An interesting passage in Romans 6:14... " for sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law but under grace." So If you are under grace, through faith in Christ Jesus, you will follow Jesus. Jesus has said, as recorded in the gospels, a lesson that there will be some or many who will come to the gate and claim they preached and healed and performed miracles in Jesus name, and yet God will say that he never knew them. How could that be? Did they not follow?
What were they following? an idea in their head? or the real Son of God? Were they trying to fit the category, or was the spirit truly working in their hearts? Was their following a matter of duty and performance, or was it a matter of love?
Jesus said to follow, you had to give everything you have. Money, time, effort, purpose, direction, desire. Or maybe be prepared to give everything you have? To do so willingly and not reluctantly?
Maybe it is to demonstrate the grace that Christ gave to us. To forgive as he forgave, and because He forgave our much larger debt.
But the answer is not the same for everyone; it is a matter of the heart.
And God knows the ways of the heart, while we see only the outward things.
This verse is often used out of context. Yet it does convey the truth, that we are judged by the same standards we judge others. So when you judge the actions of others, be careful and ready to repent yourself as well.
If this verse is taken out of context, then Jesus, the apostle Paul, Peter have all broken this command/advice. Think especially of Peter's role in judging Annanias and Sapphira, or Paul's action in judging Peter for separating himself from gentiles, or Paul's command for the church to cast out or separate itself from the man who was committing adultery. In context, judgements should be careful, loving, truthful, and humble, and more about the actions than about someone's heart.
Today I heard something about the USA supreme court redefining marriage. And in the process, innocent Christians are being persecuted, fined and prosecuted for exercising their religious freedom. Are the democrats doing anything to reverse that? To protect these issues of conscience? Are they speaking out against it? Are they promoting judges who take a more reasonable view of the US constitution?
If not, are Democrats still a viable option for Christians? Shouldn't they support politicians who at least honor God with their lips, rather than deny his claims to His very face?
And compare their stand on abortion, the murder, desecreation and genocide of innocent preborn human beings. Does not this also call into question any support by Christians of a Democrat party that promotes and funds institutions such as PLanned Parenthood, whose main business and funding stream is for abortion?
In all of this we are forgetting a few things. Trump appealed to people on a whole bunch of populist ideas and concerns. He fought his campaign not on the basis of California liberalism, but on mid-west conservatism. But for years, politicians have been ignoring the plight of the unborn who are murdered at will. It is a more significant issue than terrorism since the number of human beings, black, white, hispanic, who are destroyed by abortion is vastly greater than any other deliberate cause of death. So if judges are appointed who can respect life, who can put limits to this carnage, then christians and muslims and other decent human beings ought to support that. And Trump's withdrawal of support for Planned Parenthood alone would give him a tremendous amount of room to make mistakes in other areas. In addition, although Trump's personal life is by no means ideal with his divorces etc., nevertheless if he supports traditional marriage and family values, especially in his later life, or at least politically, then that is a very important consideration.
He has stated a very definitive support for legal hispanic immigrants, as well as for blacks and other minorities. His own wife is an immigrant, which speaks as loudly as any thing he has said. It is possible that if a convincing argument is made regarding harmlessness of vetted immigrants that he will reduce or reverse his strong stance on that issue. But remember that he is a politician trying to keep his promises made on the campaign trail, not a politican who was intentionally lying the whole time.
He will have difficulty with the health care issue also, but that is a whole 'nuther matter.
In his entire campaign, Trump vilified his opponents, some of whom later refused to vote for him in the Presidential election. (ie. the Bush family). Many Rep were talking of voting against their party. In the end, Trump convinced most that he wanted to unite the party, that bygones are bygones, and he even appointed some of his most vociferous opponents to cabinet posts. You forget that if both parties simply spout the same lines, there is no reason to have two or three parties at all. It remains to be seen if Trump's vision will work out, but many christians were convinced that with all its foibles, it was still a better option than the alternative.
One way to prepare more people is to stop using the term "liturgist". Such a word obscures what is really being done. To have more people pray, or bless the people, or lead the singing, or lead a responsive prayer or praise, is what is really being done. To be a worship leader, or service leader, prayer leader, or song leader during the service... or to read scripture... or present a message... such is what is being done. When put in those terms, the scope of the task, and the purpose of the task is clear. It is not about "liturgy".
How about if we read scripture not through the lens of our culture, or the lens of the Jewish culture, nor through the lens of the Greek culture, but through the lens of the gospel? Then we will not get lost in an either-or proposition for community vs individualism, but rather embrace both. Jesus emphasized believing on him, and loving God and your neighbor with the clear direction that we must be born again. These things are not something the community can do for you, no matter how deeply you are imbedded in the community. On the other hand, Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches, part of the body of Christ the community of the body which is celebrated in communion. And then, the flip side, if the branch does not bear fruit, it will be pruned, and separated from community, separated from Christ... This is the community we ought to be concerned about. The rest is not about community vs individualism, but about obedience to what Christ would have us do in our relationships with others, as well as in our private closets.
Good article, Keith. Scripture indicates qualifications for elder, and I wonder how seriously the quality of "being able to teach" (teaching scripture, faith and life) is taken into consideration when potential elders are considered.
We should consider what "viable" means? In this article, viability is associated with finances to pay a preacher/pastor. Viability does not seem to address in this article, the various gifts within the congregation, or the ability to grow, or the community it serves, or the strength of conviction of the members, or alternative service mechanisms. Viability is also not compared or contrasted with usefulness, with need, with mission statement, in this article. Churches do not exist to support a pastor; they exist to unite the body of Christ, and to serve God in a community, as a community. A hundred members of which only half attend, and yet sufficient funds available, with debt free facilities, may still not be a viable church. Only a useful purpose makes it viable. In that case some churches with only 40 members may be more viable, especially if they have a higher attendance rate, including attendance by non-members.
Well said. It would be ironic if discovering that evolution is a fraud, would save more lives than an actual pro-life campaign. As I am reading Exodus 21 and 22 right now, and re-discovering all the laws and rules and guidelines for living, it is clear that being fair and considering the welfare of others is fundamental to those laws. Those laws were the foundation of most of our western civilization laws, and even find parallels in other eastern societies as well. Those rules included a need to care for the widow and orphan. Imbedded in those rules was this one: If two men are fighting, and accidentally injure a pregnant woman, and she gives birth prematurely, then if the child is healthy, only a payment of damages to the family (husband) will be required as he stipulates. But if injury results, then eye for eye, foot for foot, etc. The unborn child was treated with respect and consideration.
Under an evolutionary system, the weak and helpless are worth less than others, because the fit survive. Dramatically different ethics. This difference is well masked by rhetoric and fine sounding words, but it impacts how laws are made and enforced.
The thing I remember about the Spartan civilization of ancient Greece, was the common practicide of infanticide through deliberate neglect. If this world survives another thousand years, what will be remembered about our civilization is abortion of millions of children.
Posted in: Will the "Followers of Jesus" Please Stand Up?
An interesting passage in Romans 6:14... " for sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law but under grace." So If you are under grace, through faith in Christ Jesus, you will follow Jesus. Jesus has said, as recorded in the gospels, a lesson that there will be some or many who will come to the gate and claim they preached and healed and performed miracles in Jesus name, and yet God will say that he never knew them. How could that be? Did they not follow?
What were they following? an idea in their head? or the real Son of God? Were they trying to fit the category, or was the spirit truly working in their hearts? Was their following a matter of duty and performance, or was it a matter of love?
Jesus said to follow, you had to give everything you have. Money, time, effort, purpose, direction, desire. Or maybe be prepared to give everything you have? To do so willingly and not reluctantly?
Maybe it is to demonstrate the grace that Christ gave to us. To forgive as he forgave, and because He forgave our much larger debt.
But the answer is not the same for everyone; it is a matter of the heart.
And God knows the ways of the heart, while we see only the outward things.
Posted in: Scott Clark Talks about "The Most Abused Text in the Bible"
This verse is often used out of context. Yet it does convey the truth, that we are judged by the same standards we judge others. So when you judge the actions of others, be careful and ready to repent yourself as well.
If this verse is taken out of context, then Jesus, the apostle Paul, Peter have all broken this command/advice. Think especially of Peter's role in judging Annanias and Sapphira, or Paul's action in judging Peter for separating himself from gentiles, or Paul's command for the church to cast out or separate itself from the man who was committing adultery. In context, judgements should be careful, loving, truthful, and humble, and more about the actions than about someone's heart.
Posted in: One of the Marks of a True Church Is ...?
Good questions, John Span.
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
Today I heard something about the USA supreme court redefining marriage. And in the process, innocent Christians are being persecuted, fined and prosecuted for exercising their religious freedom. Are the democrats doing anything to reverse that? To protect these issues of conscience? Are they speaking out against it? Are they promoting judges who take a more reasonable view of the US constitution?
If not, are Democrats still a viable option for Christians? Shouldn't they support politicians who at least honor God with their lips, rather than deny his claims to His very face?
And compare their stand on abortion, the murder, desecreation and genocide of innocent preborn human beings. Does not this also call into question any support by Christians of a Democrat party that promotes and funds institutions such as PLanned Parenthood, whose main business and funding stream is for abortion?
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
In all of this we are forgetting a few things. Trump appealed to people on a whole bunch of populist ideas and concerns. He fought his campaign not on the basis of California liberalism, but on mid-west conservatism. But for years, politicians have been ignoring the plight of the unborn who are murdered at will. It is a more significant issue than terrorism since the number of human beings, black, white, hispanic, who are destroyed by abortion is vastly greater than any other deliberate cause of death. So if judges are appointed who can respect life, who can put limits to this carnage, then christians and muslims and other decent human beings ought to support that. And Trump's withdrawal of support for Planned Parenthood alone would give him a tremendous amount of room to make mistakes in other areas. In addition, although Trump's personal life is by no means ideal with his divorces etc., nevertheless if he supports traditional marriage and family values, especially in his later life, or at least politically, then that is a very important consideration.
He has stated a very definitive support for legal hispanic immigrants, as well as for blacks and other minorities. His own wife is an immigrant, which speaks as loudly as any thing he has said. It is possible that if a convincing argument is made regarding harmlessness of vetted immigrants that he will reduce or reverse his strong stance on that issue. But remember that he is a politician trying to keep his promises made on the campaign trail, not a politican who was intentionally lying the whole time.
He will have difficulty with the health care issue also, but that is a whole 'nuther matter.
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
In his entire campaign, Trump vilified his opponents, some of whom later refused to vote for him in the Presidential election. (ie. the Bush family). Many Rep were talking of voting against their party. In the end, Trump convinced most that he wanted to unite the party, that bygones are bygones, and he even appointed some of his most vociferous opponents to cabinet posts. You forget that if both parties simply spout the same lines, there is no reason to have two or three parties at all. It remains to be seen if Trump's vision will work out, but many christians were convinced that with all its foibles, it was still a better option than the alternative.
Posted in: The Evangelical Liturgist
One way to prepare more people is to stop using the term "liturgist". Such a word obscures what is really being done. To have more people pray, or bless the people, or lead the singing, or lead a responsive prayer or praise, is what is really being done. To be a worship leader, or service leader, prayer leader, or song leader during the service... or to read scripture... or present a message... such is what is being done. When put in those terms, the scope of the task, and the purpose of the task is clear. It is not about "liturgy".
Posted in: Five Christian Approaches to Islam: Another Look at Martin Accad's Proposal.
thankyou for your clear thinking and writing on this.
Posted in: Voluntary and Temporary Community
How about if we read scripture not through the lens of our culture, or the lens of the Jewish culture, nor through the lens of the Greek culture, but through the lens of the gospel? Then we will not get lost in an either-or proposition for community vs individualism, but rather embrace both. Jesus emphasized believing on him, and loving God and your neighbor with the clear direction that we must be born again. These things are not something the community can do for you, no matter how deeply you are imbedded in the community. On the other hand, Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches, part of the body of Christ the community of the body which is celebrated in communion. And then, the flip side, if the branch does not bear fruit, it will be pruned, and separated from community, separated from Christ... This is the community we ought to be concerned about. The rest is not about community vs individualism, but about obedience to what Christ would have us do in our relationships with others, as well as in our private closets.
Posted in: Are We Too Quick to Appoint Elders?
Good article, Keith. Scripture indicates qualifications for elder, and I wonder how seriously the quality of "being able to teach" (teaching scripture, faith and life) is taken into consideration when potential elders are considered.
Posted in: One Hundred
We should consider what "viable" means? In this article, viability is associated with finances to pay a preacher/pastor. Viability does not seem to address in this article, the various gifts within the congregation, or the ability to grow, or the community it serves, or the strength of conviction of the members, or alternative service mechanisms. Viability is also not compared or contrasted with usefulness, with need, with mission statement, in this article. Churches do not exist to support a pastor; they exist to unite the body of Christ, and to serve God in a community, as a community. A hundred members of which only half attend, and yet sufficient funds available, with debt free facilities, may still not be a viable church. Only a useful purpose makes it viable. In that case some churches with only 40 members may be more viable, especially if they have a higher attendance rate, including attendance by non-members.
Posted in: Slogan-eering for Life
Well said. It would be ironic if discovering that evolution is a fraud, would save more lives than an actual pro-life campaign. As I am reading Exodus 21 and 22 right now, and re-discovering all the laws and rules and guidelines for living, it is clear that being fair and considering the welfare of others is fundamental to those laws. Those laws were the foundation of most of our western civilization laws, and even find parallels in other eastern societies as well. Those rules included a need to care for the widow and orphan. Imbedded in those rules was this one: If two men are fighting, and accidentally injure a pregnant woman, and she gives birth prematurely, then if the child is healthy, only a payment of damages to the family (husband) will be required as he stipulates. But if injury results, then eye for eye, foot for foot, etc. The unborn child was treated with respect and consideration.
Under an evolutionary system, the weak and helpless are worth less than others, because the fit survive. Dramatically different ethics. This difference is well masked by rhetoric and fine sounding words, but it impacts how laws are made and enforced.
The thing I remember about the Spartan civilization of ancient Greece, was the common practicide of infanticide through deliberate neglect. If this world survives another thousand years, what will be remembered about our civilization is abortion of millions of children.