I have been contemplating dual citizenship, that is the role of Christians as citizens of some or another particular nation while being simultaneously citizens of God's Kingdom. Some would argue that we are not dual citizens, that we are Kingdom citizens and aliens in a strange land. There is much scripture to back that up. Not the least of which is a call to be in the world but not of it, which is not a command, but an implied position (John 17:9-19) .
However, I would argue that being in it means recognizing that we exist within of a particular nation. I also don't think that scripture tells us that being in any one nation or supporting it is bad, so long as doing so does not conflict with the ideals of the Kingdom or better stated, the will of God. I believe that when the two come in conflict, Christians have to side with God. Otherwise, you have made the nation your god, and the real, live, actual God has previously expressed His opinions regarding idolatry.
Is there a scriptural reference that specifically says we are citizens of both? I think there is, but haven't found one. I don't mean text that say submit to human institutions or honor and respect Emperors or anything of that nature, like Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2, but am looking for something that specifically mentions being citizens of a nation and what that entails as a Christian.
I ask because there is a plethora of the other, scripture saying we are strangers, exiles, sojourners, aliens in a foreign land, etc. (Ephesians 2:19, Hebrews 11:13, 1 Peter 2:11)
In a recent Youtube video I watched, titled John Piper's heart in the 2008 elections, Piper says we are dual citizens, but I couldn't help wonder what he based that on.
Some other commentary I found on the subject comes from a pastor's blog, Mike's Musings and from a Jim Wallis&Friends/Sojourners Blog by Rich Nathan.
The word we translate as world throughout the New Testament is "kosmou" the same Greek root from which we get cosmos. In the NT, we read that Satan controls the "kosmou" ( John 12:31, 16:11 and 1 John 5:19) but that we are to be in the world (John 17:9-19) while conforming ourselves, and our minds, to that of Jesus Christ (Romans 12:2). So, where does this fit into our political context?
If you have thought about any of this, please post them.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Shane Claiborne at Asbury
Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical and Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals came to both the Asbury College and Seminary campuses today. While at the seminary, he spoke at our chapel service and then joined a panel of others from a simple way and communality for a Q/A session. Laurie drove up to join me in these events.
He was very interesting and his teachings were scripturally based. His points were in favor of Kingdom over against Empire. He was well spoken and, by and large, right, I think.
The content of his presentation was not extremely different from my last post, especially in regards to abortion and gays. Nor was the bulk of his message terribly different from what I studied in IS501 - Kingdom, Church, and World. Thanks Ruthanne. Incidentally, I still highly recommend Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire and Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony texts from that class.
One observation of Shane's comments that I would like to bring to light is that he did not say anything about not being involved in the political system. He did mention that he would not publicly endorse a candidate. His candidate is Jesus. However, he also said that he intends to use the system to promote his agenda, bringing about the Kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven. He says that he will study the word and support whoever brings us closer to that goal. Which does not seem to me contradictory to 1 Peter 2:13-17.
1 Peter 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Although Shane did mention building kingdom, he did not mention Empire much at all, except in the litany/prayer (Download Litany Here). The main thing he said about our lives in regard to the Empire was that we should place God first, and ourself, our people, and our nation somewhere on down the line. I wouldn't argue against that. Even the pledge of allegiance says 'one nation under God.'
He said when surveyed the typical person will describe a Christian as: 1. Anti-gay, 2. judgmental, and 3. Hypocritical. To me, this is not too hard to believe. He continued the conversation with the scripture from Matthew when John the Baptist send his disciples to Jesus to ask if Jesus was 'the One' or should we look for another. Jesus does not give a simple yes or no answer. He says look at my life and you tell me what you see. the lame walk, the blind see, etc. What do you think? Shane then continued stating the same should be said of Christians. If someone asks you if you are a Christian, they should be able to look at your life and know the answer. Anti-gay, judgmental, and hypocritical is a an image problem. It means that we are in fact not acting very much like Christ. His point, love your neighbor, build the kingdom.
In the talk back (ATS's term for Q&A session) he mentioned more in regard to Empire, but the time was full of pregnant pauses and answer that were incomplete to the question.
Shane spoke about the use of the term authorities in Romans 13:1-3 as compared to its use in Ephesians 6:12, noting the same authorship, but did not draw any conclusion, explain, or exegete. Shane did offer a resource for further study; Appendix 3 is from Jesus for President and explains what Shane was attempting to convey. I probably need to take a look at that myself for further consideration. Especially in regard to first Peter, which I have studied in depth.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
He was very interesting and his teachings were scripturally based. His points were in favor of Kingdom over against Empire. He was well spoken and, by and large, right, I think.
The content of his presentation was not extremely different from my last post, especially in regards to abortion and gays. Nor was the bulk of his message terribly different from what I studied in IS501 - Kingdom, Church, and World. Thanks Ruthanne. Incidentally, I still highly recommend Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire and Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony texts from that class.
One observation of Shane's comments that I would like to bring to light is that he did not say anything about not being involved in the political system. He did mention that he would not publicly endorse a candidate. His candidate is Jesus. However, he also said that he intends to use the system to promote his agenda, bringing about the Kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven. He says that he will study the word and support whoever brings us closer to that goal. Which does not seem to me contradictory to 1 Peter 2:13-17.
1 Peter 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Although Shane did mention building kingdom, he did not mention Empire much at all, except in the litany/prayer (Download Litany Here). The main thing he said about our lives in regard to the Empire was that we should place God first, and ourself, our people, and our nation somewhere on down the line. I wouldn't argue against that. Even the pledge of allegiance says 'one nation under God.'
He said when surveyed the typical person will describe a Christian as: 1. Anti-gay, 2. judgmental, and 3. Hypocritical. To me, this is not too hard to believe. He continued the conversation with the scripture from Matthew when John the Baptist send his disciples to Jesus to ask if Jesus was 'the One' or should we look for another. Jesus does not give a simple yes or no answer. He says look at my life and you tell me what you see. the lame walk, the blind see, etc. What do you think? Shane then continued stating the same should be said of Christians. If someone asks you if you are a Christian, they should be able to look at your life and know the answer. Anti-gay, judgmental, and hypocritical is a an image problem. It means that we are in fact not acting very much like Christ. His point, love your neighbor, build the kingdom.
In the talk back (ATS's term for Q&A session) he mentioned more in regard to Empire, but the time was full of pregnant pauses and answer that were incomplete to the question.
Shane spoke about the use of the term authorities in Romans 13:1-3 as compared to its use in Ephesians 6:12, noting the same authorship, but did not draw any conclusion, explain, or exegete. Shane did offer a resource for further study; Appendix 3 is from Jesus for President and explains what Shane was attempting to convey. I probably need to take a look at that myself for further consideration. Especially in regard to first Peter, which I have studied in depth.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Election Day
Today is election day; for better or for worse, the people of the United States will determine who will 'serve' as the next President. It is a historic day not only in that we will be determining the President but especially because, regardless of the results, we will either have the nation's first African-American President or its first female vice-President.
There has been a lot of turmoil in my extended family regarding this particular election. All of the involved parties are deeply devoted Christians and each are convinced that their decision best reflects their faith. The trouble is among these decisions are such diverse options as abstinence from voting, writing in YHWH (Another one of my relatives who has decided not to vote has considered, if not seriously, writing in Jesus of Nazareth), and as might be expected, supporters of both main party candidates.
The truth of the matter is, there is no best answer. There is a book by Jim Wallis, which I admittedly have not read, titled God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left doesn't Get It. I know that you can't judge a book by the cover, but the title alone reveals to me a great truth. You have likely heard it said that God is neither a Republican nor Democrat. This is a truism. Neither side has all the right answers. Why? Because we are not a Christian nation and our politics do not reflect Christian beliefs. At best, we are Christian who attempt to make our faith known in our political choices, in order to fulfill His will. At worst, we are apathetic in all concerns. Support of either party neglects important aspects of Christianity that the other party addresses more adequately.
Most Americans that identify themselves as Christians are staunchly American and nominally Christians, at best. Most Christians have no idea what it means to live a life modeled on Christ. Most have no idea what it means to love God with everything they've got and to love their neighbors. In fact, most of the church think the best way to love their neighbors is to allow the government to take care of it for them. They consider paying taxes and the nation's ability to help the disadvantage as their Christian contribution to the embodiment Mathew 25:31-46.
While one side is typically concerned with Family values, the other is concerned with saving the earth. While one side is concerned with life & abortion the other is concerned with life & capitol punishment. Yet, all life is sacred to God. How is our love of God expressed in these situations.
People are wrapped up in issues like gay marriage and civil unions. Some say that any such thing is an abomination. Others say that it is a crime to deny these couples family insurance and survival benefits, etc. The bottom line is how are we loving them?
If Jesus hung out with prostitutes and sinners, who would he hang out with if he were born 1975 years later?
Besides gay marriage never destroyed a family. The number one leading cause for divorce in the United States is debt. Families struggle to make ends meet and cover their bills. The related stress breaks up the family. You want to solve the issue of family values, help American get out of debt. The second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, which, incidentally, the bible includes as a sexual sin.
While some Americans think abortion, regardless of reason is wrong, most Americans agree that it, at the minimum, should not be used as a convenience, as a birth control. Regardless on your stance on abortion, most women who get abortions do so because they feel it is their only option. If the church was as loving, open, supportive, and forgiving as it is called to be; those women would feel like they had a choice. Sometimes, however, those women are ostracized by their 'Christian' family members for having premarital sex. The family is worried about its reputation in the church because the church tends to be so judgmental and unforgiving. Why is that? We are a forgiven people for goodness sake!
There are many other issues that are neither right nor wrong, neither right nor left. I have only touched on a few. One problem with our system is that so many Americans will vote today, to select who will represent their views, and then forget about it until the next election. How many are actually expressing their views to their elected officials. How can they represent what you stand for if you do not tell them for what you stand? How often does the minority opinion become public policy simply because that opinion is the one vocalized? Share your opinion, write your elected officials and tell them what you think. But be polite and speak the truth IN LOVE.
I can't tell you how to vote and would dare to try to do so. It is a struggle to attempt to determine how any one person, particularly one driven by political agendas, would represent any other persons faith and moral beliefs. I would encourage your participation in the system. I wold encourage you to have an informed opinion and make a decision. And if you abstain for voting in order to vote of n0-confidence, or as a vote against the system, or in the opinion that your voice is not represented, I understand.
I have already voted today. As for my opinion on not voting, I would prefer you (particularly & in general) vote for Jesus of Nazareth than not at all.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
There has been a lot of turmoil in my extended family regarding this particular election. All of the involved parties are deeply devoted Christians and each are convinced that their decision best reflects their faith. The trouble is among these decisions are such diverse options as abstinence from voting, writing in YHWH (Another one of my relatives who has decided not to vote has considered, if not seriously, writing in Jesus of Nazareth), and as might be expected, supporters of both main party candidates.
The truth of the matter is, there is no best answer. There is a book by Jim Wallis, which I admittedly have not read, titled God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left doesn't Get It. I know that you can't judge a book by the cover, but the title alone reveals to me a great truth. You have likely heard it said that God is neither a Republican nor Democrat. This is a truism. Neither side has all the right answers. Why? Because we are not a Christian nation and our politics do not reflect Christian beliefs. At best, we are Christian who attempt to make our faith known in our political choices, in order to fulfill His will. At worst, we are apathetic in all concerns. Support of either party neglects important aspects of Christianity that the other party addresses more adequately.
Most Americans that identify themselves as Christians are staunchly American and nominally Christians, at best. Most Christians have no idea what it means to live a life modeled on Christ. Most have no idea what it means to love God with everything they've got and to love their neighbors. In fact, most of the church think the best way to love their neighbors is to allow the government to take care of it for them. They consider paying taxes and the nation's ability to help the disadvantage as their Christian contribution to the embodiment Mathew 25:31-46.
While one side is typically concerned with Family values, the other is concerned with saving the earth. While one side is concerned with life & abortion the other is concerned with life & capitol punishment. Yet, all life is sacred to God. How is our love of God expressed in these situations.
People are wrapped up in issues like gay marriage and civil unions. Some say that any such thing is an abomination. Others say that it is a crime to deny these couples family insurance and survival benefits, etc. The bottom line is how are we loving them?
If Jesus hung out with prostitutes and sinners, who would he hang out with if he were born 1975 years later?
Besides gay marriage never destroyed a family. The number one leading cause for divorce in the United States is debt. Families struggle to make ends meet and cover their bills. The related stress breaks up the family. You want to solve the issue of family values, help American get out of debt. The second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, which, incidentally, the bible includes as a sexual sin.
While some Americans think abortion, regardless of reason is wrong, most Americans agree that it, at the minimum, should not be used as a convenience, as a birth control. Regardless on your stance on abortion, most women who get abortions do so because they feel it is their only option. If the church was as loving, open, supportive, and forgiving as it is called to be; those women would feel like they had a choice. Sometimes, however, those women are ostracized by their 'Christian' family members for having premarital sex. The family is worried about its reputation in the church because the church tends to be so judgmental and unforgiving. Why is that? We are a forgiven people for goodness sake!
There are many other issues that are neither right nor wrong, neither right nor left. I have only touched on a few. One problem with our system is that so many Americans will vote today, to select who will represent their views, and then forget about it until the next election. How many are actually expressing their views to their elected officials. How can they represent what you stand for if you do not tell them for what you stand? How often does the minority opinion become public policy simply because that opinion is the one vocalized? Share your opinion, write your elected officials and tell them what you think. But be polite and speak the truth IN LOVE.
I can't tell you how to vote and would dare to try to do so. It is a struggle to attempt to determine how any one person, particularly one driven by political agendas, would represent any other persons faith and moral beliefs. I would encourage your participation in the system. I wold encourage you to have an informed opinion and make a decision. And if you abstain for voting in order to vote of n0-confidence, or as a vote against the system, or in the opinion that your voice is not represented, I understand.
I have already voted today. As for my opinion on not voting, I would prefer you (particularly & in general) vote for Jesus of Nazareth than not at all.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Muhammed's Allah the Father of Jesus?
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
So, I'm moving
I am moving on June 24 from Bybee UMC in Waco, KY to both Cedar Grove and Wisemantown UMC in Irvine, KY.
The new parsonage has three, count them 1, 2, 3, bedrooms. All right!
I'm sad to leave the little community of Waco and my church family there, but am excited about moving to a larger home with a greater salary in my old hometown. Cedar Grove is my home church where my grandparents attend.
I don't like having to drive even farther to get to class in Wilmore, but am pleased that I will live in a town (a county seat) with a grocery store, library, video store, etc.
If anybody would like to help me move, I'd appreciate it.
More later.
The new parsonage has three, count them 1, 2, 3, bedrooms. All right!
I'm sad to leave the little community of Waco and my church family there, but am excited about moving to a larger home with a greater salary in my old hometown. Cedar Grove is my home church where my grandparents attend.
I don't like having to drive even farther to get to class in Wilmore, but am pleased that I will live in a town (a county seat) with a grocery store, library, video store, etc.
If anybody would like to help me move, I'd appreciate it.
More later.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
license to preach school
why would they schedule it during Asbury Seminary finals week? I'd really like to close out my semester without cramming it (papers, tests, reading) all together in the last week or two.
why would they schedule it during the primary election for our state? I've been following the elections and want the opportunity to put my two cents in.
why would they schedule it during the primary election for our state? I've been following the elections and want the opportunity to put my two cents in.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Rapidly approaching
There are less than two weeks left in the semester. I will miss one of those weeks for License to Preach School. I have to get the semester work completed a week early. I finish the semester and LTPS by May 25. One of my summer classes starts May 27. The other on June 3rd.
I need a nap.
I need a nap.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Some of the times are not a changin'
It looks like the White's are not moving to Wilmore, at least not this summer. There was a possibility that I was changing appointments to a church nearer Wilmore, but that is no longer the case.
So much for looking for intentional community and feeling like part of the greater ATS community. So much for adult conversation for Laurie (with persons other than myself). So much for the hopes of a nearby groceries or a movie store.
And gas prices continue to climb. The drive to Wilmore is about 55 miles one way. I drive it at least twice a week. This past week I made the trip 5 times.
On the otherhand, I get to continue in this church where I am comfortable and loved (or at least by my perception). Also, I don't have to find a new place, pack everything up, and move. I still have a parsonage.
So, let's wait and see how all the rest turns out.
So much for looking for intentional community and feeling like part of the greater ATS community. So much for adult conversation for Laurie (with persons other than myself). So much for the hopes of a nearby groceries or a movie store.
And gas prices continue to climb. The drive to Wilmore is about 55 miles one way. I drive it at least twice a week. This past week I made the trip 5 times.
On the otherhand, I get to continue in this church where I am comfortable and loved (or at least by my perception). Also, I don't have to find a new place, pack everything up, and move. I still have a parsonage.
So, let's wait and see how all the rest turns out.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
the times they are a changin'
Laurie and I are uncertain about a few things in our upcoming future...
My unit is deactivating, and I have to find a new unit home before April 2009. I am looking to be promoted in the Army in July, which is good. But there are rumors of an upcoming deployment. Then again, you know how rumors are. I have considered switching over to the Chaplain Candidacy program because I would be non-deployable until I complete my degree. Degree completion is a big priority to me. But, if I switched, I wouldn't be able to go to drill once a month and would lose that income, which we need. Also, I have to wait until after I promoted or I lose the promotion. I could continue to go to monthly drills if I switched to the National Guard, but that's not really something I want to do. I have also considered volunteering for a deployment so that I would have control over where I am sent and what i would be doing. Besides, the money is good.
We are also considering moving to Wilmore (or at least closer), but haven't been able to find away to afford that. I don't like driving back and forth and back and forth an hour at a time, especially with gas prices seemingly without an apex. Laurie is starved for adult conversation as she is home most of the week with three young kids. (Incedently, Cooper turned 7 this past Sunday and Ainsley turned 3 today). I feel left out of the seminary community and the kids don't really have anybody with which to play. There are four girls of similar age that live near, but they are all sisters/cousins withone another and are perfectly content to play among themselves without my children. Plus, we don't appreciate the having to drive 15 minutes to buy groceries or rent movie, or .... whatever.
Mom is opposed to our moving further from Berea. When we moved here almost 2 years ago she was upset and we are only 1/2 an hour away. If we move to Jessamine County, it would be a full hour away, which is still closer than my siblings.
I'm also not sure, yet, whether I have to move. Appointments are being determined very soon, if not already. If I am re-appointed somewhere else. I will have to move from the parsonage. If not, I can stay, but ... see paragraph 1. Either way, how can I afford it.
Laurie and I are interested in finding an intentional community. I know of two in Madison County, but that does not releave my driving much (in fact in one case, it would increase it considerably). I have not found any such community in Jessamine County, although I do applaud the efforts of Tom & Cassie and Eric & Erin. However, they are just one home and we are a big family.
I'm tired of rambling. In short, it would be nice to have a little more certainty in our lives just now. But, we'll keep on keeping on and pray for the best.
My unit is deactivating, and I have to find a new unit home before April 2009. I am looking to be promoted in the Army in July, which is good. But there are rumors of an upcoming deployment. Then again, you know how rumors are. I have considered switching over to the Chaplain Candidacy program because I would be non-deployable until I complete my degree. Degree completion is a big priority to me. But, if I switched, I wouldn't be able to go to drill once a month and would lose that income, which we need. Also, I have to wait until after I promoted or I lose the promotion. I could continue to go to monthly drills if I switched to the National Guard, but that's not really something I want to do. I have also considered volunteering for a deployment so that I would have control over where I am sent and what i would be doing. Besides, the money is good.
We are also considering moving to Wilmore (or at least closer), but haven't been able to find away to afford that. I don't like driving back and forth and back and forth an hour at a time, especially with gas prices seemingly without an apex. Laurie is starved for adult conversation as she is home most of the week with three young kids. (Incedently, Cooper turned 7 this past Sunday and Ainsley turned 3 today). I feel left out of the seminary community and the kids don't really have anybody with which to play. There are four girls of similar age that live near, but they are all sisters/cousins withone another and are perfectly content to play among themselves without my children. Plus, we don't appreciate the having to drive 15 minutes to buy groceries or rent movie, or .... whatever.
Mom is opposed to our moving further from Berea. When we moved here almost 2 years ago she was upset and we are only 1/2 an hour away. If we move to Jessamine County, it would be a full hour away, which is still closer than my siblings.
I'm also not sure, yet, whether I have to move. Appointments are being determined very soon, if not already. If I am re-appointed somewhere else. I will have to move from the parsonage. If not, I can stay, but ... see paragraph 1. Either way, how can I afford it.
Laurie and I are interested in finding an intentional community. I know of two in Madison County, but that does not releave my driving much (in fact in one case, it would increase it considerably). I have not found any such community in Jessamine County, although I do applaud the efforts of Tom & Cassie and Eric & Erin. However, they are just one home and we are a big family.
I'm tired of rambling. In short, it would be nice to have a little more certainty in our lives just now. But, we'll keep on keeping on and pray for the best.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
And now for something completely different.
So, a semester and a J-term of seminary have past since my last writing. It was July when Last I wrote. So what, nobody has read the other posts and likely will not read this one. I'm not a dedicated blogger.
We have decided to home school Cooper this year. He has completed his first semester and the new one is taking off. I think he's doing pretty well, but it's hard to compare homeschool progress with public school progress, especially since I haven't bee in 1st grade in like 26/27 years. Cooper is also involved with a learning cooperative two days a week. It seems to be a good source of socialization for him.
Today, he stole a piece of fruit (from his co-op). I talked to him about stealing. He seemed genuinely remorseful. I hope I wash harsh enough that he won't attempt to steal again yet compassionate enough that he knows he's loved and that he is forgiven. I fear I was too nice.
I am about ready for my Spring semester to start. I'm becoming to lazy sitting at home.
We have decided to home school Cooper this year. He has completed his first semester and the new one is taking off. I think he's doing pretty well, but it's hard to compare homeschool progress with public school progress, especially since I haven't bee in 1st grade in like 26/27 years. Cooper is also involved with a learning cooperative two days a week. It seems to be a good source of socialization for him.
Today, he stole a piece of fruit (from his co-op). I talked to him about stealing. He seemed genuinely remorseful. I hope I wash harsh enough that he won't attempt to steal again yet compassionate enough that he knows he's loved and that he is forgiven. I fear I was too nice.
I am about ready for my Spring semester to start. I'm becoming to lazy sitting at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
