Below is my answer to the question Is Mohammed’s Allah the Father of Jesus posed on page 25 of Timothy Tennant's text "Theology in the Context of World Christianity." This was an assignment for Basic Christian Doctrine with Steve Seamands
There exist reasons to believe that they are the same. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all reference God in monotheistic terms, describing their God as a sole, supreme being. Only one Supreme Being can exist; to identify multiple Supreme Beings is a contradiction (31-32). In this respect, yes, Christians and Muslim are worshiping the same God, “THE God.” However, what they each understand about their God is contradictory and therefore the topic is debatable. Additionally, the term Allah has been contextualized to the point that it refers specifically to the god of Islam (45-46).
Whereas, Muslims accept much of Christian scripture, they obviously see that Allah is the equivalent to God. However, in that they alter Christian teachings, they have determined that Christianity and Judaism have corrupted the text (34). They believe that we worship the same God, but that Christians have some of the details wrong.
Each religion sees God based on particular revelation that is important to their faith and might identify their God (or Allah) as the same figure, yet corrupted. The ‘truth’ regarding those figures is very different; Muslims see Christians as mistaken on some key points and the Christians see Muslims as either, at worst, inventing a religion or, at best, following a questionable prophet (41-42).
It really boils down to a debate about the Character of God, what each faith believes true of God, for example, the divinity and purpose of Christ. Because in Christianity this is essential, it is impossible to reconcile the two religions as to belief in the same deity. Although, it is true that no one worships the same God (33), the divinity and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ is so imperative to Christianity, that without it the entire religion and, consequently, the character of God is lost. So, although God and Allah can mean the same thing, although you could even possibly argue that God and Allah are the same deity, Jesus is not the Son of Muhammad’s Allah.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
God, Eternal or Everlasting
This is the paper I wrote for Dr. Okello's Philosophy Class regarding the everlasting and eternality of God. Feel free to disagree. I'm not totally sold on my own opinion. Also, be aware, it's a bit long.
Is God Eternal or Everlasting? I affirm God as Everlasting.
Suppose God were eternal; God exists outside of time. Rather than existing moment by moment as humans do, He experiences the entirety of history all at once, in one complete concurrent now (R&RB, 83). By this view, God has no past, present, or future; He simply is (R&RB, 83). If this is the case, it would easily explain how God can be omniscient. He simply sees what is happening as it happens and consequently has all-encompassing knowledge. Now, suppose God is everlasting; God exists within time; our present is His present. Although this might prevent God from knowing a detailed future, it does not
preclude him from knowing some of the future. Also, it explains some otherwise troubling scripture regarding God changing his mind.
Both perspectives can be argued from biblical references. Eternality is supported by scriptures such as Isaiah 46:9 & 10, “… I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” God also says He knows the plans He has for us, plans for good and not for harm. Plans that give us hope for the future (Jeremiah 29:11). In first Peter, we are told Christ was destined before the foundation of the world. God knowing our plans for the future and being able to declare the end from the beginning are indicators that God has some knowledge of the future, possibly indicating God’s eternality.
Besides these broad scope indicators, scripture contains specific detailed accounts regarding God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times before morning, Judas was going to betray him, the religious leaders would seek his death, and He would rise from death in three days. These factors support an eternal God.
Alternatively, instances where God appears to not know the future support God existing within time. Examples include Number 14:11, “ The LORD said to Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” and 1 Kings 22:20, “the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” among many others.
The authors of biblical texts do not describe God as a bystander; rather, God is actively engaged with man and history (P of R, 159). In order for God to be involved in human history, he must be able to adapt (P of R, 159). Within scripture there exist numerous examples of God changing his mind (1 Sam 15:11, 35, Exo 32:14, Deut 9:13-14, 18-20), asking questions, expressing surprise or disappointment (Jer 3:5-8, 19-20, 7:31, 19:5, 32:35), and predicting, rather than knowing, what might happen ( Ezek 12:3, Exodus 3:18-4:9) (Boyd & Eddy, 44). Further, scripture mentions God testing his people to determine what they will do (Gen 22:12, Deut 8:2, 13:3, Judges 3:4, 2 Chron 32:31) (Boyd & Eddy, 45). Each instance indicates God not exhaustively knowing the future.
Theses occurrences cannot happen if God has all-encompassing knowledge of future events. God can not simultaneously know the whole future and not know the whole future, therefore God cannot be eternal. In Genesis 6:6, we learn that God regretted creating man and grieved. If God were eternal, he would have known prior to creation the human race would fail and it would be illogical for him to grieve or regret. However, He likely would not have made man.
Although scripture indicates that God knows future happenings, I found no scripture expressly stating God exhaustively knows the future. Nor have I seen any scripture which explicitly affirms that God exists outside of time or that God simultaneously sees past, present, and future.
Those who determine God to be eternal can argue scripture is speaking anthropomorphically or metaphorically of God when identifying God as changing his mind, expressing disappointment and surprise, or testing his people to see what they will do. However, none of these statements appear to be so. They do not state the circumstances were as if God changed his mind, or it was as though God was disappointed (Boyd and Eddy, 47).
“If these statements were not meant to be taken in a straightforward manner, what would passages that did teach this in a straightforward manner say? If God cannot convince us by explicitly saying he can and does change his mind, experience regret, and so on, how could he convince us if he wanted to?
" … The passages cited in support of the open view [everlasting] do not readily lend themselves to an anthropomorphic interpretation. As with all figures of speech, anthropomorphisms must connect with reality at some point if they are to communicate anything truthful. Expressions such as “the right hand of God” or “the eyes of the Lord” for example, communicate something truthful about God’s strength and knowledge. But what does the concept of God changing his mind communicate if it is indeed merely anthropomorphism? If God in fact never changes his mind, saying he does so does not communicate anything truthful: It is simply inaccurate." (Boyd and Eddy, 48)
In fact, if scripture were to identify God as changing his mind, when he does not, scripture would, in effect, make a liar of God, which is opposed to the character of God. For example, if we are told God changes his decision to destroy the Israelites because of Moses’ forty day and night prayerful intervention (Isaiah 46:9-10), either God lied saying He would destroy the people or scripture lied regarding God’s ability to and practice of changing his mind. If God knew all along (Eternality) that he would change his mind after Moses prayed, then he lied when saying he was going to destroy them. If he did not know he would change his mind, then he does not exhaustibly know the future and is therefore not outside of time (eternal). If however, God actually did change his mind, God is truthful, scripture is truthful, and God is everlasting.
Everlasting makes sense of scriptures about God asking non-rhetorical questions or God changing his mind. But it also seemingly limits the abilities of God in that he doesn't "know" every detail of what will eventually happen. This is an illogical argument. Even if God does not know every detail of every future happening, His omniscience is not lessened. Not exhaustively knowing the future does not preclude God knowing everything available to know at any given time. If God were to exist within time, he could still readily know everything there is to know. He would know all math, science, history, etc. He would know what is currently happening, both actual physical happenings and the current thoughts of man. He would even know potential ramifications of choices and actions man might take. God as everlasting does not weaken the omniscience of God. Rather it redefines omniscience; He would still know all. What there is to know, however, would be a less exhaustive list than it would be if God exists outside of time, eternally.
In the discussion of an everlasting God, there is still a possibility of critique from those who support an Eternal God regarding key scriptures that expressly identify God as possessing understanding of future events, such Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, Jeremiah 29:11, God knowing his plans for us, the messages of many various prophets regarding the future, and 1 Peter’s description of Jesus as destined before the foundation of the world.
Let us not forget that in Isaiah 46, God also claims His counsel shall stand and that he will accomplish his purpose. Rather than this statement reflecting his foreknowledge, it could be a statement of his power. Although God is everlasting, he is not weakened; His omnipotence stands. God can intervene and interject his purpose as he desires (within the character of God). With his power, he can overrule ordinary happenings, thus shaping the future. For example, he can destine Christ to redeem humanity at the foundation of the world in the event humanity should not meet his desired expectations. This is not to say he knows they will fail to meet expectations, nor that he knows the details surrounding Jesus’ life and crucifixion. It only implies that he has a plan and is willing to implement it should it become necessary for his ultimate intentions to be accomplished.
Whereas God can not be actively involved in human life, nor can he be capable of change as an eternal God, He can as an everlasting God. Further, God as everlasting, lends credibility to scriptures and explains how God can be uncertain about aspects of the future while understanding and proclaiming others and it does so without limiting his power or knowledge.
References:
Boyd, G., & Eddy, P. (2002). Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theory. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Hasker, W. (1983). Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2006) Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2008). Reason and Religious Belief:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Is God Eternal or Everlasting? I affirm God as Everlasting.
Suppose God were eternal; God exists outside of time. Rather than existing moment by moment as humans do, He experiences the entirety of history all at once, in one complete concurrent now (R&RB, 83). By this view, God has no past, present, or future; He simply is (R&RB, 83). If this is the case, it would easily explain how God can be omniscient. He simply sees what is happening as it happens and consequently has all-encompassing knowledge. Now, suppose God is everlasting; God exists within time; our present is His present. Although this might prevent God from knowing a detailed future, it does not
preclude him from knowing some of the future. Also, it explains some otherwise troubling scripture regarding God changing his mind.
Both perspectives can be argued from biblical references. Eternality is supported by scriptures such as Isaiah 46:9 & 10, “… I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” God also says He knows the plans He has for us, plans for good and not for harm. Plans that give us hope for the future (Jeremiah 29:11). In first Peter, we are told Christ was destined before the foundation of the world. God knowing our plans for the future and being able to declare the end from the beginning are indicators that God has some knowledge of the future, possibly indicating God’s eternality.
Besides these broad scope indicators, scripture contains specific detailed accounts regarding God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times before morning, Judas was going to betray him, the religious leaders would seek his death, and He would rise from death in three days. These factors support an eternal God.
Alternatively, instances where God appears to not know the future support God existing within time. Examples include Number 14:11, “ The LORD said to Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” and 1 Kings 22:20, “the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” among many others.
The authors of biblical texts do not describe God as a bystander; rather, God is actively engaged with man and history (P of R, 159). In order for God to be involved in human history, he must be able to adapt (P of R, 159). Within scripture there exist numerous examples of God changing his mind (1 Sam 15:11, 35, Exo 32:14, Deut 9:13-14, 18-20), asking questions, expressing surprise or disappointment (Jer 3:5-8, 19-20, 7:31, 19:5, 32:35), and predicting, rather than knowing, what might happen ( Ezek 12:3, Exodus 3:18-4:9) (Boyd & Eddy, 44). Further, scripture mentions God testing his people to determine what they will do (Gen 22:12, Deut 8:2, 13:3, Judges 3:4, 2 Chron 32:31) (Boyd & Eddy, 45). Each instance indicates God not exhaustively knowing the future.
Theses occurrences cannot happen if God has all-encompassing knowledge of future events. God can not simultaneously know the whole future and not know the whole future, therefore God cannot be eternal. In Genesis 6:6, we learn that God regretted creating man and grieved. If God were eternal, he would have known prior to creation the human race would fail and it would be illogical for him to grieve or regret. However, He likely would not have made man.
Although scripture indicates that God knows future happenings, I found no scripture expressly stating God exhaustively knows the future. Nor have I seen any scripture which explicitly affirms that God exists outside of time or that God simultaneously sees past, present, and future.
Those who determine God to be eternal can argue scripture is speaking anthropomorphically or metaphorically of God when identifying God as changing his mind, expressing disappointment and surprise, or testing his people to see what they will do. However, none of these statements appear to be so. They do not state the circumstances were as if God changed his mind, or it was as though God was disappointed (Boyd and Eddy, 47).
“If these statements were not meant to be taken in a straightforward manner, what would passages that did teach this in a straightforward manner say? If God cannot convince us by explicitly saying he can and does change his mind, experience regret, and so on, how could he convince us if he wanted to?
" … The passages cited in support of the open view [everlasting] do not readily lend themselves to an anthropomorphic interpretation. As with all figures of speech, anthropomorphisms must connect with reality at some point if they are to communicate anything truthful. Expressions such as “the right hand of God” or “the eyes of the Lord” for example, communicate something truthful about God’s strength and knowledge. But what does the concept of God changing his mind communicate if it is indeed merely anthropomorphism? If God in fact never changes his mind, saying he does so does not communicate anything truthful: It is simply inaccurate." (Boyd and Eddy, 48)
In fact, if scripture were to identify God as changing his mind, when he does not, scripture would, in effect, make a liar of God, which is opposed to the character of God. For example, if we are told God changes his decision to destroy the Israelites because of Moses’ forty day and night prayerful intervention (Isaiah 46:9-10), either God lied saying He would destroy the people or scripture lied regarding God’s ability to and practice of changing his mind. If God knew all along (Eternality) that he would change his mind after Moses prayed, then he lied when saying he was going to destroy them. If he did not know he would change his mind, then he does not exhaustibly know the future and is therefore not outside of time (eternal). If however, God actually did change his mind, God is truthful, scripture is truthful, and God is everlasting.
Everlasting makes sense of scriptures about God asking non-rhetorical questions or God changing his mind. But it also seemingly limits the abilities of God in that he doesn't "know" every detail of what will eventually happen. This is an illogical argument. Even if God does not know every detail of every future happening, His omniscience is not lessened. Not exhaustively knowing the future does not preclude God knowing everything available to know at any given time. If God were to exist within time, he could still readily know everything there is to know. He would know all math, science, history, etc. He would know what is currently happening, both actual physical happenings and the current thoughts of man. He would even know potential ramifications of choices and actions man might take. God as everlasting does not weaken the omniscience of God. Rather it redefines omniscience; He would still know all. What there is to know, however, would be a less exhaustive list than it would be if God exists outside of time, eternally.
In the discussion of an everlasting God, there is still a possibility of critique from those who support an Eternal God regarding key scriptures that expressly identify God as possessing understanding of future events, such Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, Jeremiah 29:11, God knowing his plans for us, the messages of many various prophets regarding the future, and 1 Peter’s description of Jesus as destined before the foundation of the world.
Let us not forget that in Isaiah 46, God also claims His counsel shall stand and that he will accomplish his purpose. Rather than this statement reflecting his foreknowledge, it could be a statement of his power. Although God is everlasting, he is not weakened; His omnipotence stands. God can intervene and interject his purpose as he desires (within the character of God). With his power, he can overrule ordinary happenings, thus shaping the future. For example, he can destine Christ to redeem humanity at the foundation of the world in the event humanity should not meet his desired expectations. This is not to say he knows they will fail to meet expectations, nor that he knows the details surrounding Jesus’ life and crucifixion. It only implies that he has a plan and is willing to implement it should it become necessary for his ultimate intentions to be accomplished.
Whereas God can not be actively involved in human life, nor can he be capable of change as an eternal God, He can as an everlasting God. Further, God as everlasting, lends credibility to scriptures and explains how God can be uncertain about aspects of the future while understanding and proclaiming others and it does so without limiting his power or knowledge.
References:
Boyd, G., & Eddy, P. (2002). Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theory. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Hasker, W. (1983). Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2006) Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2008). Reason and Religious Belief:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Car Wrecks are Scarey or Driving & ADD, a Poor Mix.
Recently, Laurie and I have been talking about the need for annual driver's testing for persons within certain age brackets. Although we have not necessarily agreed upon the specific age for these tests, we both agree that until a driver reaches maturity they should be tested annually. Likewise as they begin slipping into old age where reflexes slow and eyesight diminishes, we contend that testing should again be implemented. Jason refers to those elderly folks who can't turn their necks to adequately see what's going on as Frogheads. I add that so you can visualize.
At any rate, there comes a point when drivers are no longer safe for the road. This is why my grandmother, Nana, used to ask me to drive her on errands rather than my grandfather, Poppa.
I maintain that from 25 to 65 people are fine, but otherwise, they should be checked out to see if they are fit for driving. Of course this is age discrimination, but so is not being able to vote, drive cars, carry fire-arms, drink alcohol, and etc. until certain ages. So, is gaining social security benefits at certain ages. The fact of the matter is that the safety of the driver and everybody else on the road is at stake. My system still allows for forty years of uninterrupted, untested driving privileges.
Laurie adds an additional caveat.
This weekend, as I was driving my family to Versailles for the KY Methodist Home's annual day, I was involved in a car accident. Of course, the first question everybody wants to know is "Is everybody alright?" Yes, and we were all wearing our seat belts. The younger two were in car seats. Laurie and Cooper, although belted, were not in car seats. Secondly, people typically wonder, "is the car alright?" Well, I drove it 60 more miles to Versailles and then back and I'm not having it fixed. So, it is alright enough, or 'alrightish' if you will. The third question is always something to the effect, "were you at fault or who was at fault?" Suffice it to say I was the only car involved, so... you decide.
As I approached the intersection, the sun was shining and all the lights, red, yellow, and green all appeared to be lit up. Further, the truck in front of me also appeared to have his taillights lit up. All of this was due to the sun shining in that direction. None of this caused me to decelerate. I was observing and drawing the attention of my children to the pumpkins for sale at the roads edge.
In returning my attention to the road and traffic, I discovered that the red pick-up truck had stopped for the light. I on the other hand was not prepared to do so, at least not in timely enough of a manner. So, I braked and steered to the median at the right of the truck. Of course this was too little too late and I proceeded through the intersection. In an attempt to avoid the traffic coming from the right, I again veered, this time to the left. This was a mistake. As I lost control of the vehicle and it turned 180 degrees, Ainsley was panting OhOhOhOh. While Laurie, who incidentally was riding in the back seat between Elan and Ainsley, attempted to calm her.
Ultimately, we went over an embankment and landed on the left side of the Highway facing the opposite direction we were intending to travel. I got out of the vehicle a little shaken myself and attempted to survey the damage. I got back in moved the car to a more level spot and again got out to check for damages. As I was doing so, Laurie lunged forward to put the car in park, a positive precaution which I had failed to implement.
After picking up pieces of the car body and placing them in the trunk, I got back in the car and drove around this person's yard attempting to find a means by which to once again access the highway, which fortunately was available at the opposite end of the large piece of property. In one respect, that I was able to drive over the embankment and through the yard and back down the steep incline to the driveway, I was glad I was in my trusty AWD Subaru Outback. On the other hand, in that I partially tore-up a car, I wish I had been in my crappy Volvo wagon.
So, back to the original point. Laurie contends that persons with ADD should be required to pass a drivers test annually. But, from personal experience, I don't think it would help.
At any rate, there comes a point when drivers are no longer safe for the road. This is why my grandmother, Nana, used to ask me to drive her on errands rather than my grandfather, Poppa.
I maintain that from 25 to 65 people are fine, but otherwise, they should be checked out to see if they are fit for driving. Of course this is age discrimination, but so is not being able to vote, drive cars, carry fire-arms, drink alcohol, and etc. until certain ages. So, is gaining social security benefits at certain ages. The fact of the matter is that the safety of the driver and everybody else on the road is at stake. My system still allows for forty years of uninterrupted, untested driving privileges.
Laurie adds an additional caveat.
This weekend, as I was driving my family to Versailles for the KY Methodist Home's annual day, I was involved in a car accident. Of course, the first question everybody wants to know is "Is everybody alright?" Yes, and we were all wearing our seat belts. The younger two were in car seats. Laurie and Cooper, although belted, were not in car seats. Secondly, people typically wonder, "is the car alright?" Well, I drove it 60 more miles to Versailles and then back and I'm not having it fixed. So, it is alright enough, or 'alrightish' if you will. The third question is always something to the effect, "were you at fault or who was at fault?" Suffice it to say I was the only car involved, so... you decide.
As I approached the intersection, the sun was shining and all the lights, red, yellow, and green all appeared to be lit up. Further, the truck in front of me also appeared to have his taillights lit up. All of this was due to the sun shining in that direction. None of this caused me to decelerate. I was observing and drawing the attention of my children to the pumpkins for sale at the roads edge.
In returning my attention to the road and traffic, I discovered that the red pick-up truck had stopped for the light. I on the other hand was not prepared to do so, at least not in timely enough of a manner. So, I braked and steered to the median at the right of the truck. Of course this was too little too late and I proceeded through the intersection. In an attempt to avoid the traffic coming from the right, I again veered, this time to the left. This was a mistake. As I lost control of the vehicle and it turned 180 degrees, Ainsley was panting OhOhOhOh. While Laurie, who incidentally was riding in the back seat between Elan and Ainsley, attempted to calm her.
Ultimately, we went over an embankment and landed on the left side of the Highway facing the opposite direction we were intending to travel. I got out of the vehicle a little shaken myself and attempted to survey the damage. I got back in moved the car to a more level spot and again got out to check for damages. As I was doing so, Laurie lunged forward to put the car in park, a positive precaution which I had failed to implement.
After picking up pieces of the car body and placing them in the trunk, I got back in the car and drove around this person's yard attempting to find a means by which to once again access the highway, which fortunately was available at the opposite end of the large piece of property. In one respect, that I was able to drive over the embankment and through the yard and back down the steep incline to the driveway, I was glad I was in my trusty AWD Subaru Outback. On the other hand, in that I partially tore-up a car, I wish I had been in my crappy Volvo wagon.
So, back to the original point. Laurie contends that persons with ADD should be required to pass a drivers test annually. But, from personal experience, I don't think it would help.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Removed from the Body
Subversive Church (Mike) said...
"...Interesting. Fair enough on the weeds and wheat parable. But, how does Paul's idea of removing someone from a body fit into this idea?"
In a discussion on my previous post (Spectator Sport) Mike brought up the question about removing people from the body. I have been giving that some thought.
Paul talks a lot about the body. I was thinking particularly about all one body with many parts. And the importance of the eye and the ear, the honorable parts and the less honorable parts. And he wanted to keep them all, as they all have a function.
The conversation between Mike and I was regarding a sort of ex-communication. Maybe there are some in the body that are tearing the body down. Should we get rid of them?
What if they are cancerous? Is that still part of the body or is that a mutation of something that used to be part of the body. Cancer, left unchecked, will kill the body.
On the other hand, I was studying Matthew 18:15-20 tonight in preparation for tomorrow. In this selection of scripture, it discusses what the church should do with those who will not follow the churches prescription/advice. Jesus, in the writing of Matt., says to let them be to us like the gentile and the tax collector. Now knowing about the culture, these two groups were unpopular and unimportant. They were outsiders and were despised. So, on first reading, that would imply excommunication; no longer part of the church, amputation; no longer part of the body.
However, what about Jesus. You know, the guy saying this. How did he treat the tax collector and gentile? Wasn't Matthew, the disciple, a tax-collector? Wasn't Zaccheaus the chief tax-collector? Did people give Jesus grief for dining with sinners and tax collectors? Didn't Jesus heal the Centurion's (a Gentile) servant and the Canaanite (aka Syro-Phoenician, aka Gentile) woman's daughter?
How does that mean we treat those who disagree with the body?
"...Interesting. Fair enough on the weeds and wheat parable. But, how does Paul's idea of removing someone from a body fit into this idea?"
In a discussion on my previous post (Spectator Sport) Mike brought up the question about removing people from the body. I have been giving that some thought.
Paul talks a lot about the body. I was thinking particularly about all one body with many parts. And the importance of the eye and the ear, the honorable parts and the less honorable parts. And he wanted to keep them all, as they all have a function.
The conversation between Mike and I was regarding a sort of ex-communication. Maybe there are some in the body that are tearing the body down. Should we get rid of them?
What if they are cancerous? Is that still part of the body or is that a mutation of something that used to be part of the body. Cancer, left unchecked, will kill the body.
On the other hand, I was studying Matthew 18:15-20 tonight in preparation for tomorrow. In this selection of scripture, it discusses what the church should do with those who will not follow the churches prescription/advice. Jesus, in the writing of Matt., says to let them be to us like the gentile and the tax collector. Now knowing about the culture, these two groups were unpopular and unimportant. They were outsiders and were despised. So, on first reading, that would imply excommunication; no longer part of the church, amputation; no longer part of the body.
However, what about Jesus. You know, the guy saying this. How did he treat the tax collector and gentile? Wasn't Matthew, the disciple, a tax-collector? Wasn't Zaccheaus the chief tax-collector? Did people give Jesus grief for dining with sinners and tax collectors? Didn't Jesus heal the Centurion's (a Gentile) servant and the Canaanite (aka Syro-Phoenician, aka Gentile) woman's daughter?
How does that mean we treat those who disagree with the body?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
flat tire
This evening, when I meant to be home preparing my sermon, I was instead laying on the ground across the road from home of John and Regina Witt. Now, I wasn’t laying down the whole time, some of the time I was stooped over. You see, I was attempting to change a tire. Cooper had spent the day with my parents. Laurie was driving out hwy 499 towards
Now I’ve driven a lot of cars in my short life and many of them have been less than pristine. And inevitably, some have had thread barren tires or otherwise poor tires, others have been tragically punctured by either road debris or poor driving. So, I’m somewhat accustomed to changing tires. Consequently, today should be no problem.
I tried first one jack and couldn’t make it work. I have never seen such an odd jack as came with Laurie’s Volvo. So, I switched to another. The second jack I used was in the compartment in the car where the manufacturers had installed it. I feel like I must have used it before but none-the less, it was firmly attached to the car. I pulled, tugged, and jerked and finally released it from the car with the assistance of two pry bars. So, with the second jack in hand, I attempted lifting the car once again. No luck, the jack worked fine, I just wasn’t strong enough to turn the handle. I re-situated the jack, strained and struggled and tried again which resulted in the car raising ever so slightly and then sliding off the jack.
So, frustrated, I went back to the first jack. And finally on this attempt, having sweated and rolled all over the parking spot and having finally paused to read the directions on the strange, unfamiliar style of jack, I was able to get the car lifted up high enough to change the tire. And that, well, that’s when the challenge began.
I have also never seen lug bolts so stubbornly resistant to removal. Actually, most cars I have driven have had lug nuts rather than lug bolts, but the principle is the same. At any rate, they were stuck pretty well. I couldn’t have gotten those lugs bolts off if you’d promised me a brand new car in exchange.
About the time I was pondering turning the bolts the wrong way to snap them off or to possibly give up and call a tow truck, John Witt crossed the street to help.
He actually made several trips back and forth across the street retrieving tools and a tank of air, but ultimately, he and I got the bolts off, even the last one which was particularly challenging. All-in-all, excluding John’s company, it was a pretty miserable experience. I’m sure glad John showed up to help.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tight-rope of Faith
So, my brother-in-law, Mike says that I need to post more often. So, I thought heck, why not.
Today I met with Gene Strange, my mentor and the Pastor of 1st UMC in Richmond. We were discussing belief as compared to trust. He maintains that belief could mean only subscribing to or espousing certain beliefs, that it does not necessary imply action. He suggests that trust is different. To believe in someone or something is one thing but to put your trust in them is another.
The great Houdini did a routine where he walked a tight rope across Niagara Falls. He then asked the audience who believed that he could place a person in a barrel and place the barrel on the wire and walk the barrel across the falls on the wire. The vast majority of the audience believed that he could. However, when he asked for a volunteer, only a very few were found. Again, I state there is a difference between believing and placing trust.
Trust infers relationship. The lord did not create us so that we could believe in him. He didn't even create us merely so that we could be saved. Romans 10:9-10, because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rather, he created us for relationship. Relationship requires love and commitment. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. It requires action on our part. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Having trust in someone is faith. You have faith in what they can do in you. You act out of faith towards others. I desire the tight-rope of faith.
How does your belief manifest itself? How is your love embodied?
Today I met with Gene Strange, my mentor and the Pastor of 1st UMC in Richmond. We were discussing belief as compared to trust. He maintains that belief could mean only subscribing to or espousing certain beliefs, that it does not necessary imply action. He suggests that trust is different. To believe in someone or something is one thing but to put your trust in them is another.
The great Houdini did a routine where he walked a tight rope across Niagara Falls. He then asked the audience who believed that he could place a person in a barrel and place the barrel on the wire and walk the barrel across the falls on the wire. The vast majority of the audience believed that he could. However, when he asked for a volunteer, only a very few were found. Again, I state there is a difference between believing and placing trust.
Trust infers relationship. The lord did not create us so that we could believe in him. He didn't even create us merely so that we could be saved. Romans 10:9-10, because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rather, he created us for relationship. Relationship requires love and commitment. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. It requires action on our part. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Having trust in someone is faith. You have faith in what they can do in you. You act out of faith towards others. I desire the tight-rope of faith.
How does your belief manifest itself? How is your love embodied?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Christianity, A Spectator Sport
This weekend, I heard a pastor friend say that Christianity is like football. You have 22 people out there doing all the work and 70,000 fans sitting on their butts watching. Of course, his point was that it is not supposed to be that way.
As I see it, at a football game, the 70,000 are ardently cheering one set of 11 of the 22. In the church, we rarely cheer one another on. At least not to the extent that we should. Even better, the Church should all be out playing the game, participating not watching. Christianity is not supposed to be a spectator sport. The church is called to be not hearers, but doers of the word. Rather than occupying a seat and watching it all happen, the church is supposed to be involved, making it happen.
The Lord never meant for Christianity to be a spectator sport. Jesus told us to follow him, not to stand by and take it all in. Jesus was a mover and a shaker. He was a radical. He called us all to "do our share," and be a living, breathing, working part of His kingdom. How are we to go out and make disciples, fulfill the great commission if we are watching it all happen from the comfort of a pew or worse yet from the couch. Sure, it's good to listen to the word expounded upon, sure its great to praise the Lord with public song and prayer. But, we should not only be encouraging the few, the 11 or 22 on the field, we should be joining them. Why do Christians let other people do their work. Therefore we also won't have to wonder if what someone has and is imparting to us is of the Lord or not.
"Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the
Christianity isn't for wimps; it takes lots of effort and hard work. Holiness must be pursued (Hebrews 12:14). John Wesley talks about works worthy of repentance. I interpret him to mean that if we are in deed repentant our lives will show it. I hope that I have the courage to live a Holy life, the faith and determination to be more than just a believer of a message but a disciple, an active participant in faith.
I read once that Christianity is not a Sunday affair. Its a daily love affair with Jesus. In fact, we are taught in Matthew that we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. What's left?
All Christians are expected to participate. We should all be athletes for Christ. Hebrews 12:1 says to lay asie every weight and the sin that besets us and to run the race set before us with endurance.
1 Corinthians 9: 24-27 talks about the spiritual training of discipleship. It likens the Christian to a runner to a fighter, not an observer. "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
A New Day
Well, I have now moved. We have three bedroom house, with an office. Not everything is set up yet, but we're getting there. The house is in great shape in is much larger than what we had been accustomed to over the past two years. We are very pleased.
I have already been able to do some visitation. Many of the people live very near my parsonage.
My two churches are about 2.5 miles apart. The people at both are wonderful. We have had two big church gathering in the two weeks we have been here. The first was a fifth Sunday potluck after the morning services. The second was a Independence day cookout. Both churches attended both events. It's great to see the cooperation. They are planning a combined VBS as well.
Laurie has begun planting vegetables and flowers in the yard. The kids are enjoying the outdoors. Things are certainly look up for us. Thanks to everybody that have helped us in this transition, especially those of you who helped with the actual moving of our stuff.
I have already been able to do some visitation. Many of the people live very near my parsonage.
My two churches are about 2.5 miles apart. The people at both are wonderful. We have had two big church gathering in the two weeks we have been here. The first was a fifth Sunday potluck after the morning services. The second was a Independence day cookout. Both churches attended both events. It's great to see the cooperation. They are planning a combined VBS as well.
Laurie has begun planting vegetables and flowers in the yard. The kids are enjoying the outdoors. Things are certainly look up for us. Thanks to everybody that have helped us in this transition, especially those of you who helped with the actual moving of our stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
