 |
| |
|
|
|
After all, we haven't had any controversy for at least a week around here! :D
Answers with some Scriptural backing are most appreciated. :D
1. Does the Holy Spirit still have a role in facilitating understanding of the revealed Word? Why or why not? On what basis do we make such conclusions?
2. Does the Holy Spirit have a role in promoting the Gospel? Why or why not? On what basis do we make such conclusions?
3. Does the Holy Spirit maintain some sort of active role in "comforting" or "helping" brethren, as He is described in John 14-17? Why or why not? On what basis do we make such conclusions?
4. When we ask for wisdom from God, by what agency does He provide it (cf. James 1:4-6)?
5. Does denominational error on the Holy Spirit and His role mean that the Holy Spirit is to be relegated to having no active present role in the faith?
Fire away.
ELDV |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
"Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD."
|
11-17-08 08:43pm EST
|
|
Greetings, everyone.
Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Getting closer on the leaf raking. One more section to go.
I could really do without all of these snowflakes flying in the air. Granted, I could be further west or east where there is actual accumulation, but I'm not yet really ready for snow.
Book reading update.
I finished Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship. I certainly understand the reason for his fame as a theologian. The book is masterful.
In general, Bonhoeffer does well at making his case for discipleship. He begins by condemning the "cheap grace" that so pervades modern Protestantism, and reaffirms the need for obedience. He even recognizes baptism's key role as the death of the man of sin so that there can be newness of life. He makes the best argument for the passivity of baptism I've ever seen (just as you don't actively seek to kill yourself in physical terms, the same is true spiritually).
He is spot on with many of his observations about what is necessary to be a disciple. The renunciation of the will, and the need to give oneself wholly to God.
Unfortunately, too many times Bonhoeffer shows that he's a good Lutheran first and foremost. His apologies for infant baptism and justification by faith alone in the face of James 2 are, quite frankly, pathetic, and beneath his otherwise excellent Biblical perception. His analysis of Paul is too deeply stained with the Reformation wranglings, and the book mightily suffers because of it.
Definitely worth a read.
I also read The Last Gifts: Creative Ways to Be with the Dying, by Jillian Brasch. It was another LibraryThing Early Reviewers book that I was allotted.
It was quite good; the author presents many stories of her experiences working with various persons who were dying. The variety of people, circumstances, and contexts provides for good understanding of the spectrum of possibilities that exist for how people go through the process of dying.
Back to work. On to Bonhoeffer's Ethics.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
ELDV |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.'
|
11-15-08 03:06pm EST
|
|
Greetings, everyone.
Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The joys of Ohio weather.
On Election Day, we had 70 degree weather. It felt great, since we had just gotten out from under some 30s and 40s.
Then it went down into the 40s. Then it came back up into the 60s.
Now? Heading back down into the 30s and raining.
The Weather Channel has that fun pink and blue to our west.
Gotta love it.
Especially since 2/3 of my front lawn has yet to be raked.
I must say, though, that leaf raking has not been as bad this year. I had the epiphany on Monday night: I had to rake leaves this week, and I still need at least 20 minutes of exercise a day.
Therefore, on most days this week, I've been out raking leaves for anywhere from 30-60 minutes. It took three days to finish the side yard, and I figure that it will take three to finish the front, of which I have accomplished 1.
Next week the city will come by to pick up said leaves in our quadrant. Considering the weather forecast, I hope that it's later rather than sooner.
Random house events.
1. I've been in a classical music mood recently. I don't know quite why. But I have taken the opportunity to rip some classical music CDs I've neglected.
2. My children are currently playing with their Disney characters. They just finished "playing church" with them. Cinderella's prince led singing, apparently. I think they had Snow White leading the closing prayer. We need to work on that.
3. One night last week, as I was going downstairs to get more water, I passed by the cat on the way to the kitchen. While I'm refilling my water, I hear a crunching sound.
And the cat is still in the living room.
I open up the cabinet, and lo and behold, all kinds of mouse evidence. Great.
So I empty out the bottom shelf of the cabinet and set out some mouse traps.
This mouse was pretty good-- he cleaned off about 5 mousetraps without actually setting them off.
Regardless, on Friday afternoon, as I'm eating lunch, Sarah all of a sudden starts screaming and running out of the kitchen.
At this point, my only question is: did she find it alive or dead?
When she informed me that the mousetrap worked, I had my answer.
I knew he couldn't bat 1.000. And it only takes once. :D
I found the hole in the side of the cabinet that he obviously came through. It's been filled.
Gotta love old houses. And Madeleine gets a pass this time, since the mouse was in a cabinet.
Something to keep in mind.
Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear. And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:29-32).
A lot of times, as Christians, we get wronged.
It never feels good to be wronged. It feels even worse to get wronged by a brother or sister in Christ.
But that never gives us a reason to treat any brother or sister with contempt.
It never justifies our closing our hearts off from our brethren.
And it certainly never makes a lack of true forgiveness right.
That's why Paul makes it quite clear just how important encouraging talk is among Christians. Do you really think that these four verses have nothing to do with one another?
If we do not speak in encouraging ways, and present our brethren in a poor light, we grieve the Holy Spirit. If we refuse to truly forgive one another, we make void our own forgiveness (cf. Matthew 18). When we let thoughtless words, conflict over borrowed money, or other matters lead us to condemn without evidence and consider brethren guilty until proven innocent, how are we any better than the tax collectors and sinners and Gentiles?
I realize that this isn't easy. I realize that it's easy to get scorched once you've been burned.
But just remember how many times we've failed God, how many times we haven't lived up to our commitments to Him, and how many bad things He could say about us...
...and He loves us anyway and gave His Son for us anyway and seeks to justify us anyway (John 3:16, Romans 5:6-11, Romans 8:31-34).
"And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matthew 6:12).
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
ELDV
|
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
|
11-06-08 08:49pm EST
|
|
Greetings, everyone.
Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I haven't even read the comments from today yet. I intend to do so after I finish this post and get some other things accomplished.
I may or may not respond, depending on what has been said. All I will say is that I am very encouraged by the fact that many brethren have been very reasoned and measured in their responses to the election, and quite disheartened at the extremism of others of my brethren who seem willing to divide God's Kingdom over the petty affairs of the United States of America. This should not be.
If any have been offended in the discussion, I apologize for it. My intentions have been to encourage/exhort brethren to not sin in matters of earthly politics, because America (and especially things over which we have no control) isn't worth sin.
Anyway.
I saw the gastroenterologist today. A complete waste of a $30 copay, and for once, I actually feel sorry for my health insurance company for having to pay the excessive claim that I'm sure will be coming. I talked with the doctor for less than 5 minutes, and the verdict is that they can't find anything wrong. Therefore, it's Irritable Bowel Syndrome, which means that I just need to take some drugs when an episode happens and learn to deal. I guess I can do that. :D
Book reading update.
I finished H. Richard Niebhur's The Social Sources of Denominationalism. It is a fascinating and insightful work.
Niebhur attempts to explain the development of denominationalism not from religious differences but based upon various socioeconomic differences among various populations. He begins with the period of the Reformation yet spends most of his time examining the American denominational landscape from its inception until his own day (1920s).
Niebhur does not deny the existence of religious/doctrinal reasons for denominationalism, but demonstrates quite powerfully that social, economic, cultural, and racial factors play in just as much if not more so in the development of denominations.
Since I know you're interested, I'll spill the beans: he believes that the Restoration Movement represents a culmination of the frontier spirit of reconciliation and striking out beyond previously accepted traditions, and lists its development as one of the three causes for the great shift of many Scotch-Irish Presbyterian immigrants in the frontiers of the early nineteenth century from their native Presbyterianism to other religious groupings. In some senses, he has a point-- some of these factors probably led to the popularity of the movement during the middle of the nineteenth century. Just because it represents a "frontier mentality" does not mean that said mentality is wrong.
His conclusion is excellent: he attempts to ascertain how it would be that the denominationalism that plagues the modern world would be abolished.
For the proclamation of this Christianity of Christ and the Gospels a church is needed which has transcended the divisions of the world and has adjusted itself not to the local interests and needs of classes, races, or nations but to the common interests of mankind and to the constitution of the unrealized kingdom of God. No denominational Christianity, no matter how broad its scope, suffices for the task. The church which can proclaim this gospel must be one in which no national allegiance will be suffered to infringe upon the unity of an international fellowship. In it the vow of love of enemy and neighbor and the practice of non-resistance will need to take their place beside the confession of faith and the rites. For without complete abstention from nationalist ethics the universal fellowship of this church would inevitably fall apart into nationalist groups at the threat of war or under the influence of jingoistic propaganda. In such a church the distinctions between rich and poor will be abrogated by the kind of communism of love which prevailed in the early Jerusalem community. This communism differs as radically from the dictatorship of the proletariat as it does from the dictatorship of capitalism. The principle of harmony and love upon which it alone can be established requires that each contribute to the community according to his ability and receive from it according to his need, not according to some predetermined principles of quantitative equality or of privilege. Furthermore, the church of love will need to bridge the chasm between the races, not only by practising complete fellowship within the house of God buy by extending that practice into all the relationships of life. It will need to mediate the differences of culture by supplying equality of opportunity to tutored and untutored alike and by giving each their share in the common task and the common love.
Only such a church can transcend the divisions of men and by transcending heal them; only such a church can substitute for the self-interest and the machinery of denominationalism the dominant desire for the kingdom and its righteousness and the free activity of familiar fellowship. It requires from its members the sacrifice of privilege and pride and bids each count the other better than himself. It can plant within the nations a fellowship of reconciliation which will resist the animosities nurtured by strife for political and economic values-- a fellowship which, doubtless, may often be required to carry crosses of shame and pain when the passions of men have been aroused for conflict (Niebuhr, 280-281).
He then goes on to speak of this "fellowship of love" as it has been manifest at times.
His thoughts about the church and nationalistic impulses are quite prescient. The more and more I deliberate upon it, and the more and more carnage I see in the church because of it, the more and more I'm inclined to just stop participating in the political processes of this country. It's not worth the compromises and complications within the Kingdom.
His view of the ideal church is based heavily in praxis (what is done), and less in orthodoxy. I believe that it is not an either/or, and neither does Niebuhr. Revelation 2:1-7 and the message to Ephesus is a potent reminder of this: we can be right in doctrine and terribly wrong in praxis.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Niebuhr certainly brings many interesting realities to the table, and it goes to show that any attempt to analyze the differences among various denominational groups using religious doctrines alone is a bit naïve. Social and economic factors are just as important.
I only wish that there were a later expansion of his work, because I'm sure that such an analysis over the past 80 years would be fascinating. The denominational landscape of America today is vastly different than in 1930, and in many ways the trends that Niebuhr identified simply continued.
Overall, however, an excellent book.
Up next: in general reading, The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
I'm also reading in four Revelation commentaries for my study on Revelation at the nursing home.
The next section of this blog is designed to challenge thinking and worldview. It attempts to open us up to different ways of looking at ourselves in relation to God's Kingdom and may expose some uncomfortable realities. If you don't like such challenges, then you will not want to continue to read. You have been warned.
A part of Niebuhr's analysis really struck me. In fact, it nailed me between the eyes. In many ways, it represents a lot of the things that frustrate me about the church.
Because I feel that what is said is so important to consider, I have posted it in a room on Pleonast: Niebuhr on Middle Class Ethics. The rest of the discussion is predicated on an understanding of what is presented in that room.
I post this because I believe that the majority of people who read this blog have been raised with middle class ethics. They would go along with the fact that accomplishment is an important or the important goal in life (relationship is the goal for the poor; connections and networking for the wealthy).
I also recognize that class is an uncomfortable subject for discussion in America because there is a widespread belief that because of our egalitarian ideals and participatory democracy that we have somehow transcended class. That notion is quite idealistic and is as true as the idea that we've now transcended racism because a man of mixed race has been elected President. Racism and class are founded in values and upbringing. And America has extolled middle class values as the value set to have, and everyone pays lip service to that. The wealthy do well to keep their pretentiousness and ostentatiousness outside of the news, and the poor just remain marginalized and often rather ignored. America, by default, becomes the land of hard-working, pick-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstraps individuals who made it. The middle class dream.
While we could have a long and elaborate political argument on the basis of the information, such is not my purpose here. My purpose is to talk about class and how it relates to the promotion of God's Kingdom. As an evangelist serving God's people and striving to do the best that I can to promote God's Word in this community and in the world, I am always questioning myself and my attitudes and my approaches. While I have no intentions of agreeing with every different perspective I read or hear about, I feel that it is important to understand how others look at the world, their lives, and their relationship with God. If I don't have that understanding, I won't be very successful in my work.
What was quite humbling about Niebuhr's analysis is just how much we've incorporated what are really middle class ethics and have passed them off as if they are Biblical. And yet many of these same middle class ethics-- hyperindividualism, works-based justification, etc.-- are the things that frustrate us in our work with brethren and in our attempts to show people the truth in Christ.
The analysis well explains why so many Americans feel as if they are blessed by God in their current state and have no need to change; after all, if they are successful, according to middle class ethics, they have accomplished what is necessary and have acted sufficiently. They're "righteous" or "healthy" according to Matthew 9:10-13.
The analysis also explains why it is so hard to promote the church as a body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27). In middle class ethics, the individual and family are pre-eminent, with associations and society following. Religion is based in what is done for accomplishment of personal spiritual satisfaction, and therefore interest in one's neighbor is often compromised.
It also uncovers the ugly side of middle class ethics as it relates to those who are poor. In middle class logic, one works hard and is successful and prospers. If one does not prosper, and is left in the depths of poverty, it means that they haven't tried hard enough or are caught up in some kind of sin. In earlier days in our country, poverty was believed to be the direct result of sin; today, it's the archetypal "welfare queen," too lazy to work. The middle class system cannot imagine a world where there are other forces at work save self-determination, and yet the other classes recognize this.
Let's face it: Pompous R. Elitist III, esq., can be a complete waste of a person, engaging in all kinds of immorality, always being bailed out by his parents, and can be the laziest little punk you ever knew, yet despite this he will be wealthy and maintain his wealth and prestige and status. Meanwhile, Joe P. Streetman can be a religious and hardworking man yet never get out of poverty because of his concerns for his relatives and friends and the mentalities that were fostered in him since birth.
Why do I say all of this? Well, since we are all coming from a middle class background and worldview, it is natural for us to look at the world through the lenses of the middle class. It is natural for us to interpret the Bible through the lenses of the middle class. It becomes all too easy to justify our prejudices and values based on our middle class position with various Scriptures, and consciously or unconsciously ignore other Scriptures that betray the mindset.
I have said before that the church needs to reconsider itself; what was in the first century a group clearly made up mostly of the poor and dispossessed has now become a group of mostly middle class and franchised persons (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:25-26, James 2:1-10). Is there a problem with the church having middle class persons within it? Absolutely not. But where are all the poor people? Why are they not a part of us? What are or aren't we doing that led to the success of the Gospel among the poor in the first century?
Perhaps the problem goes back to class, whether we like it or not. I am convinced that all three classes have their value and their detriments.
The wealthy do well at understanding the need to be benevolent and to help those in need; they often struggle with pretentiousness and feeling superior to everyone else, remaining insular.
The poor do well at relationships, and have the ability to be less connected to the world (cf. James 1:9). On the other hand, the mental models of the poor do not provide enough moral stricture, and it often leads to discouragement and frustration.
The middle class understands the value of effort and morality. On the other hand, the middle class is fiercely independent and look to members of other classes with antipathy or disdain.
Each has something to bring to the table. Each has some things to learn. In an ideal church, made up of some members from each class working together, they could learn from each other, encourage each other, and function well together. The rich can learn humility from the poor while the poor can be empowered to aspire higher. All can gain from the achievement mentality of the middle class while the middle class learns to look at things from other points of view.
But such is putting the cart before the horse.
What values of the middle class are truly consonant with the Gospel? The fact that we are individually members of Christ's body and the fact that we must be servants working in God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 12:27, Luke 17:7-10).
Which values hinder the Gospel? The hyperindividualism that finds less value in cooperative effort. The misunderstanding and disdain for the poor on account of the self-deterministic and works-based view of prosperity and success.
It should be no wonder why the poor aren't comfortable around us. Part of it may be our own views that come out in various ways: we may act in paternalistic ways toward poor persons, seeing them as an object of pity or something to "fix," without respecting their self-worth. We may actually make comments regarding all those lazy people who are on welfare, and how they should all just get a job (and be able to succeed and become "just like us," although we may not say these last thoughts). It may involve how we all dress and compose ourselves, and the feeling within many of the poor people that they're not good enough to be around us or to be saved by God or other such things.
I believe that if we're going to be successful in promoting the Gospel to members of other classes, we need to be aware of the differences between the way we look at things and the way that they look at things, and that we would try to find ways to bridge those divides. We may need to empower them; they may need to humble us. We cannot look at it in any different way than we look toward each other: mutually edifying based on different gifts (1 Corinthians 12:12-27, 1 Peter 4:7-10). That can be true between brethren of the same economic class as it is for those in different classes. We might just have to change the way we look at things.
I hope and pray that this information can be used to challenge your way of thinking and to perhaps make you more aware or conscious of matters of class. It is not my intention to start an argument in order to justify or rationalize various parts of the middle class ethic; nor is it my attempt to outright condemn the middle class ethic. As with all human matters, some is valuable to keep, and some must be dispensed with if we're going to reflect the values of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1-6). We have things to learn from others, as others have things to learn from us.
Let us strive to bridge divides and to be able to promote the Gospel to all men regardless of class!
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
ELDV |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
|
11-04-08 10:33pm EST
|
|
Greetings, everyone.
Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
While many of you voted today, I worked the polls in Lyme Township, Ohio.
I got there at 0600. I did not leave until 2130.
Lyme Township is not exactly the hub of Ohio. We had about 675 on the rolls to vote.
The polls opened at 0630. 20 people were in line to start.
For the first two hours, we almost had a voter a minute.
By the time it was said and done, only 100 persons who could vote did not do so.
That's well over 80%. And that was one precinct in a small corner of northern Ohio. I can only imagine the chaos in other places.
This may go down as one of the most participatory elections ever.
I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king (1 Peter 2:13-17).
It seems rather evident at this juncture that Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America. He will be greeted with a stronger Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.
I recognize that this is distressing news for many Christians. I can understand this. I have been on the distressing end of political news.
Nevertheless, it is important for everyone to remember that we are to respect the leaders of our nation in regards to their office, whether we agree with them or not.
It is always important for Christians to not bear false witness (Luke 18:20). Christians should remember that the truth is often not found in extremism, but is often found somewhere in the middle of extremist positions.
Another very important passage to remember is Matthew 10:28.
And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28).
Jesus utters a command here: do not be afraid of humans. Yet I have seen much fearmongering going on in regards to Obama being elected. I fail to understand how fearmongering in any way, shape, or form can be justified in light of Matthew 10:28.
I have seen plenty of false witness being borne against Obama. Much of it involves character assassination based on specious claims. I have entirely failed to understand how Christians can feel justified in such practices.
Disagree with Obama on his positions on abortion, homosexual relationships, the government's role in the economy, and on many other issues. Well and good. But who gave any of us the right to start condemning the man himself?
Now that he will be your President, I hope that you all recognize that all of these gloomy forecasts of the utter demise of America are entirely unfounded. It will not be anything like the fearful picture that has been portrayed.
Terrorists are not going to hate America any more than they would have otherwise. In fact, al Qaeda has just lost a lot of credibility, since their hateful perspective of America has been indisputably challenged by reality (a non-white President with a Semitic name, no less).
The government is not going to take over healthcare. They may assist in healthcare, but they're not going to take it over.
Obama is no more socialist than Nixon. "Spreading the wealth" between rich and poor is no better or worse than "spreading the wealth" between our generation and future generations, as we've done by racking up the debt.
I would challenge my Republican friends to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as he begins his presidency, as I am sure you would have expected Democrats to do for McCain. You might just be surprised that a lot of your assumptions prove to be unfounded.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
ELDV
|
|
| | |
