I grew up in a home that celebrated Christmas. The presents. The tree. The ornaments. The cookies for Santa. The whole bit. Our gifts were piled up under the tree complete with ribbons and nametags - as is customary in every house. The tags told us who the gifts were for and who they were from. Dad. Mom. Grandmother. Santa. We opened one present on the Eve and the others in the morning after. Sleep was always light. Bing Crosby sang in the background.
We drank eggnog, watched Miracle on 34th Street, nibbled on sausage balls and sipped apple cider.
Of course, in our house Christmas was not really Jesus' birthday. It was just a day that the world celebrated Jesus' birthday. (The irony of the "world" celebrating anything about Jesus did not strike me until long after I realized that it was actually my father who ate Santa's cookies.)
So here I am:
I don't like Christmas trees. Not even the real ones. There is something weird about traipsing around the city to some empty car lot, buying a tree for 10x its actual value in cut wood, strapping it to the top of your Buick, hauling it home in the dead of winter, digging in the basement for a rusty tree stand, setting up the rootless tree in the tree stand, and then covering the rusty tree stand with an old sheet which serves a dual purpose as it hides the rust and catches dead pine needles. After the tree has "fallen out" we promptly decorate it with ornaments that would be considered gawd-awful gaudy in any other context. Glass eggs, plastic stars and hard Playdough moldings; Las Vegas neon, fiberglass and Gabriel cover the tree.
Speaking of ornaments, I don't like ornaments either. Ornaments are overly sentimental and overly fragile. Which means that the emotions tied to those sentiments are also overly fragile. If you've ever broken someone else's ornament, you know what I mean. And with the ornaments, we hang socks on our walls. Worse still, we put edible stuff in the socks.
I don't much care for Christmas songs either. Most of them. OK, I do like "O Holy Night" and "Breath of Heaven." But Jingle Bells, Away in a Manger, Bethlehem O Bethlehem and Frosty just don't do it for me.
Christmas is all warm and cozy, glittery and glitzy, scented and potpourried. But to me, it smells of tradition. And not that sweet smell of tradition that I associate with other sweet-smelling traditional things.
Admittedly, I have a tree this year. Plastic.
Bah. Humbug.
Yesterday I woke early, had a encouraging talk on Skype with my Negro friend, busted out the guitar and praised God and sauntered into the Assembly on a nice high.
Then the worship leader burst my bubble. She said, "I thought we would just sing some of our favorite Carols this morning. Now who has a favorite Carol?"
Descent.
We sang for 1/2 an hour or so. We had no songbooks handy so we muttered through the "famous" songs, remembering two-thirds of the first verses and most of the choruses. Does anyone know "Angels We Have Heard On High?" Sure! But only one out of the dozen did. Mumble. Hum. Mumble. "An oldie but goodie," I thought.
Today I am thinking, "Who ruined Christmas for me?"
I am torn.
I have a hard time calling it "Jesus' birthday." But I relish the opportunity to discuss the Incarnation.
I have a hard time with the god-like anti-burglar Santa Claus. But I have an easy time saying that the Father is a giver of good gifts.
I have a hard time with trees and ornaments and carols. But I love gifts and children's smiles and hot cocoa.
I have a hard time with the commercial Christmas. But long for the fellowship that the season brings.
I like sleigh bells and snowmen and chestnuts. Yep, they have those in China. Chestnuts, that is. But I find that I am embarrassed to gather around the piano to sing Jingle Bells and Come All Ye Faithful in the same medley.
And yet, year after year I do.
However, in my mind, somehow the religious has infringed on the fun.
Christmas has been washed away in the cynicism. All that is left is a bit of gratefulness.
Thanks to my brother and parents who gave gifts this year. Thanks to my wife and children for their smiles and joy and Bible stories and pecan pie. Thanks to my employer who gave me 3 weeks off for this holiday. Thanks to my co-workers for their kind words and chocolate.
If I push the tinsel out of my eyes, tip back my Santa cap and table my champagne, there is one thing that I am truly grateful for above all things. As is common in the Church:
But thanks be most of all to the Word of God who became flesh in the baby Jesus; who did not see equality with God something to be grasped but emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant. Who was born to lowly Jewish parents, in a dirty barn, in disreputable circumstances. Who grew in statue and in favor with God and man. Who lived sinlessly before the Father. Who fulfilled the law in a life of obedience and a bloody death. Who rose in the flesh again after 3 days in the ground and in Hades. Who reigns as the saviour of sinners.
Yes, thank God for Christ's mass.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The Gay Monkey
A brother brought an interesting idea to light the other day in conversation:
One of the agendas of the gay community is to wrest the responsiblity for being gay from the individual and let Mother Nature take the fall. They are not so bold as to use the "Product of the Environment" argument since too much would be made of their perverse, unstructured and ungodly homelives. The patently secular homosexual will unashamedly admit that he/she is "gay by choice." However, the pat answer for those in contact with the religous world is the tried-and-true "I was born that way. I didn't have a choice." And nowadays there is much scientific "evidence" to support this statement.
But can a gay man be athiest? Surely. Can a gay man believe in evolution and hold to the natural occurance of homosexuality? Not so easily. Two problems arise for the modern homosexual scientist, the gay evolutionist.
One. If homosexuality is a natural trait that has existed for 1000's of years, it is difficult to imagine a trait such as homosexuality surviving among evolving creatures. It has been shown repeatedly that even minor deformities or (to put it nicely) irregularities in animals can lead to isolation and ultimately pre-mature death. If evolving man did not isolate the homosexual Neanderthal, certainly that trait would have receded since it is inferior. Inferior? Homosexuality has lacked the ability to transmit the Gay Gene to even one generation. It just can't propogate.
Two. If evolution is continuing, it seems that it is necessary to exterminate the inferior trait. Thus homosexuality falls prey to the Machine. Survival of the Fittest.
One of the agendas of the gay community is to wrest the responsiblity for being gay from the individual and let Mother Nature take the fall. They are not so bold as to use the "Product of the Environment" argument since too much would be made of their perverse, unstructured and ungodly homelives. The patently secular homosexual will unashamedly admit that he/she is "gay by choice." However, the pat answer for those in contact with the religous world is the tried-and-true "I was born that way. I didn't have a choice." And nowadays there is much scientific "evidence" to support this statement.
But can a gay man be athiest? Surely. Can a gay man believe in evolution and hold to the natural occurance of homosexuality? Not so easily. Two problems arise for the modern homosexual scientist, the gay evolutionist.
One. If homosexuality is a natural trait that has existed for 1000's of years, it is difficult to imagine a trait such as homosexuality surviving among evolving creatures. It has been shown repeatedly that even minor deformities or (to put it nicely) irregularities in animals can lead to isolation and ultimately pre-mature death. If evolving man did not isolate the homosexual Neanderthal, certainly that trait would have receded since it is inferior. Inferior? Homosexuality has lacked the ability to transmit the Gay Gene to even one generation. It just can't propogate.
Two. If evolution is continuing, it seems that it is necessary to exterminate the inferior trait. Thus homosexuality falls prey to the Machine. Survival of the Fittest.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Wrestling in the Baptistry...sounds fun.
The Sneaky Question
There is an underhanded question in the Christian community. (This is my Kierkegaadian definition of "underhanded": the purpose of the question is not to be answered so as to remove ignorance, but to solicit an answer that the Questioner might easily categorize the Answerer based on the response given.) This multi-purposed, underhanded question is "Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?" This question has been proposed to me on more than one occasion; more than two. And based on my "Yes" or "No," the one asking would know whether I believed I was saved by works or saved by grace. No is for grace. Yes is for works.
Take from my experience. Don't answer the question. Just don't. If someone asks you this question, just look at them with a blank stare and then with a subtle misdirection, hide their forehead labels from them.
(I do think there are better questions, like: What must I do to be saved? Or the theological question: What is "salvation?" Or if one is inclined toward the doctrinal, he might ask: Is baptism necessary?)
A New Slant on Urgency
Growing up among scribes and lawyers, the "Baptism passages" had a place of honor. All of these scriptures were irrefutable, self-explanatory and useful for reproof. One of my favorite teachings was the "Do it now!" exposition. According to the Scripture, those with faith in Christ were baptized immediately. That very day. That very hour. That very moment. In keeping with the Necessary Inference law, every person of Faith, should engage in baptism that very hour! (While I have stripped my theology of much of its CoC vestige, I still teach that baptism is important enough to do quickly.)
The baptism passage that struck me recently was the eunuch story in Acts 8. The eunuch had to have been affluent seeing that he served in Queen Candace's court, he was being chauffeured in a chariot and he had a working copy of the scroll of Isaiah. Hollywood dresses all of ancient African nobility in embroidered, white linen and so I can hardly imagine a court official in lesser clothes. Yet here is a wealthy man, a court official, dressed in white, who goes down into a road-side pond for baptism. I hold out no hope that this was a cement-lined, chlorinated, 88-degree baptistry.
Why were people wanting this rite so urgently? There seems to be no "push" by the Preacher to "do it now." Yet, the people wanted to. This is seen in Acts 2 when 3000 were baptized in one day. Couldn't a few have waited until the next day? Or with the jailer in Acts 16. It was midnight when the earthquake hit, couldn't he have waited until the next day? Well, it was the next day... technically. But he and his entire family were baptized that very hour after hearing the gospel and believing.
There is much ado nowadays about baptism being a sign. Among evangelicals (with whom I fellowship), I hear that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward grace" or some variation thereof. Outward symbol. Recently one brother said an "outward expression of an inward condition."
I certainly have no problems with symbols. Take communion for instance. However, Christianity by-and-large is not "symbolic." We do have symbols, signs and certainly outward expressions. However, the signs and symbols are very few. Interestingly enough, baptism is not one of those signs.
In the New Testament, and in cases in the OT (Naaman), baptism is done for a reason. There is a purpose behind it. In other words, baptism is practical. In baptism, something happens. It is never referred to as a symbol or sign of something else. So while, "outward sign of an inward grace" sounds nice, it is just not biblical. Paul teaches that if you have the Spirit, or if you have salvation or if you have an inward grace, you will walk according to that Spirit, live in obedience and sin no more. These are the outward expressions. Confession is an outward expression. Praise is an outward expression. Yet they are not signs, per se. They are not symbolic of salvation.
Those who call baptism a sign (not all) often do so because biblical baptism has been emptied of its purpose and function. It is no longer a place (as the Catholics teach) where righteousness is imparted, where salvation is granted, where the Spirit comes. It is no longer necessary for salvation. It serves no function except to (among many other things) indicate a condition. It is done simply at the command and example of Christ and the apostles. Since we have to do it, it is said, it must have some reason. And so the reason must be...baptism is a sign of greater things.
But as I consider the "urgency model" I am convinced that the early church had a higher expectation in baptism.
Before I continue, I want to make three disclaimers (which are also open to discussion):
I do not believe baptism (the act or the water) has any inherent power to save or administer or produce anything. Baptism is not the source of our salvation; it has no saving power.
I do not believe that a person is made righteous in the waters of baptism. I believe that baptism is for the righteous not to be made righteous.
I do not believe that baptism is the mode of our salvation.
Whew! Glad to have that off my chest. Back to the higher expectation.
What exactly did the church expect to happen in baptism? I believe they expected the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift is not a gift given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit himself. Why did the 3000 cram impatiently into the baptismal pools and fonts? Why did the noble eunuch seek baptism in a street pool? Why did the jailer gather his family for baptism at 3 in the morning? For a sign? Not at all. It was for the Gift. The very Spirit of God.
Look at Acts 19. Paul comes across some believers teaching the baptism of John. Paul makes a connection between baptism and the Spirit and asks them, "Do you have the Spirit?" They respond, "No, we didn't even know there was a Spirit." (One of the key differences between the baptism of John and the baptism in Christ, is the Spirit.) Paul baptizes them. Indwelling.
God is not giving the Spirit because you are baptized. Rather, He gives the Spirit at the occasion of baptism. S.K. offered this word to me: occasion. It is the occasion when God give his Gift. Baptism is not the mode, or the God-arm-twisting rite. It is the time and place when God gives his Gift to those made righteous through His given faith and grace.
Someone may ask, "Is baptism a sign of our righteousness?" because Paul said "You who have been baptized have been clothed with Christ." He also said, "Or don't you know that those who have been baptized have been baptized into His death?" These two passages are probably not much different in meaning, though the picture is different. However, in these passages Paul is not saying that baptism is symbolic of our entry into death or a sign of Christ-clothing. Christ-clothes are real. His death is real. In Ephesians 1, Paul uses "in Christ." This is a real location. A real place. Likewise baptism is not a sign of all the behind-the-scenes realities, it is an occasion where some of these realities come into play.
My Stoning
A couple of weeks ago, I offered these thoughts to our fellowship and I faced more than a bit of opposition to this teaching. So, as a result I am still mulling over some things and I am not hard-and-fast sold on everything.
One man said, "You might say that baptism is a place where one receives the Spirit, but you cannot say its the only place." I can concede this.
Another sister said, "Baptism is not when you receive the Spirit, you receive Him by asking him into your heart." This statement received a lot of nodded heads. Hear. Hear.
There are two problems with this that I see (and then I will be done for today.):
One, people often use verses that Jesus said (as a description of God) to dictate church doctrine and practice. Like any biblical text, this is good...when done properly. We all agree that God will give the Spirit to those who ask of Him. Yes, it is true, that if you open the door, He will come in. However, as you look at church practice in the first century, what you see (hopefully) is how they understood the teachings of Christ and how they put them into practice. So when people in the NT ask about salvation, the apostolic teaching is not "open the door" and "ask" but believe and be baptized.
The second problem I have is the with this prevailing idea of works. If the Spirit comes into the heart of all those "ask in faith" and does not go into the heart of those who do not ask, does that not mean that the Indwelling is dependent on our asking? Let us not assume that asking and confessing is any more or less of a "work" than baptism. In an effort to avoid one work, many have fallen headlong for another.
The Sum of All Things
At this time, I am seeing everything this way:
We were sick and depraved and far from God. We were separated from God by God because of our sins. While we were yet sinners and enemies of God and the Cross, Christ died us. God, through Christ, the Spirit and the gospel of Christ, brought about in us faith and repentance. Apart from these things there would be no faith. Through the God-given faith we were counted as righteous through the sacrifice of Christ. As righteous people, we entered the waters of baptism. At that occasion, we were baptized into the death of Christ, clothed with Him and given His Spirit to dwell in Us. We have the Seal, the Comforter, the Eye-Opener, the Heart-Opener and the Gift-giver inside us. He will bring us home to glory, our inheritance and our salvation before the throne of God on That Day.
Calling All Brethren
You be iron.
There is an underhanded question in the Christian community. (This is my Kierkegaadian definition of "underhanded": the purpose of the question is not to be answered so as to remove ignorance, but to solicit an answer that the Questioner might easily categorize the Answerer based on the response given.) This multi-purposed, underhanded question is "Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?" This question has been proposed to me on more than one occasion; more than two. And based on my "Yes" or "No," the one asking would know whether I believed I was saved by works or saved by grace. No is for grace. Yes is for works.
Take from my experience. Don't answer the question. Just don't. If someone asks you this question, just look at them with a blank stare and then with a subtle misdirection, hide their forehead labels from them.
(I do think there are better questions, like: What must I do to be saved? Or the theological question: What is "salvation?" Or if one is inclined toward the doctrinal, he might ask: Is baptism necessary?)
A New Slant on Urgency
Growing up among scribes and lawyers, the "Baptism passages" had a place of honor. All of these scriptures were irrefutable, self-explanatory and useful for reproof. One of my favorite teachings was the "Do it now!" exposition. According to the Scripture, those with faith in Christ were baptized immediately. That very day. That very hour. That very moment. In keeping with the Necessary Inference law, every person of Faith, should engage in baptism that very hour! (While I have stripped my theology of much of its CoC vestige, I still teach that baptism is important enough to do quickly.)
The baptism passage that struck me recently was the eunuch story in Acts 8. The eunuch had to have been affluent seeing that he served in Queen Candace's court, he was being chauffeured in a chariot and he had a working copy of the scroll of Isaiah. Hollywood dresses all of ancient African nobility in embroidered, white linen and so I can hardly imagine a court official in lesser clothes. Yet here is a wealthy man, a court official, dressed in white, who goes down into a road-side pond for baptism. I hold out no hope that this was a cement-lined, chlorinated, 88-degree baptistry.
Why were people wanting this rite so urgently? There seems to be no "push" by the Preacher to "do it now." Yet, the people wanted to. This is seen in Acts 2 when 3000 were baptized in one day. Couldn't a few have waited until the next day? Or with the jailer in Acts 16. It was midnight when the earthquake hit, couldn't he have waited until the next day? Well, it was the next day... technically. But he and his entire family were baptized that very hour after hearing the gospel and believing.
There is much ado nowadays about baptism being a sign. Among evangelicals (with whom I fellowship), I hear that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward grace" or some variation thereof. Outward symbol. Recently one brother said an "outward expression of an inward condition."
I certainly have no problems with symbols. Take communion for instance. However, Christianity by-and-large is not "symbolic." We do have symbols, signs and certainly outward expressions. However, the signs and symbols are very few. Interestingly enough, baptism is not one of those signs.
In the New Testament, and in cases in the OT (Naaman), baptism is done for a reason. There is a purpose behind it. In other words, baptism is practical. In baptism, something happens. It is never referred to as a symbol or sign of something else. So while, "outward sign of an inward grace" sounds nice, it is just not biblical. Paul teaches that if you have the Spirit, or if you have salvation or if you have an inward grace, you will walk according to that Spirit, live in obedience and sin no more. These are the outward expressions. Confession is an outward expression. Praise is an outward expression. Yet they are not signs, per se. They are not symbolic of salvation.
Those who call baptism a sign (not all) often do so because biblical baptism has been emptied of its purpose and function. It is no longer a place (as the Catholics teach) where righteousness is imparted, where salvation is granted, where the Spirit comes. It is no longer necessary for salvation. It serves no function except to (among many other things) indicate a condition. It is done simply at the command and example of Christ and the apostles. Since we have to do it, it is said, it must have some reason. And so the reason must be...baptism is a sign of greater things.
But as I consider the "urgency model" I am convinced that the early church had a higher expectation in baptism.
Before I continue, I want to make three disclaimers (which are also open to discussion):
I do not believe baptism (the act or the water) has any inherent power to save or administer or produce anything. Baptism is not the source of our salvation; it has no saving power.
I do not believe that a person is made righteous in the waters of baptism. I believe that baptism is for the righteous not to be made righteous.
I do not believe that baptism is the mode of our salvation.
Whew! Glad to have that off my chest. Back to the higher expectation.
What exactly did the church expect to happen in baptism? I believe they expected the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift is not a gift given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit himself. Why did the 3000 cram impatiently into the baptismal pools and fonts? Why did the noble eunuch seek baptism in a street pool? Why did the jailer gather his family for baptism at 3 in the morning? For a sign? Not at all. It was for the Gift. The very Spirit of God.
Look at Acts 19. Paul comes across some believers teaching the baptism of John. Paul makes a connection between baptism and the Spirit and asks them, "Do you have the Spirit?" They respond, "No, we didn't even know there was a Spirit." (One of the key differences between the baptism of John and the baptism in Christ, is the Spirit.) Paul baptizes them. Indwelling.
God is not giving the Spirit because you are baptized. Rather, He gives the Spirit at the occasion of baptism. S.K. offered this word to me: occasion. It is the occasion when God give his Gift. Baptism is not the mode, or the God-arm-twisting rite. It is the time and place when God gives his Gift to those made righteous through His given faith and grace.
Someone may ask, "Is baptism a sign of our righteousness?" because Paul said "You who have been baptized have been clothed with Christ." He also said, "Or don't you know that those who have been baptized have been baptized into His death?" These two passages are probably not much different in meaning, though the picture is different. However, in these passages Paul is not saying that baptism is symbolic of our entry into death or a sign of Christ-clothing. Christ-clothes are real. His death is real. In Ephesians 1, Paul uses "in Christ." This is a real location. A real place. Likewise baptism is not a sign of all the behind-the-scenes realities, it is an occasion where some of these realities come into play.
My Stoning
A couple of weeks ago, I offered these thoughts to our fellowship and I faced more than a bit of opposition to this teaching. So, as a result I am still mulling over some things and I am not hard-and-fast sold on everything.
One man said, "You might say that baptism is a place where one receives the Spirit, but you cannot say its the only place." I can concede this.
Another sister said, "Baptism is not when you receive the Spirit, you receive Him by asking him into your heart." This statement received a lot of nodded heads. Hear. Hear.
There are two problems with this that I see (and then I will be done for today.):
One, people often use verses that Jesus said (as a description of God) to dictate church doctrine and practice. Like any biblical text, this is good...when done properly. We all agree that God will give the Spirit to those who ask of Him. Yes, it is true, that if you open the door, He will come in. However, as you look at church practice in the first century, what you see (hopefully) is how they understood the teachings of Christ and how they put them into practice. So when people in the NT ask about salvation, the apostolic teaching is not "open the door" and "ask" but believe and be baptized.
The second problem I have is the with this prevailing idea of works. If the Spirit comes into the heart of all those "ask in faith" and does not go into the heart of those who do not ask, does that not mean that the Indwelling is dependent on our asking? Let us not assume that asking and confessing is any more or less of a "work" than baptism. In an effort to avoid one work, many have fallen headlong for another.
The Sum of All Things
At this time, I am seeing everything this way:
We were sick and depraved and far from God. We were separated from God by God because of our sins. While we were yet sinners and enemies of God and the Cross, Christ died us. God, through Christ, the Spirit and the gospel of Christ, brought about in us faith and repentance. Apart from these things there would be no faith. Through the God-given faith we were counted as righteous through the sacrifice of Christ. As righteous people, we entered the waters of baptism. At that occasion, we were baptized into the death of Christ, clothed with Him and given His Spirit to dwell in Us. We have the Seal, the Comforter, the Eye-Opener, the Heart-Opener and the Gift-giver inside us. He will bring us home to glory, our inheritance and our salvation before the throne of God on That Day.
Calling All Brethren
You be iron.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Saturday, October 14, 2006
The Lion Sleeps Tonight
Before I begin my story, there are two things you should know about lions, in case you meet one face-to-face:
One, the flow of lion urine is positively counter-intuitive. Seriously. It shoots straight out the back. I'm talking male lions, not just Mrs. Lion.
Two, when it flows... it puts racehorses to shame.
Yesterday, my wife decided to take the girls to Peace Park, a large park very near to our home. Its a beautiful place. Green, with a man-made lake, a real WWII ammo bunker and lions. While the park itself is well-maintained, I cannot boast the same lot for the animals. They live in cages that resemble medieval jail-cells. Their food is little more than the banana-peels and stale bread that on-lookers toss through the bars. Peace Park is one of the last great bastions of anti-PETA. Despite the torrid conditions and the skinny lions, this scene garners hundreds of gawkers a day. Yesterday my family was among them.
Baby D had already had enough of the lion action and was wondering elsewhere. The two girls were still standing in a stare-down with the King of Beasts. After he'd had enough, he let out a lazy yawn, pirohuetted and let loose a stream of pee such as the world has never seen. The stream caught the two beauties right in the face. No body part was left unaffected. Hair, arms and legs. Unfortunately for the my two little ladies, they were standing with mouths agape at the time. They can now say with some authority, "Lion pee tastes nasty!" And even after a bath and brushing teeth and eating fruit and gum, the wild flavor lingered.
This is a story I will keep locked away until they begin dating.
Gross. Blaaaagh!
One, the flow of lion urine is positively counter-intuitive. Seriously. It shoots straight out the back. I'm talking male lions, not just Mrs. Lion.
Two, when it flows... it puts racehorses to shame.
Yesterday, my wife decided to take the girls to Peace Park, a large park very near to our home. Its a beautiful place. Green, with a man-made lake, a real WWII ammo bunker and lions. While the park itself is well-maintained, I cannot boast the same lot for the animals. They live in cages that resemble medieval jail-cells. Their food is little more than the banana-peels and stale bread that on-lookers toss through the bars. Peace Park is one of the last great bastions of anti-PETA. Despite the torrid conditions and the skinny lions, this scene garners hundreds of gawkers a day. Yesterday my family was among them.
Baby D had already had enough of the lion action and was wondering elsewhere. The two girls were still standing in a stare-down with the King of Beasts. After he'd had enough, he let out a lazy yawn, pirohuetted and let loose a stream of pee such as the world has never seen. The stream caught the two beauties right in the face. No body part was left unaffected. Hair, arms and legs. Unfortunately for the my two little ladies, they were standing with mouths agape at the time. They can now say with some authority, "Lion pee tastes nasty!" And even after a bath and brushing teeth and eating fruit and gum, the wild flavor lingered.
This is a story I will keep locked away until they begin dating.
Gross. Blaaaagh!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Lawful
Cigarettes.
Cigars.
Wine.
Public School.
UFC.
Church Buildings.
Medicine.
Birth Control.
Professionals Gifts.
Radio Programs.
Beer.
Pulp Fiction.
Periodic Communion.
Television.
Movies.
Wealth.
Second Car.
Mission Agencies.
Instrumental Praise.
Friday Fellowship.
Secular Secondary Education.
Fundraising.
Working Mothers.
Cigars.
Wine.
Public School.
UFC.
Church Buildings.
Medicine.
Birth Control.
Professionals Gifts.
Radio Programs.
Beer.
Pulp Fiction.
Periodic Communion.
Television.
Movies.
Wealth.
Second Car.
Mission Agencies.
Instrumental Praise.
Friday Fellowship.
Secular Secondary Education.
Fundraising.
Working Mothers.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
A Common Thread
Several years into the Babylonian captivity, after God has made His name known and revered in the whole Babylonian and Medo-Persian empire, Daniel recalls the prophecies of Jeremiah and is moved to tears, confession and repentance. Daniel gave long days to fasting, sack-cloth and ashes and heart-wrenching prayer. And he said, "Give ear, O God, and hear; open Your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears Your Name. We do not make requests of You because we are righteous, but because of Your great mercy. [9:18 NIV]"
Amidst judgment and punishment, Daniel was aroused to say that Jehovah is merciful. With the city and the holy temple in ashes, with his people scattered to the four winds and he himself a eunuch in the court of heathens, Daniel calls God a God of great mercy. Daniel knew that his people were brought low by the hand of God. Conversely, they would be rescued and made to stand by the that same Hand.
God's grace is a consistent theme in Scripture. As is our salvation on the basis of that grace alone.
Daniel says, "We make requests of you, not because we are righteous but because of Your great mercy." Not because we are righteous. Not because we consent to our punishment. Not because we have confessed our sins in total. Not because we have repented. Not because we are withered from fasting and shamed in sackcloth. But because You are merciful.
While Daniel decried the evils of Israel and committed to godliness through repentance, he knew that those things had no inherent saving power. He knew that in the end, all men must declare their filthy rags to be filthy and acknowledge that their rescue and forgiveness came solely on the basis of God's mercy.
Amidst judgment and punishment, Daniel was aroused to say that Jehovah is merciful. With the city and the holy temple in ashes, with his people scattered to the four winds and he himself a eunuch in the court of heathens, Daniel calls God a God of great mercy. Daniel knew that his people were brought low by the hand of God. Conversely, they would be rescued and made to stand by the that same Hand.
God's grace is a consistent theme in Scripture. As is our salvation on the basis of that grace alone.
Daniel says, "We make requests of you, not because we are righteous but because of Your great mercy." Not because we are righteous. Not because we consent to our punishment. Not because we have confessed our sins in total. Not because we have repented. Not because we are withered from fasting and shamed in sackcloth. But because You are merciful.
While Daniel decried the evils of Israel and committed to godliness through repentance, he knew that those things had no inherent saving power. He knew that in the end, all men must declare their filthy rags to be filthy and acknowledge that their rescue and forgiveness came solely on the basis of God's mercy.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Blessed are the Peacemakers
Since I have been meditating lately on the Beattitudes, perhaps God decided to test me on a point or two.
Last night, I was returning home from B&Q with the family. I was in the front seat of the taxi, the family safely tucked away in the rear. As we stopped at a red light, the driver of the taxi in front of ours, got out of his car and began to yell at two men in an adjacent black car. After a few seconds, the occupants had had enough jawing and they jumped out of their car and began to pound the 50-year old taxi driver.
The sight of this prompted my dear wife to exclaim, "Honey!" Which in our marriage, means "Do something!" I exited the taxi and ran to pull the biggest beater-downer away from the taxi-driver. I put myself in the middle of the fracas and fore-armed the biggie and pushed the taxi driver back.
In my best adrenaline-induced, loud, broken Chinese I repeatedly screamed "That's enough!" The main aggressor cooled it and his passenger backed away, content just to offer obscenities. Alas, the taxi driver was not as smart. He held his grip on the big guy's shirt sleeve. As much as I tried to coax him to let go, he wouldn't. Apparently the shirt was made out of Lycra or something similar because (just like in the movies) the entire shirt ripped right off the other man's body! The taxi driver stumbled backward, regained his balance and stood there holding the shirt. The finger popped right out of the hole in the dike. There was no holding back the tides at that point. The two men went right after the driver again!
But almost out of the sky, two policeman appeared and wrestled the men apart. Unfortunately, not before each got in a few parting shots on the hapless driver. When the Calvary arrived, I returned to my taxi and had quite a lively conversation with my own driver on the way home.
After I got home, I thought about the situation long and hard.
We are called to be peacemakers. I think it was good to make peace. Or try.
On the other hand, I have seen in my lifetime a couple dozen fights and have even been in a little scrap or two myself. (Not in 14 years though.) I have watched my share of UFC and other combat-oriented events. Most fights - in fact a huge percentage - end with just a little blood, sore knuckles, a black eye or a cracked rib. Few end in death or dismemberment. Especially in China.
So I was also considering this notion. Is it right for a man to get out of his car, go over to another car and scream and yell? Isn't there part of us, that says, "You know, that's not right."? If I had just let him get wailed on, (as it was, the guys got in a good 8-10 licks), would he ever yell and scream again? I would hope not. Maybe he needed to learn a lesson. 50 is not too old to learn how to behave.
Hopefully, both ends were served. The older taxi driver learned not to confront two men in their thirties by himself and I saved him from a more serious butt-whooping.
In the future (as this type of thing seems more common), I will probably just let the men go at it. However, where there seems to be some gross injustice (like man versus child or woman or old man), I would have to step in. That also is more and more common.
Anyway....interesting night.
I think there is a lot of peacemaking on the horizon.
Last night, I was returning home from B&Q with the family. I was in the front seat of the taxi, the family safely tucked away in the rear. As we stopped at a red light, the driver of the taxi in front of ours, got out of his car and began to yell at two men in an adjacent black car. After a few seconds, the occupants had had enough jawing and they jumped out of their car and began to pound the 50-year old taxi driver.
The sight of this prompted my dear wife to exclaim, "Honey!" Which in our marriage, means "Do something!" I exited the taxi and ran to pull the biggest beater-downer away from the taxi-driver. I put myself in the middle of the fracas and fore-armed the biggie and pushed the taxi driver back.
In my best adrenaline-induced, loud, broken Chinese I repeatedly screamed "That's enough!" The main aggressor cooled it and his passenger backed away, content just to offer obscenities. Alas, the taxi driver was not as smart. He held his grip on the big guy's shirt sleeve. As much as I tried to coax him to let go, he wouldn't. Apparently the shirt was made out of Lycra or something similar because (just like in the movies) the entire shirt ripped right off the other man's body! The taxi driver stumbled backward, regained his balance and stood there holding the shirt. The finger popped right out of the hole in the dike. There was no holding back the tides at that point. The two men went right after the driver again!
But almost out of the sky, two policeman appeared and wrestled the men apart. Unfortunately, not before each got in a few parting shots on the hapless driver. When the Calvary arrived, I returned to my taxi and had quite a lively conversation with my own driver on the way home.
After I got home, I thought about the situation long and hard.
We are called to be peacemakers. I think it was good to make peace. Or try.
On the other hand, I have seen in my lifetime a couple dozen fights and have even been in a little scrap or two myself. (Not in 14 years though.) I have watched my share of UFC and other combat-oriented events. Most fights - in fact a huge percentage - end with just a little blood, sore knuckles, a black eye or a cracked rib. Few end in death or dismemberment. Especially in China.
So I was also considering this notion. Is it right for a man to get out of his car, go over to another car and scream and yell? Isn't there part of us, that says, "You know, that's not right."? If I had just let him get wailed on, (as it was, the guys got in a good 8-10 licks), would he ever yell and scream again? I would hope not. Maybe he needed to learn a lesson. 50 is not too old to learn how to behave.
Hopefully, both ends were served. The older taxi driver learned not to confront two men in their thirties by himself and I saved him from a more serious butt-whooping.
In the future (as this type of thing seems more common), I will probably just let the men go at it. However, where there seems to be some gross injustice (like man versus child or woman or old man), I would have to step in. That also is more and more common.
Anyway....interesting night.
I think there is a lot of peacemaking on the horizon.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
My Legalist Mind Pt. 1
I was reading Matthew 5. Jesus sat down. He opened His mouth,
"The poor in spirit are blessed because the kingdom of heaven is theirs."
Stop.*
Hmmm.
I kept reading. I saw Jesus say:
You have heard it said, "The rich get richer and the poor get nothing" but I say, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor."
You have heard it said, "Pursue pleasure, reject sorrow, turn sorrow into gladness and be happy" but I say, "Do not be afraid to mourn, there is comfort for the mourner."
You have heard it said, "Survival of the fittest, Dog eat Dog, Might makes right" but I say , "The gentle will inherit the earth."
You have heard it said, "You are good enough; Love you for you" but I say, "Hunger for righteousness and you will be filled."
You have heard it said, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but I say, "The merciful will find mercy."
You have heard it said, "You need to experience the world and you can't be blind to sin" but I say, "Pure hearts clearly see God."
You have heard said every slanderous, gossiping, back-biting, murderous comment, but I say, "God's sons are peacemakers."
You have heard it said, "Watch your rep, watch your back, get yours and stay true to your colors" but I say unto you, "Take the Big One for Me and you'll get a big reward."
---------------
* For some reason, I have always read this passage this way: Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. My mind has said to me, "You are blessed and will be blessed because you are poor in spirit." Something is inherently wrong with that. Are we blessed due to an intrinsic value or characteristic? Or are we blessed because we receive a blessing? In other words, are we in a state of "blessedness" when we are persecuted or when we a rewarded?
"The poor in spirit are blessed because the kingdom of heaven is theirs."
Stop.*
Hmmm.
I kept reading. I saw Jesus say:
You have heard it said, "The rich get richer and the poor get nothing" but I say, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor."
You have heard it said, "Pursue pleasure, reject sorrow, turn sorrow into gladness and be happy" but I say, "Do not be afraid to mourn, there is comfort for the mourner."
You have heard it said, "Survival of the fittest, Dog eat Dog, Might makes right" but I say , "The gentle will inherit the earth."
You have heard it said, "You are good enough; Love you for you" but I say, "Hunger for righteousness and you will be filled."
You have heard it said, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but I say, "The merciful will find mercy."
You have heard it said, "You need to experience the world and you can't be blind to sin" but I say, "Pure hearts clearly see God."
You have heard said every slanderous, gossiping, back-biting, murderous comment, but I say, "God's sons are peacemakers."
You have heard it said, "Watch your rep, watch your back, get yours and stay true to your colors" but I say unto you, "Take the Big One for Me and you'll get a big reward."
---------------
* For some reason, I have always read this passage this way: Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. My mind has said to me, "You are blessed and will be blessed because you are poor in spirit." Something is inherently wrong with that. Are we blessed due to an intrinsic value or characteristic? Or are we blessed because we receive a blessing? In other words, are we in a state of "blessedness" when we are persecuted or when we a rewarded?
Friday, September 01, 2006
How Deep the Father's Love for Us
Can
I just stumbled across this. It touched me. I watched it again and it moved me more. Cody...this is for you.
This is a music video about a father and his son. Over twenty years ago Dick Hoyt ran a 5k while pushing his disabled son, Rick, in a wheelchair. They have since competed in over a hundred triathlons and marathons together.
Visit Team Hoyt
I just stumbled across this. It touched me. I watched it again and it moved me more. Cody...this is for you.
This is a music video about a father and his son. Over twenty years ago Dick Hoyt ran a 5k while pushing his disabled son, Rick, in a wheelchair. They have since competed in over a hundred triathlons and marathons together.
Visit Team Hoyt
Monday, August 28, 2006
No Time Like the Future
Thought for the day. Something that's been on my mind.
Is it possible to organize and arrange your life, work and religion in such a manner as to remove any and all opportunity to demonstrate "love of neighbor?"
I will testify that it is.
Is it possible to organize and arrange your life, work and religion in such a manner as to remove any and all opportunity to demonstrate "love of neighbor?"
I will testify that it is.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
The Ragamuffin Man
Sometimes I feel "led by the Spirit" to the bookshelf. A couple of months ago, my boy Matt left me a copy of Ragamuffin Gospel on the way out. I finally picked it up last night and read well into the night. Its an excellent challenge so far. Brennan Manning is prone to quote the heavy hitters, so his thoughts are strong. I felt like someone grabbed me by the shirt-collar, lifted me up and slapped me a few times. "Grace!" Slap. "Mercy!" Slap.Has anyone else read RG?
"Because," the man said, "when I look at that God, the God of Abraham, I feel I am near a real God not the sort of dignified, business-like, Rotary Club god we chatter about here on Sunday mornings. Abraham's God could blow a man to bits, give and then take a child, ask for everything from a person, and then want more. I want to know that God."
Monday, August 21, 2006
Awe, Shock & Wonder
Marq posted this on his site from theResurgence:
These numbers are astounding to me. Awe. Shock. Wonder.
- Fifteen hundred pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches. (Another way to look at this is 18,000 a year.)
- Fifty percent of pastors' marriages will end in divorce.
- Eighty percent of pastors and eighty-four percent of their spouses feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastors.
- Fifty percent of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
- Eighty percent of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
- Seventy percent of pastors constantly fight depression.
- Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.
- Seventy percent said the only time they spend studying the Word is when they are preparing their sermons.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses feel their spouse is overworked.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses wish their spouse would choose another profession.
- The majority of pastor's wives surveyed said that the most destructive event that has occurred in their marriage and family was the day they entered the ministry.
Don't laugh but I went to a seminary (of sorts) for a few months. Not once did I glance out knowingly to my classmates (wink) and believe that 80% would throw up their hands within 5 years. Of the ones that hang around and survive into their 6th, 7th or 8th years, 80% of their wives would wish they would work in another "field." Of the 20% that do remain, over 1/2 would quit if they could do something else. Who knew that of my class of 50, 20 would have affairs? Or that 35 would have Depression? Or 25 would get a divorce? Or with all the training 8/10 would still feel grossly inadequate to minister?
Yet, I sit here, reading my Bible only in preparation for my studies, struggling with endurance, not knowing the language, failing morally, battling contention and my family torn between ministry and secular work.
And I am not even a pastor.
These numbers are astounding to me. Awe. Shock. Wonder.
- Fifteen hundred pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches. (Another way to look at this is 18,000 a year.)
- Fifty percent of pastors' marriages will end in divorce.
- Eighty percent of pastors and eighty-four percent of their spouses feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastors.
- Fifty percent of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
- Eighty percent of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
- Seventy percent of pastors constantly fight depression.
- Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.
- Seventy percent said the only time they spend studying the Word is when they are preparing their sermons.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses feel their spouse is overworked.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses wish their spouse would choose another profession.
- The majority of pastor's wives surveyed said that the most destructive event that has occurred in their marriage and family was the day they entered the ministry.
Don't laugh but I went to a seminary (of sorts) for a few months. Not once did I glance out knowingly to my classmates (wink) and believe that 80% would throw up their hands within 5 years. Of the ones that hang around and survive into their 6th, 7th or 8th years, 80% of their wives would wish they would work in another "field." Of the 20% that do remain, over 1/2 would quit if they could do something else. Who knew that of my class of 50, 20 would have affairs? Or that 35 would have Depression? Or 25 would get a divorce? Or with all the training 8/10 would still feel grossly inadequate to minister?
Yet, I sit here, reading my Bible only in preparation for my studies, struggling with endurance, not knowing the language, failing morally, battling contention and my family torn between ministry and secular work.
And I am not even a pastor.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Typhoon
As you think of them, please pray for the people on the coast of China who were just nailed with yet another typhoon. This season has caused around 800 deaths and nearly 200 are still missing. Especially pray for the city of Wen Zhou (pronounced roughly One Joe), which has more believers per capita than just about any city in China.
You can read a little bit here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14284650/
You can read a little bit here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14284650/
Sunday, August 13, 2006
It's All Greek to Me
I was Skypin' with my friend, Mark and he related to me a humorous experience with his family.Wanna hear it? Here it go:
Mark and his two brothers would often congregate at the farm of their late father and the four of them would invariably become engaged in some good ol' Bible conversations. The "Iron sharpening iron" variety. As you would expect among 4 preachers, one of the brothers would hasten to use his knowledge of the original Greek and Hebrew languages to support his hermeneutic and other theological positions. One day this became particularly annoying to the father who found his own arguments utterly untenable in the light of his "ignorance" of Greek. At one point in their discussion, he rose from his chair, went into the adjacent room and returned with a Big Chief tablet and a pencil. Extending the writing pad to his son, he said "Please write for me, 'The rabbit ran down the road'... in Greek." Of course, this son was unable to write the sentence. The wise old man quickly reasoned, "Since you are unable to write even such a simple sentence in Greek, let's just use English."
As Mark would tell it, apparently this method of leveling the playing field worked on more than one Greek "scholar."
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Freedom of the Will
After 5 years of Big Red Firewallin,' Blogspot is no longer blocked in C-h-i-n-a. May it continue in peace.Google on.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Selah
Yeah, buddy!
Brandon and Rena gotta a newbie. Her name is Selah Naomi. She was born on the 7th.
So cute.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
The Second Coming of Clark
[high above the city]Superman: Listen. What do you hear?
Lois Lane: Nothing.
Superman: I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior but everyday I hear people crying for one.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
More on Personal Testimonies*
When it comes to presenting the gospel, the number of methodologies is innumerable. There is no shortage of ways to preach, teach and tell the gospel story. The modern methodology is experience. We want to relate "what God has done for me." We tell how "God has changed me." We preach about how we were fanning the flames of hell and then God rescued us. We relate in incredible detail the feelings, the changes, the experience, the blindness, then the light, the personal transformation, the rescue, the voices, the tears and the salvation experience. It is rare to find a gospel presentation (to a non-believer) that does not include an overwhelming personal testimony.
This is for two reasons.
Firstly, the contemporary church suspects that because this is a quote-quote postmodern society, the personal experience serves to validate the gospel message.
Secondly, the contemporary church suspects that the postmodern listener is asking the question, "What will the gospel do for me?" and that this question is inherently personal and experiential.
I believe both to be inadequate. The first assumes that experience lends credibility. The second is based on the assumption that experience lends credibility and then falsely assumes that each believer must have and even demands a certain experience. The inadequacy lies not in the presence of a salvation experience but in the priority given to this experience. Everyone has a testimony. But every testimony must be subordinated to the gospel message; it must not become the gospel nor outshine it.
Consider Paul's personal testimony.
Tribe of Benjamin. Top-dog Pharisee. Gung-ho in Judaism. A man's man (as Jews go.) He hated the Christ, hated the church and hated the message. On his way to Damascus he was knocked off his horse by Jesus himself. Paul came face to face with the resurrected Lord. Other than Paul, only John the Apostle would stand mano y mano with the resurrected Jesus. One was blinded for 3 days, the other was so overtaken by fear that he fell down like a dead man. Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven. He heard things. After his blindness he was healed and baptized.
I don't know about you, but Paul's story is one boot-rattlin', hardcore testimony. Beats the pants off anything I have heard in recent times.
But notice what Paul does in Acts 9:20, 22, 28.
He runs right out and he....he.... preaches Jesus.
He does not preach Paul's experience. He does not relate his testimony (though Barnabus does.) He preaches Jesus. This is amazing! He has arguably the most awe-inspiring conversion experience ever (though Nebuchadnezzar's ranks up there), and he just preaches Jesus! This puts personal testimonies in perspective. Jesus first. The Gospel first. My story a distant second.
Admittedly, Paul did give his testimony at a later date. Once before the Jewish government and once before Agrippa. Ironically, no one believed his message those days.
Miracles. Signs. Wonders. Experience. They all have their place. But people are saved, not by belief in any such experience, but by belief in the Lord Jesus.
*This is my own conviction. If your experience has been "perpindicular" to mine, then let me know. :) I welcome any thoughts.
This is for two reasons.
Firstly, the contemporary church suspects that because this is a quote-quote postmodern society, the personal experience serves to validate the gospel message.
Secondly, the contemporary church suspects that the postmodern listener is asking the question, "What will the gospel do for me?" and that this question is inherently personal and experiential.
I believe both to be inadequate. The first assumes that experience lends credibility. The second is based on the assumption that experience lends credibility and then falsely assumes that each believer must have and even demands a certain experience. The inadequacy lies not in the presence of a salvation experience but in the priority given to this experience. Everyone has a testimony. But every testimony must be subordinated to the gospel message; it must not become the gospel nor outshine it.
Consider Paul's personal testimony.
Tribe of Benjamin. Top-dog Pharisee. Gung-ho in Judaism. A man's man (as Jews go.) He hated the Christ, hated the church and hated the message. On his way to Damascus he was knocked off his horse by Jesus himself. Paul came face to face with the resurrected Lord. Other than Paul, only John the Apostle would stand mano y mano with the resurrected Jesus. One was blinded for 3 days, the other was so overtaken by fear that he fell down like a dead man. Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven. He heard things. After his blindness he was healed and baptized.
I don't know about you, but Paul's story is one boot-rattlin', hardcore testimony. Beats the pants off anything I have heard in recent times.
But notice what Paul does in Acts 9:20, 22, 28.
He runs right out and he....he.... preaches Jesus.
He does not preach Paul's experience. He does not relate his testimony (though Barnabus does.) He preaches Jesus. This is amazing! He has arguably the most awe-inspiring conversion experience ever (though Nebuchadnezzar's ranks up there), and he just preaches Jesus! This puts personal testimonies in perspective. Jesus first. The Gospel first. My story a distant second.
Admittedly, Paul did give his testimony at a later date. Once before the Jewish government and once before Agrippa. Ironically, no one believed his message those days.
Miracles. Signs. Wonders. Experience. They all have their place. But people are saved, not by belief in any such experience, but by belief in the Lord Jesus.
*This is my own conviction. If your experience has been "perpindicular" to mine, then let me know. :) I welcome any thoughts.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Nebuchadnezzar's New Groove
Forgive me, father. I have sinned. It has been 13 days since my last post.As of late, I have had my nose in Daniel. This week - chapter four. Here are couple of thoughts.
-----
I'll be the first to admit it...I get tired of testimonies. When sitting with some of the bruddas and sistas, my skin gets less than goosey at the "personal testimony" time. I've spent a few years (past) in environments where testimonies were the mainstay of encouragement; where faith was strengthened on the word of one who has been "saved." In theory, the personal testimony is a story of salvation. Of divine provision. Divine rescue. In practice, many personal testimonies are pools of self-pity, ungodly sorrow, and moments of glory in the flesh. It is not uncommon to hear testimonials as long as 30 minutes or more. Full-blown sermons. Sermons, which recount in haunting detail, sinful lifestyles, practices and abuses. And after this cake is baked, you get that sweet icing - "But God rescued me." That's it. I've heard it time and again. 30 minutes of Satan's kingdom and 3 seconds of God's rescue.
I am all for personal testimonies. They have their place...so long as they are just the seasoning on the steak. So long as they give more time to the salvation, provision and love of God. So long as they remember that it is disgraceful to "discuss the deeds done in darkness." The church should be infinitely more encouraged by the testimony of the Christ and His apostles and prophets.
Now that I am done ranting - I love 'Nezzar's testimony in Daniel 4.
King 'Nezzar was a great king. According to Daniel - a king of kings. One of whom all power and dominion had been given. He was a clever man, a great leader and a brilliant king. He was the head of gold in God's vision. But he was proud. Unimpressed (at least for too long) by Daniel's interpretations and Shadrach and co.'s escape from fire, he was driven to insanity. 7 years of alienation. 7 years of embarassment and grazing and dew-dampened clothing.
His testimony is one of the most moving and powerful testimonies in the Writings.
He begins with what should be the beginning of every man's testimony:
King Nebuchadnezzar, To the peoples, nations and men of every language, who live in all the world: It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me. How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation.
He ends with what should be the ending to every man's testimony:
At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.
Go back and read the whole chapter. Its a good one. The salvation of this great Babylonian undoubtedly had profound affect on the conquered world.
-----
If marching through Daniel is too much of a chore for you, :) check out "The Emporer's New Groove."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
