This blog post, by Michael Fleming, was so good I asked him if I could post it here on this site too. Am so thankful that he said yes -- it is worth the read. If you would like to follow his continuing discussion on this and other topics, you will find him at:
http://2ndmanunited.typepad.com/2nd_man_united/2009/04/is-your-church-an-object.html
"'People seem to be longing for a more organic approach to life -- even church life.'" -Organic Community by Joseph R. Myers
"Many churches have become objects by having the life manufactured right out of them. This happens when mechanical infrastructures are built with the intent to help it stay alive. This kind of manufacturing intends to control the future with a mechanical plan. It's an attempt to create a controlled-system environment. There is a part of humans that tends to like this because it makes the future seem safe and secure. But they are often disappointed because mechanical plans require that things be done today based upon predictions of what will happen in the future.
"The problem is . . . we can’t predict the future. Mechanical plans are appropriate when it comes to manufacturing inanimate objects, which is what many churches have become. But developing something with life, such as community, requires the flexibility of organic order.
"For example, a megachurch lays out a master plan for the next ten years of growth and prosperity which inspires them to pay $20 million for a new building in the present. They acted in the present upon a mechanical plan that contains assumptions for the future; namely that their attendance will grow and those that attend will not only have the money, but voluntarily give it for the maintenance of the building and the paying off of its debt. If anything comes along to threaten their mechanical plan, they will act in a way as to protect and preserve that plan. They have a manufactured environment.
"Eliminating the manufactured environment is not a call for chaos. There still must be order, but that which contains life must be contained within organic order or it will die. There is a difference between being organic and organic order. It is the difference between an infant’s response to her body’s need to release waste and her father’s need to do the same. If her father were to respond to this need in a strictly organic way, he too would need diapers. Thankfully he has developed an order for an organic process.
"In the coming days, we'll be looking through the book Organic Community by Joseph R. Myers at nine organizational tools will help you discover whether you are a part of a mechanical order approach or an organic order approach. Then, hopefully you will start to shift to an organic order approach to create environments where people naturally connect and become an organic community. "
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
How Godly Is Teasing / Mocking?
(1) Aim Establishes a pecking order
Target Anyone who is different than the teaser
Result The teaser feels superior, the target feels inferior
(2) Aim To bond the group
Target Anyone who is different than the group
Result The group feels closer to each other, teasing / mocking becomes increasingly satisfying the larger the group is who sides with the teaser, the target feels excluded from the group
(3) Aim To belittle the target
Target Anyone
Result The teaser enjoys belittling, the target feels belittled [including humiliation, rejection, shame]
(4) Aim To appear superior, “fun,” humorous
Target Anyone
Result The teaser laughs, the group laughs, the target may laugh out of humility, may pretend to laugh out of a desire to protect self, or will exhibit emotions that reveal feelings of humiliation, etc.
(5) Aim To establish a sense of belonging
Target Anyone who is different than the group
Result The teaser establishes the boundaries for belonging to the group, members of the group determine to do what it takes to remain within the boundaries, the target is clearly excluded
(6) Aim To give vent to feelings of hostility
Target Any person towards whom the teaser has feelings of hostility [anger, fear, disgust, jealousy, superiority]
Result The teaser can hurt the target without taking responsibility for it, the target is hurt twice: first by the cut, second by being accused of having no sense of humor, by being too sensitive, by being exhorted to “grow up” and so on
If teasing is really fun and really loving, then there would be equal anticipation to be teased as well as to tease. But from my vantage, it appears that people who are in a teasing environment tend to try as hard as they can to conform to whatever the group is like so they won’t be exposed, and therefore teased or mocked. Better to be invisible than a target. When, in this kind of a teasing or mocking environment, do you hear someone say “Oh do me next, do me next!”?
The only time teasing can be of good is when the underlying foundation is built on love, and all are secure in the knowledge of loving and being loved by all the others.
Romans 15:1-5
The Example of Christ
We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written,"The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me." For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Target Anyone who is different than the teaser
Result The teaser feels superior, the target feels inferior
(2) Aim To bond the group
Target Anyone who is different than the group
Result The group feels closer to each other, teasing / mocking becomes increasingly satisfying the larger the group is who sides with the teaser, the target feels excluded from the group
(3) Aim To belittle the target
Target Anyone
Result The teaser enjoys belittling, the target feels belittled [including humiliation, rejection, shame]
(4) Aim To appear superior, “fun,” humorous
Target Anyone
Result The teaser laughs, the group laughs, the target may laugh out of humility, may pretend to laugh out of a desire to protect self, or will exhibit emotions that reveal feelings of humiliation, etc.
(5) Aim To establish a sense of belonging
Target Anyone who is different than the group
Result The teaser establishes the boundaries for belonging to the group, members of the group determine to do what it takes to remain within the boundaries, the target is clearly excluded
(6) Aim To give vent to feelings of hostility
Target Any person towards whom the teaser has feelings of hostility [anger, fear, disgust, jealousy, superiority]
Result The teaser can hurt the target without taking responsibility for it, the target is hurt twice: first by the cut, second by being accused of having no sense of humor, by being too sensitive, by being exhorted to “grow up” and so on
If teasing is really fun and really loving, then there would be equal anticipation to be teased as well as to tease. But from my vantage, it appears that people who are in a teasing environment tend to try as hard as they can to conform to whatever the group is like so they won’t be exposed, and therefore teased or mocked. Better to be invisible than a target. When, in this kind of a teasing or mocking environment, do you hear someone say “Oh do me next, do me next!”?
The only time teasing can be of good is when the underlying foundation is built on love, and all are secure in the knowledge of loving and being loved by all the others.
Romans 15:1-5
The Example of Christ
We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written,"The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me." For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Some Thoughts On Free will, Calvinism and Arminianism
Think about the concepts of God’s foreknowledge, His election and predestination. These concepts seem to be on the opposite side of the concept of free will, so how do we define each of these concepts, including the phrase “free will”? The Bible doesn’t offer a definition of what the phrase “free will” means and in fact says that even your faith and mine is a gift from God; not originating, in other words, in ourselves. Romans 8:28 makes it clear that our love for God is bonded to His calling, “...Those who love God and are called according to His purpose.”
This brings us to a series of experiments that in recent years have gotten physicists, neuro-scientists and computer scientists talking about what free will is, whether we have it, and if not, why we ever thought we did in the first place. These researchers now think that free will is more of a perception, or an experience than it is a driving force. In other words, “A person can choose to do what she wants, but she can’t make herself want something.”
The traditional definition of free will says people are absolutely free, and our actions are not predetermined. Anything is possible. Whatever choice you make is unforced.
Remember that scientists examine, measure and define what they can actually observe. When a scientist is presented with an active and aware brain, he or she will define it as a conscious mind. If the brain is active, but not aware of its activity, that’s called the unconscious. You and I know there is a third influence from the spiritual realm which scientists would have a hard time examining, and that is God Himself. Keeping that in mind,
The following is condensed from an article that came out recently in the news entitled “Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t” (Dennis Overbye, New York Times)
After lots of research, scientists are now saying that free will is more limited than the traditional way of looking at it. Our unconscious brain decides something, and our conscious brain only has the power to agree with or veto that decision once it is aware that a decision has been made. Put another way, we become aware of feelings, desires, even decisions about things that have come from some part of ourselves that we are not consciously aware of, and then we either continue with what has already begun, or we stop.
People have the ability to look ahead and plan. As one scientist said, “That’s what gives us moral responsibility.”
People do have the ability to choose. Even if our choices are predetermined, you and I have to live our lives to find out what those choices will be.
Some people are afraid that this limited version of free will would mean that “people are no more responsible for their actions than asteroids or planets.” That’s an argument Paul’s listener’s brought up with him in Chapter 9.
But these scientists have concluded that even though it is now observably true that we are limited in our use of free choice, the little free choice we have is of great potential worth.
Now here's what the Arminian points have to say, that those who followed Calvin's theaching refuted:
400 AD Pelagius / Arminius / Wesley, 1700's
1. FREE WILL
the fall of man was not total, there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.
2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION
election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" of his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ.
3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT
redemption is based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own "free will" in order to be saved.
4. OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE
since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. Man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.
5. FALLING FROM GRACE
If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved.
And here's what the Calvinists had to say:
400 AD Augustine / Calvin, Council of Dort, 1610
1. "T" = TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.
2. "U" = UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
God’s foreknowledge is based on the plan and purpose of God, election is not based on the decision of man, but the "free will" of the Creator alone.
3. "L" = LIMITED ATONEMENT
Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. All for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non elect) will be lost.
4. "I" = IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
God’s grace that cannot be obstructed. The elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible.
5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Salvation is entirely the work of God, man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun.
This brings us to a series of experiments that in recent years have gotten physicists, neuro-scientists and computer scientists talking about what free will is, whether we have it, and if not, why we ever thought we did in the first place. These researchers now think that free will is more of a perception, or an experience than it is a driving force. In other words, “A person can choose to do what she wants, but she can’t make herself want something.”
The traditional definition of free will says people are absolutely free, and our actions are not predetermined. Anything is possible. Whatever choice you make is unforced.
Remember that scientists examine, measure and define what they can actually observe. When a scientist is presented with an active and aware brain, he or she will define it as a conscious mind. If the brain is active, but not aware of its activity, that’s called the unconscious. You and I know there is a third influence from the spiritual realm which scientists would have a hard time examining, and that is God Himself. Keeping that in mind,
The following is condensed from an article that came out recently in the news entitled “Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t” (Dennis Overbye, New York Times)
After lots of research, scientists are now saying that free will is more limited than the traditional way of looking at it. Our unconscious brain decides something, and our conscious brain only has the power to agree with or veto that decision once it is aware that a decision has been made. Put another way, we become aware of feelings, desires, even decisions about things that have come from some part of ourselves that we are not consciously aware of, and then we either continue with what has already begun, or we stop.
People have the ability to look ahead and plan. As one scientist said, “That’s what gives us moral responsibility.”
People do have the ability to choose. Even if our choices are predetermined, you and I have to live our lives to find out what those choices will be.
Some people are afraid that this limited version of free will would mean that “people are no more responsible for their actions than asteroids or planets.” That’s an argument Paul’s listener’s brought up with him in Chapter 9.
But these scientists have concluded that even though it is now observably true that we are limited in our use of free choice, the little free choice we have is of great potential worth.
Now here's what the Arminian points have to say, that those who followed Calvin's theaching refuted:
400 AD Pelagius / Arminius / Wesley, 1700's
1. FREE WILL
the fall of man was not total, there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.
2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION
election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" of his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ.
3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT
redemption is based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own "free will" in order to be saved.
4. OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE
since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. Man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.
5. FALLING FROM GRACE
If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved.
And here's what the Calvinists had to say:
400 AD Augustine / Calvin, Council of Dort, 1610
1. "T" = TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.
2. "U" = UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
God’s foreknowledge is based on the plan and purpose of God, election is not based on the decision of man, but the "free will" of the Creator alone.
3. "L" = LIMITED ATONEMENT
Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. All for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non elect) will be lost.
4. "I" = IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
God’s grace that cannot be obstructed. The elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible.
5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Salvation is entirely the work of God, man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Women Teaching
Reputable scholarship promotes a variety of views from the absolute silence of women in every way to the equal standing of men and women in this issue. This is not unique; there are several “doctrines that divide,” hence the wide variety of denominations today.
Even in the 1st Timothy passage, the Lord is not barring men from listening to women teach, nor is the Lord requiring men to subordinate women any more than was Paul’s exhortation to slaves to submit to their masters a mandate for men to own slaves. Paul is outlining the Lord’s overall pattern of leadership
The practice of ordination itself is a big part of the "problem" surrounding the ordination of women, and the disagreements about who women can teach. In the structure of institutional church, ordination is necessary, and in the heirarchy of institutional church, ordination of women is too different to be supportable.
In scripture there is movement in some instructions, and there is stasis in others.
There is movement in the instructions concerning slavery, for example. God deals with slavery throughout the Bible. In the New Testament, slaves are asked to willingly submit to their masters, as is the law of the land. But Paul's letter to Philemon, it is abundantly clear that slaves and masters are brothers and equals, and masters really do better to to recognize this fact and welcome their spiritual brothers as brothers in every sense -- in other words, end slavery....
In an example of static command, there is no movement in Biblical instruction concerning adultery. Adultery was, is, and ever shall be totally unacceptable to God.
There is movement in Biblical instruction concerning male / female relationships. But just as liberty to slaves had to come willinngly from the masters, so liberty for women had to come willingly from men -- and this is, indeed, what we see today. Many men have been moved to give women more liberty.
But it can only be this way. In an assembly of men and women where the men do not see the women as free to teach, then they really are not free, and I believe it would be sin for the women to insist they did have this "right."
In an assembly where the men are interested in hearing what the women have to say, and invite them to speak, then it is good for the women to speak.... Read More
And, in fact, this is how it was in the Bible. There are several occasions where men invite women to teach them, and the women do teach, and it is good. Think of young anointed David, on the lam, being instructed on spiritual matters by Abigail. We all know about Priscilla and Aquila. There are more...
The power of the Bible is not to give us a rule book to live by, but to change one’s whole view of reality with the beauty, love, wisdom and perfection of God. In that process of being conformed to the image of Christ, we will love and live God’s law more and more.
When the Bible becomes a rule book in which the “rules” become a point of division, it is time to fall back on the scriptures below.
Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Philippians 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
Acts 15:39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,
In other words, God calls us to continue to worship and serve with each other, pray for each other, to teach each other and in matters where disagreement is evident, to keep the peace in as far as it is up to us. If peace cannot be kept, if the disagreement is that sharp, then parting ways is a peaceable method to further the kingdom instead of dividing it, each as the Lord leads, into separate areas.
Even in the 1st Timothy passage, the Lord is not barring men from listening to women teach, nor is the Lord requiring men to subordinate women any more than was Paul’s exhortation to slaves to submit to their masters a mandate for men to own slaves. Paul is outlining the Lord’s overall pattern of leadership
The practice of ordination itself is a big part of the "problem" surrounding the ordination of women, and the disagreements about who women can teach. In the structure of institutional church, ordination is necessary, and in the heirarchy of institutional church, ordination of women is too different to be supportable.
In scripture there is movement in some instructions, and there is stasis in others.
There is movement in the instructions concerning slavery, for example. God deals with slavery throughout the Bible. In the New Testament, slaves are asked to willingly submit to their masters, as is the law of the land. But Paul's letter to Philemon, it is abundantly clear that slaves and masters are brothers and equals, and masters really do better to to recognize this fact and welcome their spiritual brothers as brothers in every sense -- in other words, end slavery....
In an example of static command, there is no movement in Biblical instruction concerning adultery. Adultery was, is, and ever shall be totally unacceptable to God.
There is movement in Biblical instruction concerning male / female relationships. But just as liberty to slaves had to come willinngly from the masters, so liberty for women had to come willingly from men -- and this is, indeed, what we see today. Many men have been moved to give women more liberty.
But it can only be this way. In an assembly of men and women where the men do not see the women as free to teach, then they really are not free, and I believe it would be sin for the women to insist they did have this "right."
In an assembly where the men are interested in hearing what the women have to say, and invite them to speak, then it is good for the women to speak.... Read More
And, in fact, this is how it was in the Bible. There are several occasions where men invite women to teach them, and the women do teach, and it is good. Think of young anointed David, on the lam, being instructed on spiritual matters by Abigail. We all know about Priscilla and Aquila. There are more...
The power of the Bible is not to give us a rule book to live by, but to change one’s whole view of reality with the beauty, love, wisdom and perfection of God. In that process of being conformed to the image of Christ, we will love and live God’s law more and more.
When the Bible becomes a rule book in which the “rules” become a point of division, it is time to fall back on the scriptures below.
Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Philippians 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
Acts 15:39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,
In other words, God calls us to continue to worship and serve with each other, pray for each other, to teach each other and in matters where disagreement is evident, to keep the peace in as far as it is up to us. If peace cannot be kept, if the disagreement is that sharp, then parting ways is a peaceable method to further the kingdom instead of dividing it, each as the Lord leads, into separate areas.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Agape: Is Love An Action Word....Or What?
The Bible makes it clear that Love is more than a choice. Real love comes from the heart, and is an emotional experience as well as an action and an intellectual understanding and a position of the will.
1 Timothy 1:5
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1 Peter 1:22
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.
Now it is true of people, we are very impressionable. If we act happy we are going to eventually feel happy. If we say thank you as often as we can, we are going to become more thankful people. If we fall into the habit of complaining, we are going to find ever more things to complain about, and if we indulge in crabbiness, we will become ever more irritable. It just is what it is. Everything we do has to be intentional.
But this is not the whole story.
What I'm saying is that the bar set for us is very high. Not only must we choose to do what is loving, the source of that choice is to flow frm the emotion of love as well.
If you really do have the Spirit of Christ living within you, then you have all the right feelings and right thinking already within you. You have the Mind of Christ. However, there is this struggle with the old nature, which constantly wrestles for control.
So you, for example, state with confidence: I have the Spirit of Christ, I have the Mind of Christ. I know that Christ loves this person. I will act lovingly towards this person, while praying that the Lord will release from deep within my heart (in which He dwells) the genuine flood of love He has for this person. I will pray that He will help me to own that love, so that the love will flow from Jesus and me. In the meantime, I will not continue to sin against this person by treating them in an unloving way, and I will not continue to grieve the Lord by sinning and treating someone He loves in an unloving manner.
How would it be, then, if God's agape towards you was one merely of choice, but not of genuine heart love? He really doesn't like you that much, but since being loving towards you is "the right thing to do," He does it? Exactly. Now you see my point.
1 Timothy 1:5
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1 Peter 1:22
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.
Now it is true of people, we are very impressionable. If we act happy we are going to eventually feel happy. If we say thank you as often as we can, we are going to become more thankful people. If we fall into the habit of complaining, we are going to find ever more things to complain about, and if we indulge in crabbiness, we will become ever more irritable. It just is what it is. Everything we do has to be intentional.
But this is not the whole story.
What I'm saying is that the bar set for us is very high. Not only must we choose to do what is loving, the source of that choice is to flow frm the emotion of love as well.
If you really do have the Spirit of Christ living within you, then you have all the right feelings and right thinking already within you. You have the Mind of Christ. However, there is this struggle with the old nature, which constantly wrestles for control.
So you, for example, state with confidence: I have the Spirit of Christ, I have the Mind of Christ. I know that Christ loves this person. I will act lovingly towards this person, while praying that the Lord will release from deep within my heart (in which He dwells) the genuine flood of love He has for this person. I will pray that He will help me to own that love, so that the love will flow from Jesus and me. In the meantime, I will not continue to sin against this person by treating them in an unloving way, and I will not continue to grieve the Lord by sinning and treating someone He loves in an unloving manner.
How would it be, then, if God's agape towards you was one merely of choice, but not of genuine heart love? He really doesn't like you that much, but since being loving towards you is "the right thing to do," He does it? Exactly. Now you see my point.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Discerning God's Will
It seems to me that God, being sovereign, will accomplish what He desires whether people are seeking out His will on a specific issue or not. Genesis 50 is proof of that. Even when people intend to do what they know is wrong on the grand scale of Right and Wrong, as well as the specific circumstances they are currently involved in (ergo: Wrong to throw people in pits and sell them to slave traders, in general; and specifically wrong to throw my own brother in a pit and then sell him away; neither of these things could be considered in keeping with God's moral will, or His desire, or His specific will for each of those individuals). God sovereignly works out all human decisions and activity according to what He intends to accomplish.
So from the aerial view, it seems to me that many people are comfortable with having what is currently termed "a personal relationship with God." This personal relationship includes conversation, action and response on both sides, and specific discussion about specific circumstances. The council in Acts 15 seemed to think they could bring a specific issue to God for direction, and they seemed satisfied that God had given them some very specific instructions in response.
It seems uncharitable to dismiss the reality of this form of relating with God as being "unbiblical" when, in fact, scripture does speak of this kind of relationship. So what if the people featured in these passages are "movie greats"? Their stories are given to us anonymous followers of God for our encouragement and for us to learn from.
Continuing with the aerial view there also are clearly many others who do not believe such a personal, individual dialogue exists, or even can exist, between God and a human being. Instead it is believed only general guidance, already published in the Bible, is given. God is no less sovereign, or hampered in any way, in accomplishing His ends with these people, either.
Is it the concept of freedom that seems at stake?
Is it maybe this idea that one group is "right" and the other is "wrong" (and I don't want to be in the "wrong" group)?
Is this truly a question that can be answered with scripture alone? And if the answer to that query is yes, then the next question is: in what way? Are we looking for a definitive verse that will settle this question once and for all (the systematic theology approach, which is admittedly very attractive)?
Or can this question be answered by scripture in the studying of a person's whole life experience with God? We all agree Moses had a unique relationship with God, but what kind of unique? Unique in that God didn't want to hang with anybody else quite like that ever again? In the case of the 70 elders (Numbers 11), God was going to give those men what He had given Moses. Presumably they would also be able to commune with God as Moses did. The high priest had the Urim and Thummim, a method used to get a specific answer from the Lord on a specific matter.
Teleport to the New Testament, and you have God pouring His Spirit out indiscriminately on everyone who would believe, and methods for discerning God's specific will in a specific matter (casting lots was one of them, since Proverbs 16:33 says the decision for every cast of the lot is in His hands; but also prayer, visions, dreams, others' words when spoken in the Spirit and so on).
What's the purpose of God's Spirit, then? Apparently the Holy Spirit not only seals us to God in salvation, He also intercedes through us and testifies to our spirit. Only for salvation? I think the Lord is nonplussed by whatever answer one gives to that. You can either look for His direction, or you can be guided without looking for it or even sensing it. People who nothing of God -- such as the slave traders in Genesis 50, the person who bought Joseph, the jail keeper and other inmates, and so on, and so on -- were all guided by God's will, whether they asked for it, sensed it, knew of it, or even cared.
And still, those who have been given God's Spirit, what a luscious condition.
As to the "dot" that many speak of as representing the center of God's will for an individual. It seems to me, if we are going to believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-good...then doesn't it seem possible that He can keep track of 6.6 billion people at one time, and make sure they follow His dots? It is simply a more enjoyable experience, and a fuller one, and a more fruitful one, if we can have some sense of cooperating with what God is doing.
Personally, since I am a mother, I believe God is intensely interested in every detail of every aspect of every person He's ever made. What's more, I believe He is available and interested in providing direction for every single thing any of His children bring to Him. I recognize the tension that exists between God's sovereign will, His moral will (as published in the Bible) and His desires, which He has also made plain. And I still believe that God can and does give specific direction when asked.
At the same time, I don't believe there is a "wrong" group and a "right" group, or a more scriptural or a less scriptural way in decision-making. I believe that these are tertiary issues and can comfortably coexist under the great banner of God's love.
So from the aerial view, it seems to me that many people are comfortable with having what is currently termed "a personal relationship with God." This personal relationship includes conversation, action and response on both sides, and specific discussion about specific circumstances. The council in Acts 15 seemed to think they could bring a specific issue to God for direction, and they seemed satisfied that God had given them some very specific instructions in response.
It seems uncharitable to dismiss the reality of this form of relating with God as being "unbiblical" when, in fact, scripture does speak of this kind of relationship. So what if the people featured in these passages are "movie greats"? Their stories are given to us anonymous followers of God for our encouragement and for us to learn from.
Continuing with the aerial view there also are clearly many others who do not believe such a personal, individual dialogue exists, or even can exist, between God and a human being. Instead it is believed only general guidance, already published in the Bible, is given. God is no less sovereign, or hampered in any way, in accomplishing His ends with these people, either.
Is it the concept of freedom that seems at stake?
Is it maybe this idea that one group is "right" and the other is "wrong" (and I don't want to be in the "wrong" group)?
Is this truly a question that can be answered with scripture alone? And if the answer to that query is yes, then the next question is: in what way? Are we looking for a definitive verse that will settle this question once and for all (the systematic theology approach, which is admittedly very attractive)?
Or can this question be answered by scripture in the studying of a person's whole life experience with God? We all agree Moses had a unique relationship with God, but what kind of unique? Unique in that God didn't want to hang with anybody else quite like that ever again? In the case of the 70 elders (Numbers 11), God was going to give those men what He had given Moses. Presumably they would also be able to commune with God as Moses did. The high priest had the Urim and Thummim, a method used to get a specific answer from the Lord on a specific matter.
Teleport to the New Testament, and you have God pouring His Spirit out indiscriminately on everyone who would believe, and methods for discerning God's specific will in a specific matter (casting lots was one of them, since Proverbs 16:33 says the decision for every cast of the lot is in His hands; but also prayer, visions, dreams, others' words when spoken in the Spirit and so on).
What's the purpose of God's Spirit, then? Apparently the Holy Spirit not only seals us to God in salvation, He also intercedes through us and testifies to our spirit. Only for salvation? I think the Lord is nonplussed by whatever answer one gives to that. You can either look for His direction, or you can be guided without looking for it or even sensing it. People who nothing of God -- such as the slave traders in Genesis 50, the person who bought Joseph, the jail keeper and other inmates, and so on, and so on -- were all guided by God's will, whether they asked for it, sensed it, knew of it, or even cared.
And still, those who have been given God's Spirit, what a luscious condition.
As to the "dot" that many speak of as representing the center of God's will for an individual. It seems to me, if we are going to believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-good...then doesn't it seem possible that He can keep track of 6.6 billion people at one time, and make sure they follow His dots? It is simply a more enjoyable experience, and a fuller one, and a more fruitful one, if we can have some sense of cooperating with what God is doing.
Personally, since I am a mother, I believe God is intensely interested in every detail of every aspect of every person He's ever made. What's more, I believe He is available and interested in providing direction for every single thing any of His children bring to Him. I recognize the tension that exists between God's sovereign will, His moral will (as published in the Bible) and His desires, which He has also made plain. And I still believe that God can and does give specific direction when asked.
At the same time, I don't believe there is a "wrong" group and a "right" group, or a more scriptural or a less scriptural way in decision-making. I believe that these are tertiary issues and can comfortably coexist under the great banner of God's love.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
What is "legitimate" revelation from God?
Some feel that the Bible is the only way God communicates with people today. There are, of course, a spectrum of opinions that ride in this camp -- from those who feel that God will give some form, or sense, of peace or understanding as one reads the Bible, to those who say that there is no supernatural communication whatsoever with God, now that the Bible has been published.
On the other side of the room are those who feel that the Bible is really only supplementary to God's revelation of Himself to a believer's mind, heart, spirit and even actual eyes and ears. Naturally, there is a spectrum of opinions on this side too, from those who receive an occasional "word" from God to those who have entire visions, hear God's audible voice, and see angels as well as other supernatural manifestations.
What's to be done with such a wide array of opinions on God's revelation? The Bible itself indicates that God has revealed Himself in all these ways, in the past. But what about today?
Can the Bible speak to today concerning the matter of God's revelation to this current generation, and does the Bible inform us on how to understand what seems to be revelation?
The short answer is "sort of."
"Sola Scriptura" is a tough call when theologians weigh in with scripture supporting conflicting theologies.
However, the apostle Paul does say that "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children" (Romans 8:16). That would be parabiblical revelation.
The writer of Hebrews, after attesting to the fact that God testified to the gospel "by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" in a time previous to the writing of Hebrews,(Hebrews 2:4), brought his testimony to his current time by saying, "The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this." (Hebrews 10:15) More parabiblical revelation.
Finally, a cryptic instruction from the apostle John asks us to "not believe every spirit, but [to] test the spirits to see whether they are from God."(1 John 4:1) Presumably the Spirit Who inspired the scriptures has already been vetted. The apostle John must therefore be referring to other, not-the-Bible forms of revelation that can be counterfeited.
My own earliest memories of the Lord Jesus Christ could be termed parabiblical. How do I integrate this early experience with the teaching of those who say that the Lord does not interact in a supernatural way with His followers?
“I’ll tell you what he is. He’s the devil really...and not a right blacksmith; for the Devil takes the shape of wicked men, and walks about and sets people doing wicked things....” George Eliot, The Mill On The Floss
“It’s the circle of life,” my mother told me. I was puzzled. To me life was a line: birth, life, death. I saw no circle. But I was charmed that my mother wanted to teach me something, so I asked her how the picture she was holding could represent the circle of life. “You see,” she said, “The flower opens up to the sunshine, blossoms, then wilts and dies. But the next year it comes up out of the ground again, alive. This is how Reverend Moon is. He is the Messiah. Jesus died, but True Father is Jesus, alive again.”
I knew this was certainly not true. In the many times that my mother had locked me in the closet for hours (and even a night and a day) to contemplate how bad I was, the real Jesus had come to stay with me. Though the closet was so dark I couldn’t see where my body ended and the floor began, nor where the walls were, nor even see my own hands, when Jesus came the whole closet was filled with sunshine. He was beautiful, his long white robes radiant with a soft, diffused light, and when he held me and talked to me, I could see myself.
“No,” Jesus told me, “that man in the picture is not me. He is pretending, and he is a very bad man.” I agreed.
My mother would often make me hold a fast. Food was the reward for worshiping the picture, so I decided that I did not want to eat. When my father was home, he would give me food every day, and my mother never put me in the closet. But usually my father was gone, far away to Germany, to earn money by singing. He was a singer, but in Italy only Italians can earn their living by singing. He was Italian, but he was really an American, so he had to go away to sing.
After a while Doris, one of the first western Sun Myung Moon disciples, and now a leader in Sun Myung Moon's European campaign, came to live with us. She was my mother’s keeper, making sure she did everything right. My mother pretended that Doris was her friend, but I could see that Doris ruled my mother, never letting her out of sight. Doris felt I was very bad and she punished me often. “Do you want to be bald?” she would scream, holding the scissors in my face. She did not like me.
One day Doris told my mother, “She has to worship True Father. You must make her. This can’t go on.” So my mother took me by one arm, and Doris took me by the other. We walked together to the living room. I could hear our footsteps make loud, hollow sounds on the wood floor. There was no furniture in the living room, only white walls, windows with white curtains, and the picture of the bad man who pretended to be Jesus.
“Look at the picture!” But I turned my head away. Closer and closer we walked, my mother on one side, and Doris on the other. Finally we stopped, right in front of the picture. It was nailed to the wall, closer to the ground, so that if I looked I would see it not far above my head. “Pray to True Father!!” But I pressed my lips together, and kept my eyes tight closed.
My mother began to push down on my shoulder, and Doris on my other shoulder. I stood for as long as I could until they forced me to my knees. But inside my spirit was not kneeling.
When I was made to endure far worse experiences than this, another self emerged who was stronger than me. She would endure for me while I would curl up inside myself and hide. After these very bad times, I would become aware after the worst was over, and I would be alone. Broken, bleeding and hurting, I would creep back to my room, and find Jesus there, on my bed, waiting to take me in His arms. "You are a good girl" He would tell me "And I love you." I believed Him, and not the people who hurt me.
I wished that my other self would come help me now, as she had done before when bad things happened to me. But she did not come, and I was still there, being pressed to the ground. I would have to stay aware and fight, all on my own. Their fingers pried at my eyes, and I could no longer keep them closed, but I did not look at the picture. My seeing was for Jesus. I made no sound when they hit me because I would not let the picture hear my voice. My voice was for Jesus. “We can’t leave a mark on her, John will see it,” my mother said. Maybe my father would come home soon.
My other self never came back. She never came back to me after that day. I guessed I was strong enough, now that I was six. I would need to be strong for these last months in Italy.
“...for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds...” Apostle Paul, The Bible
On the other side of the room are those who feel that the Bible is really only supplementary to God's revelation of Himself to a believer's mind, heart, spirit and even actual eyes and ears. Naturally, there is a spectrum of opinions on this side too, from those who receive an occasional "word" from God to those who have entire visions, hear God's audible voice, and see angels as well as other supernatural manifestations.
What's to be done with such a wide array of opinions on God's revelation? The Bible itself indicates that God has revealed Himself in all these ways, in the past. But what about today?
Can the Bible speak to today concerning the matter of God's revelation to this current generation, and does the Bible inform us on how to understand what seems to be revelation?
The short answer is "sort of."
"Sola Scriptura" is a tough call when theologians weigh in with scripture supporting conflicting theologies.
However, the apostle Paul does say that "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children" (Romans 8:16). That would be parabiblical revelation.
The writer of Hebrews, after attesting to the fact that God testified to the gospel "by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" in a time previous to the writing of Hebrews,(Hebrews 2:4), brought his testimony to his current time by saying, "The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this." (Hebrews 10:15) More parabiblical revelation.
Finally, a cryptic instruction from the apostle John asks us to "not believe every spirit, but [to] test the spirits to see whether they are from God."(1 John 4:1) Presumably the Spirit Who inspired the scriptures has already been vetted. The apostle John must therefore be referring to other, not-the-Bible forms of revelation that can be counterfeited.
My own earliest memories of the Lord Jesus Christ could be termed parabiblical. How do I integrate this early experience with the teaching of those who say that the Lord does not interact in a supernatural way with His followers?
“I’ll tell you what he is. He’s the devil really...and not a right blacksmith; for the Devil takes the shape of wicked men, and walks about and sets people doing wicked things....” George Eliot, The Mill On The Floss
“It’s the circle of life,” my mother told me. I was puzzled. To me life was a line: birth, life, death. I saw no circle. But I was charmed that my mother wanted to teach me something, so I asked her how the picture she was holding could represent the circle of life. “You see,” she said, “The flower opens up to the sunshine, blossoms, then wilts and dies. But the next year it comes up out of the ground again, alive. This is how Reverend Moon is. He is the Messiah. Jesus died, but True Father is Jesus, alive again.”
I knew this was certainly not true. In the many times that my mother had locked me in the closet for hours (and even a night and a day) to contemplate how bad I was, the real Jesus had come to stay with me. Though the closet was so dark I couldn’t see where my body ended and the floor began, nor where the walls were, nor even see my own hands, when Jesus came the whole closet was filled with sunshine. He was beautiful, his long white robes radiant with a soft, diffused light, and when he held me and talked to me, I could see myself.
“No,” Jesus told me, “that man in the picture is not me. He is pretending, and he is a very bad man.” I agreed.
My mother would often make me hold a fast. Food was the reward for worshiping the picture, so I decided that I did not want to eat. When my father was home, he would give me food every day, and my mother never put me in the closet. But usually my father was gone, far away to Germany, to earn money by singing. He was a singer, but in Italy only Italians can earn their living by singing. He was Italian, but he was really an American, so he had to go away to sing.
After a while Doris, one of the first western Sun Myung Moon disciples, and now a leader in Sun Myung Moon's European campaign, came to live with us. She was my mother’s keeper, making sure she did everything right. My mother pretended that Doris was her friend, but I could see that Doris ruled my mother, never letting her out of sight. Doris felt I was very bad and she punished me often. “Do you want to be bald?” she would scream, holding the scissors in my face. She did not like me.
One day Doris told my mother, “She has to worship True Father. You must make her. This can’t go on.” So my mother took me by one arm, and Doris took me by the other. We walked together to the living room. I could hear our footsteps make loud, hollow sounds on the wood floor. There was no furniture in the living room, only white walls, windows with white curtains, and the picture of the bad man who pretended to be Jesus.
“Look at the picture!” But I turned my head away. Closer and closer we walked, my mother on one side, and Doris on the other. Finally we stopped, right in front of the picture. It was nailed to the wall, closer to the ground, so that if I looked I would see it not far above my head. “Pray to True Father!!” But I pressed my lips together, and kept my eyes tight closed.
My mother began to push down on my shoulder, and Doris on my other shoulder. I stood for as long as I could until they forced me to my knees. But inside my spirit was not kneeling.
When I was made to endure far worse experiences than this, another self emerged who was stronger than me. She would endure for me while I would curl up inside myself and hide. After these very bad times, I would become aware after the worst was over, and I would be alone. Broken, bleeding and hurting, I would creep back to my room, and find Jesus there, on my bed, waiting to take me in His arms. "You are a good girl" He would tell me "And I love you." I believed Him, and not the people who hurt me.
I wished that my other self would come help me now, as she had done before when bad things happened to me. But she did not come, and I was still there, being pressed to the ground. I would have to stay aware and fight, all on my own. Their fingers pried at my eyes, and I could no longer keep them closed, but I did not look at the picture. My seeing was for Jesus. I made no sound when they hit me because I would not let the picture hear my voice. My voice was for Jesus. “We can’t leave a mark on her, John will see it,” my mother said. Maybe my father would come home soon.
My other self never came back. She never came back to me after that day. I guessed I was strong enough, now that I was six. I would need to be strong for these last months in Italy.
“...for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds...” Apostle Paul, The Bible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
