legalism, and blatant ignorance daily. Most of these encounters can simply be resolved with some one taking the time to walk through their reasons for such opinions and behaviors. Ask yourself, "why do I think this", "what is the point", "what can be achieved", "who might this affect". These are questions I see from those who are reasoning. And the nice thing is, as they practice this reasoning, they eventaully become enlightened to human behavior, spiritual insight, and cause & effect. These people come across mature.
I know, I know..."mindless chatter again"...but really, perhaps we should all ask ourselves what standard we are holding for those who represent Christ. I personally want to encourage people to be founded on the rock of Christ and the sand of shifting public and cultural opinion.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Maturity
It is really funny that such a "mature" word like "matruity" seems so "immature" when you use it. It has almost become a cliche'. I get the picture of the quitnessential juvenile yelling at a friend that they are "so immature"... as if to imply that they themselves embody maturity.
I have begun to realize that there is an intellect to maturity and some simply do not (or refuse) to possess that intellect. You see it in people who regurgitate political, spiritual, or social opinions out of a book they just read. No foundation or consideration of what goes into that opinion, just vommitting back to put on a facade of know-how. You can also see it those people who appear really smart but when it comes to relationships, they seem to be extremely high maintainence.
I want to take this word "maturity" back from the preteen girls. I want it to be used in a capacity that reflects it's intent because GOD CALLS US TO MATURITY! (1 Cor. 2:6, 1 Cor. 14:20, Eph. 4:13, Phil. 3:15, Col. 1:28, must I continue?)
Allow me to vent briefly.
I am sick (sick as in completely and udderly fed up) of people of God who fail to realize how immature they act. People who explode with hateful comments or "I quit" when things get hard. People who are supposed to lead others to a loving, embracing Christ, but can't look past their comforatble pew to go talk to someone different. People who flaunt their calling or position in order to gain respect, rather than honestly building report with those around them. You can begin to see the great link between immaturity and lazy selfishness.
I want to be mature. When I state an opinion, I want to truly believe and back it with time-tested thought. When I have subordinates, I want them to respect who I am not what title I carry. When I have friends, I want them to feel priviledged to be my friend, not obligated. When I share Christ, I want to set aside my carnal desires from my own good to remember the great calling set out by Christ.
Is there any mature amoung us?
I have begun to realize that there is an intellect to maturity and some simply do not (or refuse) to possess that intellect. You see it in people who regurgitate political, spiritual, or social opinions out of a book they just read. No foundation or consideration of what goes into that opinion, just vommitting back to put on a facade of know-how. You can also see it those people who appear really smart but when it comes to relationships, they seem to be extremely high maintainence.
I want to take this word "maturity" back from the preteen girls. I want it to be used in a capacity that reflects it's intent because GOD CALLS US TO MATURITY! (1 Cor. 2:6, 1 Cor. 14:20, Eph. 4:13, Phil. 3:15, Col. 1:28, must I continue?)
Allow me to vent briefly.
I am sick (sick as in completely and udderly fed up) of people of God who fail to realize how immature they act. People who explode with hateful comments or "I quit" when things get hard. People who are supposed to lead others to a loving, embracing Christ, but can't look past their comforatble pew to go talk to someone different. People who flaunt their calling or position in order to gain respect, rather than honestly building report with those around them. You can begin to see the great link between immaturity and lazy selfishness.
I want to be mature. When I state an opinion, I want to truly believe and back it with time-tested thought. When I have subordinates, I want them to respect who I am not what title I carry. When I have friends, I want them to feel priviledged to be my friend, not obligated. When I share Christ, I want to set aside my carnal desires from my own good to remember the great calling set out by Christ.
Is there any mature amoung us?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Why Ministry?
Lately, I am in the midst of a transition. I am moving. I hate moving. Not so much going to a different place but the physical act of picking up all your possessions, placing them on a truck and driving them away for 15cents a mile. And then unloading it, arranging it, putting up pictures, changing mailing addresses, phone service providers, and not to mention, making sure the animals don't make the "Homeward Bound" trek back to the old place.
But all that aside, a friend of mine made a statement encouraging me to pursue new ministry opportunities fully. He said, "you have to remember why you are in ministry to begin with."
Now this term "in ministry" gets thrown around a lot in Christian church circles. Honestly, I am not sure we use it appropriately. It appears to be synonymous with "I am in a compensated ministry role." And trust me, as compensated minister, that's cool, but is that really the indicator of being in ministry? Getting paid?
Or some uses it to replace, "I work in a church in active role with a department (i.e. children's, youth, music)." But is that what it really means? I help at church?
I know this is a blog and it is my chance to become witty and say profound things but no fluff...
BOTTOM LINE:
If you love Christ and embrace him as your savior, YOU ARE IN MINISTRY! That's what he calls his disciples to...spreading his good news. Maybe our terminology of "in ministry" is what is killing our mobilization of laity. Maybe it is building a wall between the church and the community or maybe even a wall between the congregation and the platform. Are we not all in this together? Do we each not have the same spiritual responsibility, to share our faith?
I am pursuing all kinds of new ministry opportunities, but they are not characterized by compensation or location of activity. I am remembering why I am "in ministry" to begin with. I am "in ministry" because my Forgiver, my Comforter, and my Friend compels me to be. Any one else compelled?
But all that aside, a friend of mine made a statement encouraging me to pursue new ministry opportunities fully. He said, "you have to remember why you are in ministry to begin with."
Now this term "in ministry" gets thrown around a lot in Christian church circles. Honestly, I am not sure we use it appropriately. It appears to be synonymous with "I am in a compensated ministry role." And trust me, as compensated minister, that's cool, but is that really the indicator of being in ministry? Getting paid?
Or some uses it to replace, "I work in a church in active role with a department (i.e. children's, youth, music)." But is that what it really means? I help at church?
I know this is a blog and it is my chance to become witty and say profound things but no fluff...
BOTTOM LINE:
If you love Christ and embrace him as your savior, YOU ARE IN MINISTRY! That's what he calls his disciples to...spreading his good news. Maybe our terminology of "in ministry" is what is killing our mobilization of laity. Maybe it is building a wall between the church and the community or maybe even a wall between the congregation and the platform. Are we not all in this together? Do we each not have the same spiritual responsibility, to share our faith?
I am pursuing all kinds of new ministry opportunities, but they are not characterized by compensation or location of activity. I am remembering why I am "in ministry" to begin with. I am "in ministry" because my Forgiver, my Comforter, and my Friend compels me to be. Any one else compelled?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Knowing
I have have met many people who know a lot about God. Perhaps it is knowledge from life lessons, instances that shaped a person. Sometimes it is distress and other times simply noticing the little "silver linings". Maybe the knowledge is from study, lessons learned by the time-consuming research of others, their thoughts, philosophies, perceptions, and opinions. Maybe the knowledge is from intuition, a sense of reality that appears to be interwoven into our very reality.
All of this "God information" is great ... but I am finding it isn't enough. It appears that many people, both Christians and non Christians alike, have some "idea" of God, and that "idea" comes from the aforementioned sources.
But when does God begin to exceed our "ideas"?
Isn't that what He is all about? Being above and beyond anything we could ever imagine, know, learn, perceive, or sense?
What I am finding is that the God experiences are what preserve us. Not our knowledge of him. It is those moments where we realize we don't know but don't seem to worry. It is the times when we are all alone but aren't lonely. It is the instances that grab us by the neck choking the life out of us, but we aren't afraid.
Might that really be where God is? Not in the data we process but in the unexplainable lack of data that often results in a perfectly balanced equation.
I believe an experiences with God shakes the very foundations of life and results in a change in perception and life (Romans 12:2). It is this transformation that keeps us in tune with our creator. It is this experience that gives us hope in naivety. It is this unforgettable change that leads us to an eternity of peace.
All of this "God information" is great ... but I am finding it isn't enough. It appears that many people, both Christians and non Christians alike, have some "idea" of God, and that "idea" comes from the aforementioned sources.
But when does God begin to exceed our "ideas"?
Isn't that what He is all about? Being above and beyond anything we could ever imagine, know, learn, perceive, or sense?
What I am finding is that the God experiences are what preserve us. Not our knowledge of him. It is those moments where we realize we don't know but don't seem to worry. It is the times when we are all alone but aren't lonely. It is the instances that grab us by the neck choking the life out of us, but we aren't afraid.
Might that really be where God is? Not in the data we process but in the unexplainable lack of data that often results in a perfectly balanced equation.
I believe an experiences with God shakes the very foundations of life and results in a change in perception and life (Romans 12:2). It is this transformation that keeps us in tune with our creator. It is this experience that gives us hope in naivety. It is this unforgettable change that leads us to an eternity of peace.
Friday, July 13, 2007
It's Been a While
I know it has been over a month since I last blogged. Why you ask? Because I really have been chewing on some stuff.... in a really good way.
I know it often hard to swallow that a pastor might be left speechless but I find that so many times I am, and that is when I best hear God speak to me.
I have been on a reading binge. Funny because I really don't enjoy leisure reading. I love research but not reading for the sake of something to do but lately have been compelled to. That reading along with my Bible study has been great for me. For the past month, I have been listening and not speaking, which means I have been taking a lot more in than I have been dishing out.
It kind of sound spiritually stingy in a way but how often, due the weekly duties, is a pastor motivated to regurgitate some conglomeration of past sermons in order to occupy 45 minutes of his parishioners time? How often do we speak preemptively because the "calendar" tells us its time? How often are we blowing smoke and not speaking a fresh, living word?
I am ready to listen. I am also ready to admit that I have no material for service and that perhaps there is reason God hasn't led me to say something. Maybe he desires that impromptuitiveness of the early church. Maybe he wants someone else to share. Maybe he just wants his people to come together to worship him without an agenda.
It sounds good to me.
I know it often hard to swallow that a pastor might be left speechless but I find that so many times I am, and that is when I best hear God speak to me.
I have been on a reading binge. Funny because I really don't enjoy leisure reading. I love research but not reading for the sake of something to do but lately have been compelled to. That reading along with my Bible study has been great for me. For the past month, I have been listening and not speaking, which means I have been taking a lot more in than I have been dishing out.
It kind of sound spiritually stingy in a way but how often, due the weekly duties, is a pastor motivated to regurgitate some conglomeration of past sermons in order to occupy 45 minutes of his parishioners time? How often do we speak preemptively because the "calendar" tells us its time? How often are we blowing smoke and not speaking a fresh, living word?
I am ready to listen. I am also ready to admit that I have no material for service and that perhaps there is reason God hasn't led me to say something. Maybe he desires that impromptuitiveness of the early church. Maybe he wants someone else to share. Maybe he just wants his people to come together to worship him without an agenda.
It sounds good to me.
Monday, June 4, 2007
"SHOOT THE WOUNDED!"
Bam! There it is. This statement, "shoot the wounded", was made by a friend of mine recently and realyl encompasses the modern mentaility of the many Christians toward sinners, or more regularly, backsliders.
Do we carry a "shoot the wounded mentality?" Could it be that the very place we should find help in struggles and faults is the very place we put on a facade so we don't get shot by other church members?
I am inclined toward a few very immediate observations.
A- The Bible makes a consistent and successful effort to communicate the faults of Godly men and women. From King David's adultary to Tamar's deception, we find that the God-inspired writers of the scriptures found understanding human fallibility important to having favor with God. What I find more interestingly is that God doesn't immediately revoke His calling or blessing when His chosen fall.
B- Romans 3:23 tells us "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Romans 5:8 tells us that "while we were STILL sinners, Christ dies for us." The implication here is that we all are and continue to be influenced by sin. I believe in sanctification (a process of movgin out of sinful motive and addiction) but not without maintanence. This term in Romans 5:8 "eti" (which means still or yet) is used to reference present. So it is saying that even though we remain sinners, Christ's sacrifice covers us. So we are all on the same level.
Why is this important? Romans 2:1 states that the measure in which we judge others, we will be judged. Now if our measure in Christianity is to "shoot the wounded" or condemn the fallen, sooner or later, we will be shot and condemned.
C- We are a lazy people. It appears to be our nature. This is the attitude we approach reconciliation and restoration with our peers. Reconciliation is tedious work. There is time, rebuilding, pain, adjustment, worry, confusion, and in some cases, resentment. It is much easier to "shoot" and break away.
I think of how many people of God lost it all after the revelation they had sinned. But God doesn't treat us with that laziness. He gives grace. When David sinned, he didn't cease to be king. Paul declares that he is the chiefest of sinners and uses the entire 7th chapter of Romans to express how wretched he tends to be, but God stil uses him.
I think our sin should become less of a problem the closer we get to God. We should flee youthful passions and lusts" but it is rediculous to think that we always succeed. But if we can get better day by day, gain more control of our addictions, and purge our evil motives, we will find that our sin is more easily avoided.
But this all starts with honesty and transparency. We cannot expect someone to succeed against sin if we are pressuring them to hide for thier lives everytime they come to church. Church should be the first place people express faults, troubles, and issues. Lets get back to that.
Do we carry a "shoot the wounded mentality?" Could it be that the very place we should find help in struggles and faults is the very place we put on a facade so we don't get shot by other church members?
I am inclined toward a few very immediate observations.
A- The Bible makes a consistent and successful effort to communicate the faults of Godly men and women. From King David's adultary to Tamar's deception, we find that the God-inspired writers of the scriptures found understanding human fallibility important to having favor with God. What I find more interestingly is that God doesn't immediately revoke His calling or blessing when His chosen fall.
B- Romans 3:23 tells us "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Romans 5:8 tells us that "while we were STILL sinners, Christ dies for us." The implication here is that we all are and continue to be influenced by sin. I believe in sanctification (a process of movgin out of sinful motive and addiction) but not without maintanence. This term in Romans 5:8 "eti" (which means still or yet) is used to reference present. So it is saying that even though we remain sinners, Christ's sacrifice covers us. So we are all on the same level.
Why is this important? Romans 2:1 states that the measure in which we judge others, we will be judged. Now if our measure in Christianity is to "shoot the wounded" or condemn the fallen, sooner or later, we will be shot and condemned.
C- We are a lazy people. It appears to be our nature. This is the attitude we approach reconciliation and restoration with our peers. Reconciliation is tedious work. There is time, rebuilding, pain, adjustment, worry, confusion, and in some cases, resentment. It is much easier to "shoot" and break away.
I think of how many people of God lost it all after the revelation they had sinned. But God doesn't treat us with that laziness. He gives grace. When David sinned, he didn't cease to be king. Paul declares that he is the chiefest of sinners and uses the entire 7th chapter of Romans to express how wretched he tends to be, but God stil uses him.
I think our sin should become less of a problem the closer we get to God. We should flee youthful passions and lusts" but it is rediculous to think that we always succeed. But if we can get better day by day, gain more control of our addictions, and purge our evil motives, we will find that our sin is more easily avoided.
But this all starts with honesty and transparency. We cannot expect someone to succeed against sin if we are pressuring them to hide for thier lives everytime they come to church. Church should be the first place people express faults, troubles, and issues. Lets get back to that.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Passive Christianity
I keep getting inquiries and questions about why Christians must label themselves to others in the world. The consensus is that such a label turns people off. Some even argue that it closes the door to helping others find Christ.
I can definitely see that passive Christianity is becoming a more popular position. Though it has some good points, this is really a negative side effect of being too "seeker sensitive". In fact, this mentality has gone as far as too demonize the term Christian.
I was watching a very funny video spoof of the Apple/PC commercial recently. The positions were "Hi, I'm a Christ follower" and "Hi, I'm a Christian". Though the spoof was really funny (I mean witty and all), I think it is bad judgement to segregate those terms. They are in fact synonymous.
I don't find the term Christian to be derogatory. I even embrace the term church, a term derived from "kirika" or "ecclesia" which means "a gathering of called ones". Is that not what we are?
Second Timothy 1:8-10 tells us explicitly:
"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began"
The Bible goes as far to as to say that those who don't profess Christ before men, He won't profess before the Father. That's HUGE!
I really see that this passive Christianity is an issue of comfort for people, and can you blame them. The church does everything it can to make people comfortable. And I think we should but there comes a point where Christ and the Holy Spirit has to make us uncomfortable...that's how we know we are hearing from God. Call it conscience or call it conviction but it takes discomfort for us to change into the holy person of God he "called" us to be.
Don't be a passive Christian. Don't be ashamed of the term Christian. Embrace it and run with it. Sure, persecution comes at standing for Christ but if you stand for Him, He stand for you. He will help you get through to your friends. He will guide to good decisions and eventually He will embrace you with a great "well done!"
That, I look forward to.
I can definitely see that passive Christianity is becoming a more popular position. Though it has some good points, this is really a negative side effect of being too "seeker sensitive". In fact, this mentality has gone as far as too demonize the term Christian.
I was watching a very funny video spoof of the Apple/PC commercial recently. The positions were "Hi, I'm a Christ follower" and "Hi, I'm a Christian". Though the spoof was really funny (I mean witty and all), I think it is bad judgement to segregate those terms. They are in fact synonymous.
I don't find the term Christian to be derogatory. I even embrace the term church, a term derived from "kirika" or "ecclesia" which means "a gathering of called ones". Is that not what we are?
Second Timothy 1:8-10 tells us explicitly:
"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began"
The Bible goes as far to as to say that those who don't profess Christ before men, He won't profess before the Father. That's HUGE!
I really see that this passive Christianity is an issue of comfort for people, and can you blame them. The church does everything it can to make people comfortable. And I think we should but there comes a point where Christ and the Holy Spirit has to make us uncomfortable...that's how we know we are hearing from God. Call it conscience or call it conviction but it takes discomfort for us to change into the holy person of God he "called" us to be.
Don't be a passive Christian. Don't be ashamed of the term Christian. Embrace it and run with it. Sure, persecution comes at standing for Christ but if you stand for Him, He stand for you. He will help you get through to your friends. He will guide to good decisions and eventually He will embrace you with a great "well done!"
That, I look forward to.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Heritage vs. Social Christianity
I often remind myself of the situation I am in. I am pastoring in the Bible belt in the Southern United States. Now to some that really seems trivial but I think it really begins to put things into perspective.
The core of the matter is this: our Christian heritage is different according to geography. I was raised in the south in an Appalachian mountain church and my experience is heavily molded by that, while others may have been more metropolitan in their faith experience.
In reminding myself of my heritage and the heritage of those I pastor, I can begin to process both good and "not-so-good" elements of our geographic faith.
For instance, this issue of heritage. Immediately the word carries a positive connotation. To speak of your heritage brings an honorable sensation. It is very important in the southern church. However, I have noticed a "not-so-good" aspect of the Bible belt, southern heritage.
In my opinion, the southern heritage is the strongest in the nation. I evidence that by the adamantcy it possesses. Although not entirely positive, the current southern value system has evolved less over the decades. Part of the value system is Christianity. The "not-so-good" appears in this context.
I am discovering more and more Christians that are living a social Christian lifestyle because it is part of the heritage or social setting. The "rock" of their faith is not in an actual relationship with God but with their heritage. It's as if the value is on the heritage and not on one's Creator. That leads to a "preservation" mentality. The Christian quest becomes a mission to preserve morality, fight change, and oppress the unfamiliar. This is NOT the great commission.
Christ calls us, regardless of heritage to know him personally. Our focus should not be in the social history with him. It should be in our evolving future with him. Our comfort should not be in our Christian bubble that is so familiar, but our call to "go into the world".
I love my heritage, but only in the context of what it means to the future of my faith! I don't care to preserve trivial preferences. I don't care to lock my children away from a super-secular culture. I care to expose myself and my family to a life of martyrdom. I life that is so new and fresh. When I speak of my heritage I don't want to say "this is who I am" but rather" this is where I have come from".
Our social Christianity will not save us. Have we become like the pharisees? Are we more religious that spiritual? I hope not. I hope that regardless of heritage, we can all embrace the command in Romans 12 verse 1:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. "
The core of the matter is this: our Christian heritage is different according to geography. I was raised in the south in an Appalachian mountain church and my experience is heavily molded by that, while others may have been more metropolitan in their faith experience.
In reminding myself of my heritage and the heritage of those I pastor, I can begin to process both good and "not-so-good" elements of our geographic faith.
For instance, this issue of heritage. Immediately the word carries a positive connotation. To speak of your heritage brings an honorable sensation. It is very important in the southern church. However, I have noticed a "not-so-good" aspect of the Bible belt, southern heritage.
In my opinion, the southern heritage is the strongest in the nation. I evidence that by the adamantcy it possesses. Although not entirely positive, the current southern value system has evolved less over the decades. Part of the value system is Christianity. The "not-so-good" appears in this context.
I am discovering more and more Christians that are living a social Christian lifestyle because it is part of the heritage or social setting. The "rock" of their faith is not in an actual relationship with God but with their heritage. It's as if the value is on the heritage and not on one's Creator. That leads to a "preservation" mentality. The Christian quest becomes a mission to preserve morality, fight change, and oppress the unfamiliar. This is NOT the great commission.
Christ calls us, regardless of heritage to know him personally. Our focus should not be in the social history with him. It should be in our evolving future with him. Our comfort should not be in our Christian bubble that is so familiar, but our call to "go into the world".
I love my heritage, but only in the context of what it means to the future of my faith! I don't care to preserve trivial preferences. I don't care to lock my children away from a super-secular culture. I care to expose myself and my family to a life of martyrdom. I life that is so new and fresh. When I speak of my heritage I don't want to say "this is who I am" but rather" this is where I have come from".
Our social Christianity will not save us. Have we become like the pharisees? Are we more religious that spiritual? I hope not. I hope that regardless of heritage, we can all embrace the command in Romans 12 verse 1:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. "
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Trajedy?
Well, the recent events at VA Tech have plagued the news and our minds for the past week. I was inclined to comment on it sooner but found myself really mulling over the matter. Being only one hour away, I was certain that many of my church family would suffer from grief, confusion, and even fear.
I am glad I have waited to comment. I did not want to be an opportunist as so many others I have seen. Many Christians "take the opportunity" to emphasize everything from mortalilty to the moral decline of our nation. I am bothered by the opportunist. Not because they are wrong. I really believe we need to "take the opportunity" to emphasize the need for God, but I am bothered for another reason.
It appears most of the opportunists are rushing to provide answers to the delimma. Some say it is God's judgement and many should repent. Some argue that it is a sign of the time. Even others propose that it is God's will.
I am different I guess. I don't think it is God's will that any should parish not knowing him (as noted Biblically) but I do see that my perception of His purpose is limited. Which brings me to my analysis.
I think the confusion we all face is the appropriate emotion for the moment. We have witnessed something that isn't reasonable, preventable, or sensible. It only makes since that we shoudl be confused. As a pastor, I see that religious leaders feel compelled to know all things. Frankly, it is necessary to set aside such arrogant positions to embrace the fact that we are confused too. I don't think that confusion makes us poor spiritual leaders. I see it as a step in the direction to sympathetic grief. I am not sure that a grieving family needs answers. They need communion with others who share their emotion.
I am confused. I trust God and His plan but I am confused. I know He is made perfect in that weakness. Let us all be weak with one another. May we share the emotions of those who were closest to this trajedy.
I am glad I have waited to comment. I did not want to be an opportunist as so many others I have seen. Many Christians "take the opportunity" to emphasize everything from mortalilty to the moral decline of our nation. I am bothered by the opportunist. Not because they are wrong. I really believe we need to "take the opportunity" to emphasize the need for God, but I am bothered for another reason.
It appears most of the opportunists are rushing to provide answers to the delimma. Some say it is God's judgement and many should repent. Some argue that it is a sign of the time. Even others propose that it is God's will.
I am different I guess. I don't think it is God's will that any should parish not knowing him (as noted Biblically) but I do see that my perception of His purpose is limited. Which brings me to my analysis.
I think the confusion we all face is the appropriate emotion for the moment. We have witnessed something that isn't reasonable, preventable, or sensible. It only makes since that we shoudl be confused. As a pastor, I see that religious leaders feel compelled to know all things. Frankly, it is necessary to set aside such arrogant positions to embrace the fact that we are confused too. I don't think that confusion makes us poor spiritual leaders. I see it as a step in the direction to sympathetic grief. I am not sure that a grieving family needs answers. They need communion with others who share their emotion.
I am confused. I trust God and His plan but I am confused. I know He is made perfect in that weakness. Let us all be weak with one another. May we share the emotions of those who were closest to this trajedy.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Gospels
For some time now there has been scholarly debate on the authenticity of the four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Just to catch up those who may live in the "bubble", I will offer a brief breakdown of the debate.
Most scholars accept that Matthew was written at the latest in the 80s A.D. following the death of Christ. However, most Christian scholars believe it is more accurately written in the 60s A.D. the debate over that time is routed in Matthew 24:2 where Christ prophecies of the destruciton of Jerusalem, an event that occured in 70 A.D. Obviously Christian scholars point that the statement was in forsite while nonbelievers contend it had to have been added later. Most accept that Matthew was the tax collector that become a close disciple of Christ.
Mark was written first by most people's accounts since Matthew and Luke appear to borrow from Mark in their writings. This places Mark slightly before Matthew in the timeline; however, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus. He was a traveling cohort of the disciple Peter and most likely transcribed the accounts of Peter.
A similar situation is found in Luke. Luke, who is known as a "physician", was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke is also credited with writing Acts, which I will come back to later. But remember, Luke seems to have borrowed from Mark.
The last gospel, John, is one of the most controversial since many historians see it arise in the early 100s A.D. John makes claims that no other gospel does, particularly the blatant references to the divinity of Christ. Which "John" wrote this gospel is also debateable.
Now there is a concept of a Gospel "Q". Since two of the gospels use sayings of Christ almost verbatim, it is suggested that another gospel of mere sayings may have been recorded. A book of sayings would not have been out of place for such a period, adn though many Christians find the idea offensive, in no way does the potential existance of the book devalue the divinity of Christ or contradict any traditionally accepted theology.
Now for the big debate. Were the gospels written so far removed from Christ that their accuracy in is in question? I have heard so many Christians scholars accept the following timeline :
Mark- 70 A.D. ish
Matthew- 71 A.D.ish
Luke- 76 A.D.ish
John- 117 A.D.ish
and then they proceed with defending the success of Jewish oral traditions. I agree the oral traditions in the Jewish people were emaculate but may I take a step back.
Let's consider the previously mentioned book of Acts, the second work of Luke. It appears to have abruptly ended with Paul's imprisonment prior to his death in 67 A.D. This suggests that Luke never finished it after Paul's death thus dating the Gospel Luke to before 67 A.D. , which means Matthew was written around or before the same time, and Mark even before that. Keep in mind that Paul, in his travels prior to death and imprisonment refers to the circulating gospels which suggests it could be even sooner. The point is, the Gospels have strong evidence to suggest that they were written well with in the lifetime of thier first hand accounters. But that forces scholars to embrace Christs prediction of Jerusalems destruction as prophecy and that often hurts the intellectuals.
But what of the Gospel John? Well, if the timeline above is possible, John would make since and here's how. John the Son of Zebedee could have written the gospel, or at least had it transcibed. Most literary people note that compared to the others, it is poorly written and direct. Such would be if written by a FISHERMAN! John does mention new ideas not found in the others and fails to mention other instances. But accepting the John would have been written after the others, John may, in the spirit of knowing his contemporaries, simply added or filled in holes. Lastly, I understand no copies of these can be dated that early but it only makes sicne that likely discoveries would come from periods of mass replication, which could have taken 30 to 50 years.
I hope that now you can see how important the Gospel timeline can be.
Most scholars accept that Matthew was written at the latest in the 80s A.D. following the death of Christ. However, most Christian scholars believe it is more accurately written in the 60s A.D. the debate over that time is routed in Matthew 24:2 where Christ prophecies of the destruciton of Jerusalem, an event that occured in 70 A.D. Obviously Christian scholars point that the statement was in forsite while nonbelievers contend it had to have been added later. Most accept that Matthew was the tax collector that become a close disciple of Christ.
Mark was written first by most people's accounts since Matthew and Luke appear to borrow from Mark in their writings. This places Mark slightly before Matthew in the timeline; however, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus. He was a traveling cohort of the disciple Peter and most likely transcribed the accounts of Peter.
A similar situation is found in Luke. Luke, who is known as a "physician", was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke is also credited with writing Acts, which I will come back to later. But remember, Luke seems to have borrowed from Mark.
The last gospel, John, is one of the most controversial since many historians see it arise in the early 100s A.D. John makes claims that no other gospel does, particularly the blatant references to the divinity of Christ. Which "John" wrote this gospel is also debateable.
Now there is a concept of a Gospel "Q". Since two of the gospels use sayings of Christ almost verbatim, it is suggested that another gospel of mere sayings may have been recorded. A book of sayings would not have been out of place for such a period, adn though many Christians find the idea offensive, in no way does the potential existance of the book devalue the divinity of Christ or contradict any traditionally accepted theology.
Now for the big debate. Were the gospels written so far removed from Christ that their accuracy in is in question? I have heard so many Christians scholars accept the following timeline :
Mark- 70 A.D. ish
Matthew- 71 A.D.ish
Luke- 76 A.D.ish
John- 117 A.D.ish
and then they proceed with defending the success of Jewish oral traditions. I agree the oral traditions in the Jewish people were emaculate but may I take a step back.
Let's consider the previously mentioned book of Acts, the second work of Luke. It appears to have abruptly ended with Paul's imprisonment prior to his death in 67 A.D. This suggests that Luke never finished it after Paul's death thus dating the Gospel Luke to before 67 A.D. , which means Matthew was written around or before the same time, and Mark even before that. Keep in mind that Paul, in his travels prior to death and imprisonment refers to the circulating gospels which suggests it could be even sooner. The point is, the Gospels have strong evidence to suggest that they were written well with in the lifetime of thier first hand accounters. But that forces scholars to embrace Christs prediction of Jerusalems destruction as prophecy and that often hurts the intellectuals.
But what of the Gospel John? Well, if the timeline above is possible, John would make since and here's how. John the Son of Zebedee could have written the gospel, or at least had it transcibed. Most literary people note that compared to the others, it is poorly written and direct. Such would be if written by a FISHERMAN! John does mention new ideas not found in the others and fails to mention other instances. But accepting the John would have been written after the others, John may, in the spirit of knowing his contemporaries, simply added or filled in holes. Lastly, I understand no copies of these can be dated that early but it only makes sicne that likely discoveries would come from periods of mass replication, which could have taken 30 to 50 years.
I hope that now you can see how important the Gospel timeline can be.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Grey
I constantly seem bombarded by individuals that have questions about what could be labeled as "grey" issues. They are the elementof life that don't appear to have a direct answer in scripture. Now many pastors find themselves trying to take these grey questions and give black or white answers. I on the other hand have really struggled with the grey questions and this is why.
It seems that Christians don't ask grey questions...nonbelievers do and I think I know why. It appears that many nonChristians are trying to clear the descrepancies in order to assess the truth of our faith. But I am not so sure that someone who isn't in a relationship with God is able to assess the grey.
For instance, I once had a conversation with a nonbeliever about the issue of listening to secular music. A very grey area if you ask me. This person states they have had a past experience in which a pastor really emphasized that listening ot nonChristians music was a sin yet this individual is feeling no conviction in the matter. No longer a Christian, this person felt that their faith was not "adding up". They had felt no conviction over listening to such music and couldn't validate in scripture therefore concluding that sicne that teaching was false, so the faith must be.
Now there are two lessons to be learned in the matter of the "grey".
LESSON 1: To all my fellow ministers and believers, be sure to teach truth, not opinion. It is okay to give your opinion and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Not everything has to be so spiritual. Some things can be decisions for the better. If you feel that secular music has a bad influence than voice that opinion and why. I don't think that acknowledging that something is "grey" demeans your spiritual insight. If anything, it will boost it in an age where authenticity is sought.
LESSON 2: To the unbeliever and believer, the grey areas are not the voids in our faith, they are the corner stones. The undisputable Law of God (his commandments) are the foundation our your faith but the time spent seeking the unknown about God is the very essense of faith itself. It is the evidence of things not seen. So not knowing is the first step in knowing more. These grey issues personalize and shape your relationship with God.
Grey areas exist. No one can say with absolute certainty that such issues are sinful. Such a step would be puting words into God's mouth. However, it is important for us to ascertain what is important, wise, and constructive. Sometimes that analysis tells us things are a bad choice without ever having to put our soul up for debate!
It seems that Christians don't ask grey questions...nonbelievers do and I think I know why. It appears that many nonChristians are trying to clear the descrepancies in order to assess the truth of our faith. But I am not so sure that someone who isn't in a relationship with God is able to assess the grey.
For instance, I once had a conversation with a nonbeliever about the issue of listening to secular music. A very grey area if you ask me. This person states they have had a past experience in which a pastor really emphasized that listening ot nonChristians music was a sin yet this individual is feeling no conviction in the matter. No longer a Christian, this person felt that their faith was not "adding up". They had felt no conviction over listening to such music and couldn't validate in scripture therefore concluding that sicne that teaching was false, so the faith must be.
Now there are two lessons to be learned in the matter of the "grey".
LESSON 1: To all my fellow ministers and believers, be sure to teach truth, not opinion. It is okay to give your opinion and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Not everything has to be so spiritual. Some things can be decisions for the better. If you feel that secular music has a bad influence than voice that opinion and why. I don't think that acknowledging that something is "grey" demeans your spiritual insight. If anything, it will boost it in an age where authenticity is sought.
LESSON 2: To the unbeliever and believer, the grey areas are not the voids in our faith, they are the corner stones. The undisputable Law of God (his commandments) are the foundation our your faith but the time spent seeking the unknown about God is the very essense of faith itself. It is the evidence of things not seen. So not knowing is the first step in knowing more. These grey issues personalize and shape your relationship with God.
Grey areas exist. No one can say with absolute certainty that such issues are sinful. Such a step would be puting words into God's mouth. However, it is important for us to ascertain what is important, wise, and constructive. Sometimes that analysis tells us things are a bad choice without ever having to put our soul up for debate!
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Faith?
Since the launch of God Challenge, I have really been in awe of the response. I will say that at first I was extremely offended and hurt by some of the blatant and bitter remarks. Remarks to the effect of Christians are weak minded, opressive, judgemental, hypocrits with an agenda to destroy freedom and intellectual discovery. Or at least that was the way I took it.
The more the discussion unfolded, I began to make very interesting observations.
Observation 1- Some Christians are reinforcing the opinions by nonbelievers. Many were making comments that were bitter and frustrated. That doesn't help the cause. This leads to the next observation.
Observation 2- Many nonbelievers either confessed or suggested negative past experiences with Christians. It became obvious that many of thier opinions were based off the inconsistencies in what Christ teaches (love, prosperity, kindness) and what they expereinced (judgement, rejection, condemnation). Shame on Christians for such. There is none good but the Father.
Observation 3- Everyone appears to be a person of faith. Some have faith in God and others appear to have faith in evidence. What's funny is that both are subjective faiths. For instance, my mother was miraculously healed of cancer which dumbfounded her doctors. They acknowledged that something had happened that they could not explain. "Faith in God" people would say it is evidence of God. Nonbelievers would say that it is a medical anomaly that cannot be explained because we don't have all the knowledge needed in science. Which leads to observation 4.
Observation 4- If people can accept that somethings in science are unexplainable, why is it so far fetched to embrace that there are other areas, including the existence of God, that are unexplainable? It is almost hypcrtical to say that your basis of faith is in evidence because it can be just as unexplainable and subjective.
In sum, I really think that most people are not giving God a fair shake, but with good reason...Christians have pushed them away from the opportunity to see God's best handy work...the change He makes in people for the better. I encourage all unbelievers to consider God despite his fallible followers. See that He really wants to give you your own evidence He exists!
The more the discussion unfolded, I began to make very interesting observations.
Observation 1- Some Christians are reinforcing the opinions by nonbelievers. Many were making comments that were bitter and frustrated. That doesn't help the cause. This leads to the next observation.
Observation 2- Many nonbelievers either confessed or suggested negative past experiences with Christians. It became obvious that many of thier opinions were based off the inconsistencies in what Christ teaches (love, prosperity, kindness) and what they expereinced (judgement, rejection, condemnation). Shame on Christians for such. There is none good but the Father.
Observation 3- Everyone appears to be a person of faith. Some have faith in God and others appear to have faith in evidence. What's funny is that both are subjective faiths. For instance, my mother was miraculously healed of cancer which dumbfounded her doctors. They acknowledged that something had happened that they could not explain. "Faith in God" people would say it is evidence of God. Nonbelievers would say that it is a medical anomaly that cannot be explained because we don't have all the knowledge needed in science. Which leads to observation 4.
Observation 4- If people can accept that somethings in science are unexplainable, why is it so far fetched to embrace that there are other areas, including the existence of God, that are unexplainable? It is almost hypcrtical to say that your basis of faith is in evidence because it can be just as unexplainable and subjective.
In sum, I really think that most people are not giving God a fair shake, but with good reason...Christians have pushed them away from the opportunity to see God's best handy work...the change He makes in people for the better. I encourage all unbelievers to consider God despite his fallible followers. See that He really wants to give you your own evidence He exists!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Why God?
For the past few weeks, I have been following the "Blasphemy Challenge". For those who need a quick summary, blasphemychallenge.com is a website run by a group of atheists that is encouraging people to post video online of themselves verabally stating that based on rational thinking, there is no God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit. All of these people receive a free DVD if they post a video of such.
Now before you visit the site, please note that it can likely shake you. Some would argue that the whole purpose is to bother Christians. Well...they win. I am bothered and this is why.
First, Christians are targeted. Wouldn't a true atheist be more agressive to all religions? The founder of this challenge argued on Fox News that he does personally target all religious yet all of his rhetoric was Christian-oriented and specific. But why woudn't it be! Christianity is true and therefore the largest threat to their agenda.
Secondly, the site claims to be motivated by "rationale" yet their approach to the whole initiative is not very rational. They are encouraging people to make an uniformed decision. Any rational person would want to consider more information, even if it may appear anecdotal, before making a decision. Even after they may have decide something, most rational people would not want to close a door that they could keep open or return to. Leave your options open, right? Yet this group is irrationally encouraging what they themselves characterize as unforgivable sin and eternal damnation. Where's the rationale in that?
Here's my response. What I Was Made For .com is launching a web page called God challenge. WWW.GODCHALLENGE.COM will host similar videos, except they will be of testimonies of people and their God experiences.. Instruction on how to be a part can be found on the site. The site is geared toward true God-given wisdom and rationale. It encourages people to search for God and that if they do...they will find him. It promotes listening to others' experiences with God and considering the fact that we may not know everything, or, at the very least, we may not know enough to make such statement as the Blasphemy Challenge is requiring.
Encourage your circles to send their support by sending their videos. We know that we will overcome by the word of our testimonies!
Now before you visit the site, please note that it can likely shake you. Some would argue that the whole purpose is to bother Christians. Well...they win. I am bothered and this is why.
First, Christians are targeted. Wouldn't a true atheist be more agressive to all religions? The founder of this challenge argued on Fox News that he does personally target all religious yet all of his rhetoric was Christian-oriented and specific. But why woudn't it be! Christianity is true and therefore the largest threat to their agenda.
Secondly, the site claims to be motivated by "rationale" yet their approach to the whole initiative is not very rational. They are encouraging people to make an uniformed decision. Any rational person would want to consider more information, even if it may appear anecdotal, before making a decision. Even after they may have decide something, most rational people would not want to close a door that they could keep open or return to. Leave your options open, right? Yet this group is irrationally encouraging what they themselves characterize as unforgivable sin and eternal damnation. Where's the rationale in that?
Here's my response. What I Was Made For .com is launching a web page called God challenge. WWW.GODCHALLENGE.COM will host similar videos, except they will be of testimonies of people and their God experiences.. Instruction on how to be a part can be found on the site. The site is geared toward true God-given wisdom and rationale. It encourages people to search for God and that if they do...they will find him. It promotes listening to others' experiences with God and considering the fact that we may not know everything, or, at the very least, we may not know enough to make such statement as the Blasphemy Challenge is requiring.
Encourage your circles to send their support by sending their videos. We know that we will overcome by the word of our testimonies!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Indoctrination?
I was watching a video documentary today on Christianity. The video was obviosuly produced by, at the least, a social liberal company but it wasn't the film itself that bothered me. In fact, I think that film really did an okay job of showing Christianity at face value. But perhaps that is the problem...our "face value".
We are worthless at face value. I know many ministers, including myself at times, have lobbied for people to more jovial and transparent about the benefits of a Christian lifestyle...but honestly, it is hard to compete with the world in marketing. So, by default, our face value isn't of much value. However, our core value is!
This is the point that bothered me in the video... the presentation of our core values. those are the values we hold dear and protect because (in reference to an early blog post) God says they are honorable.
On the video was a radio host (obviously anti-Christian) who challenged a Christian children's pastor on the air. He made a statement and I was completely dissatisfied with the pastor's response. The radio host noted that "teaching children was different from indoctrination" and that "teaching a child" was exposing them to everything so they can make choices about life. A child, make choices about life? Thank God my parents did not lay that responsibility on me when I was a kid! Needless to say, the pastor offered a lame rebutal of "well we feel we have a right to teach our kids our Christian heritage".
NEWS FLASH! God's truth is not our heritage! You can quote me on that. His truth is our REALITY! (referencing another early blog post, I am seeing a spiritual pattern here) What about the argument that we want to teach our children truth and the way the world was designed to operate!? If you are teaching a kid math, you instruct them on the laws of mathematics so they can learn to develop the right answers from mathematical problems. Same thing with our faith. We teach our children the laws of God (or reality) so they can get the right answers to life's problems. We don't do it for a heritage or a social agenda. We do it because we care they know about life!
Here's my response ot that very radio host. "Your agenda on that show is a social-political agenda. You are obviously irritated with the political threat conservatives present and you are attacking the very core of the Judeo-Christian belief system in order to acheive your means. Christians on the other hand, simply want to preserve an envirnoment where their children can learn about how to be successful in life (both now and eternal). And that envovles God."
And even harder, my response to the pastor. "Stop presenting our faith at face value. There's no dressing up that God's law is real and He maintains dominion. If you continue to protect that face value (things like heritage and image), you will fall short. Your persecution was prophecied and so is God's ultimate victory."
We are worthless at face value. I know many ministers, including myself at times, have lobbied for people to more jovial and transparent about the benefits of a Christian lifestyle...but honestly, it is hard to compete with the world in marketing. So, by default, our face value isn't of much value. However, our core value is!
This is the point that bothered me in the video... the presentation of our core values. those are the values we hold dear and protect because (in reference to an early blog post) God says they are honorable.
On the video was a radio host (obviously anti-Christian) who challenged a Christian children's pastor on the air. He made a statement and I was completely dissatisfied with the pastor's response. The radio host noted that "teaching children was different from indoctrination" and that "teaching a child" was exposing them to everything so they can make choices about life. A child, make choices about life? Thank God my parents did not lay that responsibility on me when I was a kid! Needless to say, the pastor offered a lame rebutal of "well we feel we have a right to teach our kids our Christian heritage".
NEWS FLASH! God's truth is not our heritage! You can quote me on that. His truth is our REALITY! (referencing another early blog post, I am seeing a spiritual pattern here) What about the argument that we want to teach our children truth and the way the world was designed to operate!? If you are teaching a kid math, you instruct them on the laws of mathematics so they can learn to develop the right answers from mathematical problems. Same thing with our faith. We teach our children the laws of God (or reality) so they can get the right answers to life's problems. We don't do it for a heritage or a social agenda. We do it because we care they know about life!
Here's my response ot that very radio host. "Your agenda on that show is a social-political agenda. You are obviously irritated with the political threat conservatives present and you are attacking the very core of the Judeo-Christian belief system in order to acheive your means. Christians on the other hand, simply want to preserve an envirnoment where their children can learn about how to be successful in life (both now and eternal). And that envovles God."
And even harder, my response to the pastor. "Stop presenting our faith at face value. There's no dressing up that God's law is real and He maintains dominion. If you continue to protect that face value (things like heritage and image), you will fall short. Your persecution was prophecied and so is God's ultimate victory."
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Are we relevant?
The other week I was completing one of my very common routines. I was looking through some ministry videos and came across a video that got me thinking. In the video, a man was interviewing people on the street about if they attended church. The interesting part of the video came when people began to respond why they didn't attend church. The common answer was "it's not relevant to today".
Is God not relevant? Could it be possible that God, the very creator of reality as we know it, could have become antiquated and obsolete?
I think a better explaination is that perhaps Christians often fail to be relevant. And I really think it is an honest mistake.
The truth is we spend our Christians lives studying a book that, well...to be honest...is really old! It has been around for thousands of years and we base what we know about God on it. All of sudden, it becomes easy to how we might be perceived as outdated.
What people don't see (because we fail to communicate it) is that even though the Bible is old...it is not dead. That's what we a really talking about right?! A faith that is perceived as dead or dying.
But that's not my faith! God's word is a LIVING word. That means that it functions like most living things; it grows, it adapts, and it interacts with us. It grows in prayer by the author Himself speaking to us. It adapts in it's form to apply ot our situations. It interacts because it's very instruction is life changing.
So why do people see as irrelevant? Something I see to often is our presentation of God's Word as finite and complete. We present God's Word as if it is established fact ... done and finished. No need for discussion, no need for explanation. But God's Word is not fact or a complete thought. It is continuous dialogue with God.
Might I suggest that we can be more relevant if we presented God's Word as the start of a dialogue. I really can see that if show people the way to God, not to completion, he will show them the Living Word we are so often unable to communicate.
FOR MORE ON THUS SUBJECT, LISTEN TO THE FREE PODCAST OF RELEVANT REALITY BY VISITNG OUR FREE DOWNLOADS.
Is God not relevant? Could it be possible that God, the very creator of reality as we know it, could have become antiquated and obsolete?
I think a better explaination is that perhaps Christians often fail to be relevant. And I really think it is an honest mistake.
The truth is we spend our Christians lives studying a book that, well...to be honest...is really old! It has been around for thousands of years and we base what we know about God on it. All of sudden, it becomes easy to how we might be perceived as outdated.
What people don't see (because we fail to communicate it) is that even though the Bible is old...it is not dead. That's what we a really talking about right?! A faith that is perceived as dead or dying.
But that's not my faith! God's word is a LIVING word. That means that it functions like most living things; it grows, it adapts, and it interacts with us. It grows in prayer by the author Himself speaking to us. It adapts in it's form to apply ot our situations. It interacts because it's very instruction is life changing.
So why do people see as irrelevant? Something I see to often is our presentation of God's Word as finite and complete. We present God's Word as if it is established fact ... done and finished. No need for discussion, no need for explanation. But God's Word is not fact or a complete thought. It is continuous dialogue with God.
Might I suggest that we can be more relevant if we presented God's Word as the start of a dialogue. I really can see that if show people the way to God, not to completion, he will show them the Living Word we are so often unable to communicate.
FOR MORE ON THUS SUBJECT, LISTEN TO THE FREE PODCAST OF RELEVANT REALITY BY VISITNG OUR FREE DOWNLOADS.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Our Innocence
Romans 16:19 tells us "I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good (innocent)and simple as to what is evil. "
The quest for preservation of innocence extends beyond Christians. Societies have been molded around the quest. But do we really understand what's innocent? Some people go to great lengths to perserve what they feel is innocent. Most Christians see an unborn child as an innocent thing, so they fight to protect it. In the same breath, most see family as innocent, so politcal battles rage. But are we judging innocence or are we seeking God for what He has identfied as innocent. I do believe that children and family are innocent, but not because I get warm and fuzzy thinking about them. They are innocent because God works to preserve them.
But lets not forget that God's blessings are not always innocent items. Let me provide an example. I feel that people of God should be prosperous, even financially. I really feel that God blesses us with wealth but He suggests that money is anything but innocent.
I really think our quest is to reevaluate what is truly innocent. Let's take a step back and seek the things God so chooses to fight for and what he is working for. Perhaps then we might choose our battles more wisely!
The quest for preservation of innocence extends beyond Christians. Societies have been molded around the quest. But do we really understand what's innocent? Some people go to great lengths to perserve what they feel is innocent. Most Christians see an unborn child as an innocent thing, so they fight to protect it. In the same breath, most see family as innocent, so politcal battles rage. But are we judging innocence or are we seeking God for what He has identfied as innocent. I do believe that children and family are innocent, but not because I get warm and fuzzy thinking about them. They are innocent because God works to preserve them.
But lets not forget that God's blessings are not always innocent items. Let me provide an example. I feel that people of God should be prosperous, even financially. I really feel that God blesses us with wealth but He suggests that money is anything but innocent.
I really think our quest is to reevaluate what is truly innocent. Let's take a step back and seek the things God so chooses to fight for and what he is working for. Perhaps then we might choose our battles more wisely!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)