Monday, Jan in her blog, The View From Her posted on prayer. I told her how that brought back so many memories of all the goofy things I've heard people say over the years while talking to God.
There were the odd dinner time prayer phrases like, "we pray for the nourishing and strengthening of our bodies and us to Thy service," or "grant journey mercies." (Yet some of these same people thought "Now I lay me down to sleep" or "God is great, God is good..." were prayers of meaningless repetition.
In high school, I heard the daughter of a pastor pray, "Hey God it's me, [her nickname for herself]. How's it goin'?" The only problem with her informal prayer was that she didn't have much in the way of a relationship with Christ and was probably trying to tweak her listeners, including the One it was addressed to.
Last year, I blogged on the subject of prayer and included in the post a prayer that an Associate Pastor of ours prayed during a televised Thanksgiving service- "'Thy throne, Oh God is so great and powerful that should all the armies of the world should assail against Thee , Oh God, it should have as much effect as the faint mist on the distant Rock of Gilbraltar.' While the prayer was true, it did not reflect the way the man normally spoke or lived."
But I never really began analyzing prayers until I was involved in a nationally known student Christian campus group while I was in college. In our group, we had both brand new Christians and those who grew up in the church; there were liturigicals as well as charismatics. Each brought their own culturally-shaped style of conversing with God to the group. Favorites were the "just prayers" -"we just want to thank You", we just ask...". Sometimes these were modified by "really" - "we just really want to thank You." My pet peeve was the people who used Jesus' name as a punctuation mark - "we thank You Jesus for being here,Jesus and we ask You, Jesus that You'd be with Sally, Jesus." Yikes!
Unfortunately, there was also a great deal of unspoken pressure to tailor one's public prayers to style of the majority -those that didn't pray like the rest of us weren't asked to pray out loud again until their prayer style conformed. Some of it was far more subtle -you'd hear all the girls in a particular discipleship chain using the same tone and phrases.
For example, I was in an introductory Bible Study led by a young lady who had gone on a Summer Short Term Mission to South Carolina. She came back with a Southern drawl that surfaced when she prayed out loud (she was a SoCal native, not someone with any accent normally). Soon, all the women in her advanced Bible Study also developed drawls when they prayed as well as her phrases she had picked up in the Carolinas. (I won't even go into the strange mannerisms they began to adopt.) Lord knows what they would've adopted if she had gone to Africa or Asia.
My take on all this was that people have a tendency to be more concerned with what others think and pray for their approval, rather than actually praying to and conversing with God. I'm so glad that He is not impressed (or even repulsed) by our words or lack of words.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Dating Jesus????
This was the title of an article posted on Christianity Today Online. Agnieszka Tennant, the author of this article, writes of the trend to take the "Jesus as the Bridegroom" too far. She tells of a popular book that speaks of women cooking dinner and setting the table for two - for the woman and her "date" Jesus. The rest of the article describes women who have taken their relationship with Christ to places that, at best, sound creepy.
I think it's great that someone would have an intense love for our Savior, but it is weird to turn that into a quasi-romantic "dating" relationship with Him.
I'd love to hear comments.
I think it's great that someone would have an intense love for our Savior, but it is weird to turn that into a quasi-romantic "dating" relationship with Him.
I'd love to hear comments.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Round and Round
Ok, here's my rant. Sometimes I really hate my life. This last month has been one of those times and also the reason I have not had much time to blog. I feel like I live in a Dilbert cartoon. My most recent mental torment has to do with a project that I'm working on.
Without going into any great detail on what the project is, suffice it to say that my job generally has little to do with what I learned in college and more to do with project management. Of course with any project, one must plan and track both cost and schedule. Anyone with familiarity with accounting will tell you that you use a spreadsheet (like Excel) to track costs and a schedule program (like Microsoft Project) to show schedule. A month ago, a Program Manager asked us to plan some activities over the next few months showing schedule and costs; I created a task list with hours in a spreadsheet (I followed the template he sent me) and used it to also create a schedule in Project.
"No, that's not it. You have too many hours worked in one month and not enough in the next. Spread out your tasks over the 4 months. Otherwise, just make it look like Mr. X's file, " said the Manager.
"That's all wrong," I was told by a Finance person, "you need to put the schedule into the spreadsheet" (where each column represents one week). "Forget the Project version, that's not what we wanted." So I spent the next few days transferring all the info into a different spreadsheet.
Yesterday, at a weekly status meeting, the Program Manager complained that the tasks were now not in chronological order and each task had durations longer than two weeks. Also why was I working on tasks not due to be started until January and hadn't finished anything else? My answers: you approved the format two weeks ago, you asked me to spread things out in order to bring the burn rate down and the supervisor told me he wanted me to do the January tasks now, not then (when do I have time to do anything but schedules and sheets?).So last night I was working on it until 9pm solving the first two problems and then e-mailed my response to the Finance and Program Leads.
This morning I received a call from a Scheduler, "where's your Project schedule for these tasks?"
"On the Excel spreadsheet where it is supposed to be, " I said.
"No, that's wrong -it needs to be in the Master Project Schedule, completely linked, task-to-task. I don't care about the spreadsheet."
ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH! (You can see where this is going...)
Without going into any great detail on what the project is, suffice it to say that my job generally has little to do with what I learned in college and more to do with project management. Of course with any project, one must plan and track both cost and schedule. Anyone with familiarity with accounting will tell you that you use a spreadsheet (like Excel) to track costs and a schedule program (like Microsoft Project) to show schedule. A month ago, a Program Manager asked us to plan some activities over the next few months showing schedule and costs; I created a task list with hours in a spreadsheet (I followed the template he sent me) and used it to also create a schedule in Project.
"No, that's not it. You have too many hours worked in one month and not enough in the next. Spread out your tasks over the 4 months. Otherwise, just make it look like Mr. X's file, " said the Manager.
"That's all wrong," I was told by a Finance person, "you need to put the schedule into the spreadsheet" (where each column represents one week). "Forget the Project version, that's not what we wanted." So I spent the next few days transferring all the info into a different spreadsheet.
Yesterday, at a weekly status meeting, the Program Manager complained that the tasks were now not in chronological order and each task had durations longer than two weeks. Also why was I working on tasks not due to be started until January and hadn't finished anything else? My answers: you approved the format two weeks ago, you asked me to spread things out in order to bring the burn rate down and the supervisor told me he wanted me to do the January tasks now, not then (when do I have time to do anything but schedules and sheets?).So last night I was working on it until 9pm solving the first two problems and then e-mailed my response to the Finance and Program Leads.
This morning I received a call from a Scheduler, "where's your Project schedule for these tasks?"
"On the Excel spreadsheet where it is supposed to be, " I said.
"No, that's wrong -it needs to be in the Master Project Schedule, completely linked, task-to-task. I don't care about the spreadsheet."
ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH! (You can see where this is going...)
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I'm Still Here
No, I haven't abandoned my blog, I 've just been indescribably busy -mostly with work. In my free time, I have been working on, as of last count, a 26 page history of my church as part of some info I'm sending to my pastor. Then there is our TFB February Women's Retreat -Group's Chocolate Boutique and I'm the Director of this. This retreat is a retreat in a box -a speaker is not required, but it does involve a lot of different women to staff it. Right now we are still in the recruiting/assigning roles phase, after which I will be less involved until the month of the event.
Anyway, I should be blogging more in the next few weeks. I have one blog post saved in draft form, I just need to finish it.
Anyway, I should be blogging more in the next few weeks. I have one blog post saved in draft form, I just need to finish it.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Perky and Alive
Yesterday, I was working away from my office in another building a few blocks away. I knew that I would be gone before I left work on Friday so I left a note asking my officemate Dave if he would feed my Betta fish when he got in to work on Monday. I was a little concerned about my fish since he seemed a little sluggish on Friday after I changed his water. As he had always been a healthy fish with a vigorous appetite, I attributed his sluggishness to the fact he had not slept well since workmen had changed the lighting in our cubicle earlier in the week, thereby increasing the brightness in his bowl threefold (Bettas need darkness to sleep since they have no eyelids). To help him sleep better, I shaded his bowl with some file folders before I left Friday night.
When I got a free moment yesterday, I called Dave to ask if he had completed a work task and also if he had fed the fish as I asked.
"Sure", Dave said, "I gave him his food first thing. He came right up to the top of the bowl -he was very 'perky', seemed real active."
"Great, because he was not so active on Friday, in fact I was a little worried that he wasn't doing so well," I responded hopefully.
"No, he's fine, he's swimming all around," he reassured me.
Several hours later, I returned to my office to find the "perky one" nose down and dead. As I fished him out of the bowl to send him to the porcelain fish mortuary for his "burial at sea", I noticed that, not only was he dead, but that he was in full rigor. After I came back from the restroom, I ran into another of my co-workers and told told him about Dave's pronouncement of the fish's vigor versus the reality of the dead fish that I had just flushed.
"You'll have to tell Dave how 'perky' and 'alive' he is; let's see if he takes that as a good sign based on how his definition of those terms turns out," he offered.
So this morning, I had to razz Dave about it -"feeling perky yet, Dave?"
We laughed all morning.
When I got a free moment yesterday, I called Dave to ask if he had completed a work task and also if he had fed the fish as I asked.
"Sure", Dave said, "I gave him his food first thing. He came right up to the top of the bowl -he was very 'perky', seemed real active."
"Great, because he was not so active on Friday, in fact I was a little worried that he wasn't doing so well," I responded hopefully.
"No, he's fine, he's swimming all around," he reassured me.
Several hours later, I returned to my office to find the "perky one" nose down and dead. As I fished him out of the bowl to send him to the porcelain fish mortuary for his "burial at sea", I noticed that, not only was he dead, but that he was in full rigor. After I came back from the restroom, I ran into another of my co-workers and told told him about Dave's pronouncement of the fish's vigor versus the reality of the dead fish that I had just flushed.
"You'll have to tell Dave how 'perky' and 'alive' he is; let's see if he takes that as a good sign based on how his definition of those terms turns out," he offered.
So this morning, I had to razz Dave about it -"feeling perky yet, Dave?"
We laughed all morning.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Gods And Generals
I have been discouraged lately, pondering the age-old dilemma of why God allows suffering when He has the power to intervene and halt said suffering. I've also been troubled why He seems to allow evildoers to prosper while I'm allowed to languish, sometimes at their doings. Where, I've wondered, is the justice in all this? This has been especially troubling to me when the evildoer claims to be acting at the direction of God Himself but reflects an attitude or a characteristic that is far from the heart of God. Of course, anyone who knows me, knows that I'm the "Fairness Czar" -in my mind everything has to be completely fair down to the slice of cake I'm splitting with someone else.
This past Labor Day weekend, I had the opportunity to stay mostly by myself at our Lake Arrowhead home, although my brother and his dog popped by Saturday night and left Sunday afternoon. My roommate Laura had gone with her college students on a retreat and so there I was watching DVDs, resting, cleaning, and praying/complaining to God. As I mentioned, my brother came up Saturday night and so we decided to watch the DVD, "Gods and Generals". This is a four hour long Civil War drama, largely focusing on the life and death of Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, a devout Christian man. It recreates the bloody battle of Fredricksburgh in which the Union troops marched up a hill in an open field only to be massacred by Confederate rifleman and artillery shooting from behind the stonewall at the top of the hill.
One of the things that struck about this story was that on one side you have Stonewall Jackson praying fervently for God's blessing and protection in battle -he saw the war as the "Second War for Independence" and that he was defending his state from the tyranny and oppression of the Northerners. He attributed battle victories to God's divine providence and direct answers to prayer, even comparing his situation to Joshua fighting the Amalekites. He felt it was God's will to "kill every last one of the invaders." In contrast, Colonel Chamberlain of the Union Army, another devout believer, is shown writing to his wife about the "justness" of his Maine battalion's battle to preserve the Union. In one scene, Chamberlain explains to his younger brother that "while I don't doubt the integrity of the Southerners" who view this war as the means of protecting their homeland and freedom, "I take issue with those that would fight for their own freedom while denying the same to a whole race of men."
I had this epiphany - here were two men, both sincerely believed that God was directing them in their endeavors, both felt that he would bless and give victory, both prayed and sought God's guidance. One saw the slaughter of hundreds of his comrades, mostly due to the stubbornness of the commanding Union general, Ambrose Burnside while the other is later killed by friendly fire while riding to safety after a victorious battle. Whose prayer did God answer? Whose petition did He favor? This helped me immensely in my struggle because I often have opponents who believe that they are just as right, they are just as godly in what they are attempting to do (sometimes they think that they are even more right or more godly in their actions and thoughts.)
The problem is that we can be fully convinced of the "rightness" of our beliefs but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily in line with God's plan. One hundred forty-five years later, we can judge that Jackson's assessment of God's will for the North and the South was wrong, but how do we know in the moment? A person might be fully convinced in his own mind that what he is doing "is good, acceptable and perfect", but how can he really know for sure? Self-deception is an easy trap to fall into -this is what I want, what makes me happy and of course, God wants all that for me too. You can follow all the "right steps" in trying to determine God's will -reading the Bible, praying, asking the godly advice of others and still come to a wrong conclusion.
I would bring some additional caveats to this process:
1. Does what I'm about to do help or harm the message of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God? What will my Christian witness be like among the lost if I were to get "my way"?
2. God's says that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. So does what we are comtemplating sound like mere human reasoning? Is it about feeding the appetites of our flesh and/or stroking our own ego? Don't try to twist Scripture to justify these things.
3. How does what I am planning affect my fellow believers? Are they edified by my actions? Brought closer in relationship to God and others?
4. How do I now feel about those with a contrary view? Can I disagree agreeably or must I persuade them to adopt my side or else?
5. God is sovereign and He sees all. He sees what I and my opponents do not. Life has taught me much over the years. God has used life to school me and give me wisdom I did not have years ago. Younger ones (not necessarily chronological age, but young in spiritual experience) still need to endure that process themselves in order to gain it as well.
6. Sometimes people are just plain evil -their hearts are devising wicked schemes. They only care about themselves. Avoid these people. Know that one day, they will get theirs.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12 (NIV)
This past Labor Day weekend, I had the opportunity to stay mostly by myself at our Lake Arrowhead home, although my brother and his dog popped by Saturday night and left Sunday afternoon. My roommate Laura had gone with her college students on a retreat and so there I was watching DVDs, resting, cleaning, and praying/complaining to God. As I mentioned, my brother came up Saturday night and so we decided to watch the DVD, "Gods and Generals". This is a four hour long Civil War drama, largely focusing on the life and death of Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, a devout Christian man. It recreates the bloody battle of Fredricksburgh in which the Union troops marched up a hill in an open field only to be massacred by Confederate rifleman and artillery shooting from behind the stonewall at the top of the hill.
One of the things that struck about this story was that on one side you have Stonewall Jackson praying fervently for God's blessing and protection in battle -he saw the war as the "Second War for Independence" and that he was defending his state from the tyranny and oppression of the Northerners. He attributed battle victories to God's divine providence and direct answers to prayer, even comparing his situation to Joshua fighting the Amalekites. He felt it was God's will to "kill every last one of the invaders." In contrast, Colonel Chamberlain of the Union Army, another devout believer, is shown writing to his wife about the "justness" of his Maine battalion's battle to preserve the Union. In one scene, Chamberlain explains to his younger brother that "while I don't doubt the integrity of the Southerners" who view this war as the means of protecting their homeland and freedom, "I take issue with those that would fight for their own freedom while denying the same to a whole race of men."
I had this epiphany - here were two men, both sincerely believed that God was directing them in their endeavors, both felt that he would bless and give victory, both prayed and sought God's guidance. One saw the slaughter of hundreds of his comrades, mostly due to the stubbornness of the commanding Union general, Ambrose Burnside while the other is later killed by friendly fire while riding to safety after a victorious battle. Whose prayer did God answer? Whose petition did He favor? This helped me immensely in my struggle because I often have opponents who believe that they are just as right, they are just as godly in what they are attempting to do (sometimes they think that they are even more right or more godly in their actions and thoughts.)
The problem is that we can be fully convinced of the "rightness" of our beliefs but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily in line with God's plan. One hundred forty-five years later, we can judge that Jackson's assessment of God's will for the North and the South was wrong, but how do we know in the moment? A person might be fully convinced in his own mind that what he is doing "is good, acceptable and perfect", but how can he really know for sure? Self-deception is an easy trap to fall into -this is what I want, what makes me happy and of course, God wants all that for me too. You can follow all the "right steps" in trying to determine God's will -reading the Bible, praying, asking the godly advice of others and still come to a wrong conclusion.
I would bring some additional caveats to this process:
1. Does what I'm about to do help or harm the message of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God? What will my Christian witness be like among the lost if I were to get "my way"?
2. God's says that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. So does what we are comtemplating sound like mere human reasoning? Is it about feeding the appetites of our flesh and/or stroking our own ego? Don't try to twist Scripture to justify these things.
3. How does what I am planning affect my fellow believers? Are they edified by my actions? Brought closer in relationship to God and others?
4. How do I now feel about those with a contrary view? Can I disagree agreeably or must I persuade them to adopt my side or else?
5. God is sovereign and He sees all. He sees what I and my opponents do not. Life has taught me much over the years. God has used life to school me and give me wisdom I did not have years ago. Younger ones (not necessarily chronological age, but young in spiritual experience) still need to endure that process themselves in order to gain it as well.
6. Sometimes people are just plain evil -their hearts are devising wicked schemes. They only care about themselves. Avoid these people. Know that one day, they will get theirs.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12 (NIV)
Friday, August 25, 2006
August
I can be so well-intentioned about blogging regularly and then before I know it, a month has gone by without a single posting. It's not that this has been an uneventful month - I spent a week at Junior Camp and work has had its own challenges as well. There's been some interesting current events that were worthy of commentary and other issues that needed some blog-ranting.
I think that this is a reflection of information overload in my brain thwarting my ability to get it typed out into the blog - I hesitate to blog if I don't have the exact words to express the moment or feeling I've experienced. Sometimes the sheer volume of information interferes with my blogging skills; I want to be concise, but have no clue how to do so.
So here's my short and sweet summary of the last few weeks:
Jr.Camp - awesome speaker in Arol McFadden; Karla-great job of worship leading; my tech stuff -glitch-free for once; weather -fabulous; children- generous in supporting their mission projects, funny, spiritually challenged; pictures can be seen at the Lightseekers website.
Work-another round of customer presentations done, yet another set next month.
Church -same stuff, but with some new opportunities coming soon.
Miscellaneous - some bad news that I rather not discuss right now. The bad people in my life and out in the world are still bad -they have yet to repent or be visited with divine retribution (darn). I would characterize my life as pretty good. No, I'm not suddenly rich, famous, popular or drop -dead gorgeous (all that's okay) nor have become Mother Theresa or Billy Graham either (that's all right too, but I do desire to reflect more Christ-like character).
Anyway, there you have my month. Maybe now I won't wait so long to post something because I waiting to craft "the special blog post."
I think that this is a reflection of information overload in my brain thwarting my ability to get it typed out into the blog - I hesitate to blog if I don't have the exact words to express the moment or feeling I've experienced. Sometimes the sheer volume of information interferes with my blogging skills; I want to be concise, but have no clue how to do so.
So here's my short and sweet summary of the last few weeks:
Jr.Camp - awesome speaker in Arol McFadden; Karla-great job of worship leading; my tech stuff -glitch-free for once; weather -fabulous; children- generous in supporting their mission projects, funny, spiritually challenged; pictures can be seen at the Lightseekers website.
Work-another round of customer presentations done, yet another set next month.
Church -same stuff, but with some new opportunities coming soon.
Miscellaneous - some bad news that I rather not discuss right now. The bad people in my life and out in the world are still bad -they have yet to repent or be visited with divine retribution (darn). I would characterize my life as pretty good. No, I'm not suddenly rich, famous, popular or drop -dead gorgeous (all that's okay) nor have become Mother Theresa or Billy Graham either (that's all right too, but I do desire to reflect more Christ-like character).
Anyway, there you have my month. Maybe now I won't wait so long to post something because I waiting to craft "the special blog post."
Thursday, July 27, 2006
God Told Me
Yesterday, in my post about not having much to say, I mentioned how God speaks to my thoughts and it reminded me of a guy I once knew who went around claiming that God told him to do this or that. Now I do believe that God can speak to folks anyway He wants to, but I've always been a bit skeptical of those who had to interject "God told me..." into their conversation in order to add weight to their arguments.
An example of this was a guy who attended college with me. "Tom" and I used to ride the bus everyday to El Camino; we also hung out in the same group of friends, although I wouldn't describe our relationship as particularly close. He and I were the only Christians in the group, however and so we often talked about spiritual things.
One day, "Tom" came to me and asked me to pray for him as he was going to ask "Violet" to marry him. This shocked me in that I wasn't aware that he had been dating anyone -he was very shy and awkward, he seemed more afraid of women than anything else. But I was even more amazed at his reply; he hadn't yet ever asked her out but "had been told by God to marry her." "Had God given 'Violet' the same message?" I asked him. Unfortunately, she had not and so she recoiled in horror when "Tom" sprang his "message from God" on her. Undaunted, he tried his message from God on different girls including me, and as was the case with "Violet", I had not received a corresponding marriage vision.
Did God really speak to "Tom" and tell him to marry "Violet"? I haven't a clue what "Tom" heard or thought he heard from the Lord. I do know that his "message" was not confirmed by anyone else, particularly not by the one(s) most affected by his life changing proposal. The Bible teaches us that "plans fail without good advice, but they succeed with the advice of many others." (Proverbs 15:22, NCV) and "fools think they need no advice, but the wise listen to others." (Proverbs 12:15 NLT)
It may have been the most prudent course to ask some wise ones what they thought of this message from God - was it consistent with God's already revealed truth i.e. the Bible? did it help or hinder his walk with God? did it advance the cause of Christ? was he emotionally, spiritually and physically ready to be a husband and father? was his "vision" clouded by his own wish fulfillment and natural desires? [ A side note: most of the "real" instances (by real, I mean ones that, to me, seem credible) where people are/were spoken to directly by God had to do with the expansion of God's kingdom and the propagation of God's message of salvation, not with having his/her own physical needs met. It's more like, "go here and start a mission", "plant a church in this place", "talk to this person about the Gospel". Even the instances in the Bible where God warned someone to go/not to go someplace for their safety e.g. Balaam, the Wisemen, Joseph and Mary, there were bigger "kingdom issues" at work.]
In my estimation,"Tom's" awkwardness made it difficult to develop relationships with women the more traditional way and his walking around with the certainty that approaching a particular woman and proposing to her as being "God's will" was definitely a confidence booster. He also struggled with controlling his sexual desires and since marriage was the only legitimate outlet for those feelings, the sense of urgency to get married could have influenced his interpretation of God's will. ("It's better to marry than to burn [with lust]" was highlighted, but the same passage that encourages singles to remain singles so as "to better serve the Lord" was minimized in his mind. As was the command to exercise self-control...) He also ignored the fact that he was living at home with his mom, employed in a minimum wage job, without a car - not exactly a great foundation for starting a home or for him to be the provider.
This is where it can be so hard as Christians, we want so much to be where God wants us to be, but how often do we run ahead with our own desires first, hoping that somehow they all line up with what His will? The Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18)warns against presuming to speak in the name of the Lord. To do so falsely, was a capital offense in ancient Israel. Christians were instructed to test such messages and to reject bogus ones. For some issues, where God already has clearly spoken, it's a straightforward assessment; for other issues, it's less clear. That's where the collective wisdom of the body of Christ can prove most helpful - and not just the opinion of one or two like-minded friends, but also the input of people with different ideas and ways of thinking.
For one of the major decisions in my life, I sought the wise counsel of more than a dozen people. While I didn't end up taking every bit of advice that was given to me, I was able to construct a consensus from all of them that has proved to be a very good path. To be honest, the decision I arrived at in the end was quite different from my initial take on what I felt "God was telling me" to do. I'm glad that I wasn't so arrogant and stubborn to have chained myself to my "God told me" presumption and instead listened to the older, wiser words around me -it has turned out well.
An example of this was a guy who attended college with me. "Tom" and I used to ride the bus everyday to El Camino; we also hung out in the same group of friends, although I wouldn't describe our relationship as particularly close. He and I were the only Christians in the group, however and so we often talked about spiritual things.
One day, "Tom" came to me and asked me to pray for him as he was going to ask "Violet" to marry him. This shocked me in that I wasn't aware that he had been dating anyone -he was very shy and awkward, he seemed more afraid of women than anything else. But I was even more amazed at his reply; he hadn't yet ever asked her out but "had been told by God to marry her." "Had God given 'Violet' the same message?" I asked him. Unfortunately, she had not and so she recoiled in horror when "Tom" sprang his "message from God" on her. Undaunted, he tried his message from God on different girls including me, and as was the case with "Violet", I had not received a corresponding marriage vision.
Did God really speak to "Tom" and tell him to marry "Violet"? I haven't a clue what "Tom" heard or thought he heard from the Lord. I do know that his "message" was not confirmed by anyone else, particularly not by the one(s) most affected by his life changing proposal. The Bible teaches us that "plans fail without good advice, but they succeed with the advice of many others." (Proverbs 15:22, NCV) and "fools think they need no advice, but the wise listen to others." (Proverbs 12:15 NLT)
It may have been the most prudent course to ask some wise ones what they thought of this message from God - was it consistent with God's already revealed truth i.e. the Bible? did it help or hinder his walk with God? did it advance the cause of Christ? was he emotionally, spiritually and physically ready to be a husband and father? was his "vision" clouded by his own wish fulfillment and natural desires? [ A side note: most of the "real" instances (by real, I mean ones that, to me, seem credible) where people are/were spoken to directly by God had to do with the expansion of God's kingdom and the propagation of God's message of salvation, not with having his/her own physical needs met. It's more like, "go here and start a mission", "plant a church in this place", "talk to this person about the Gospel". Even the instances in the Bible where God warned someone to go/not to go someplace for their safety e.g. Balaam, the Wisemen, Joseph and Mary, there were bigger "kingdom issues" at work.]
In my estimation,"Tom's" awkwardness made it difficult to develop relationships with women the more traditional way and his walking around with the certainty that approaching a particular woman and proposing to her as being "God's will" was definitely a confidence booster. He also struggled with controlling his sexual desires and since marriage was the only legitimate outlet for those feelings, the sense of urgency to get married could have influenced his interpretation of God's will. ("It's better to marry than to burn [with lust]" was highlighted, but the same passage that encourages singles to remain singles so as "to better serve the Lord" was minimized in his mind. As was the command to exercise self-control...) He also ignored the fact that he was living at home with his mom, employed in a minimum wage job, without a car - not exactly a great foundation for starting a home or for him to be the provider.
This is where it can be so hard as Christians, we want so much to be where God wants us to be, but how often do we run ahead with our own desires first, hoping that somehow they all line up with what His will? The Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18)warns against presuming to speak in the name of the Lord. To do so falsely, was a capital offense in ancient Israel. Christians were instructed to test such messages and to reject bogus ones. For some issues, where God already has clearly spoken, it's a straightforward assessment; for other issues, it's less clear. That's where the collective wisdom of the body of Christ can prove most helpful - and not just the opinion of one or two like-minded friends, but also the input of people with different ideas and ways of thinking.
For one of the major decisions in my life, I sought the wise counsel of more than a dozen people. While I didn't end up taking every bit of advice that was given to me, I was able to construct a consensus from all of them that has proved to be a very good path. To be honest, the decision I arrived at in the end was quite different from my initial take on what I felt "God was telling me" to do. I'm glad that I wasn't so arrogant and stubborn to have chained myself to my "God told me" presumption and instead listened to the older, wiser words around me -it has turned out well.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Nothing To Write, A Lot To Think About
Looking at my blog, I realized that it's been more than a month since my last post.
It's not that my life has been all that boring these past few weeks, afterall, I enjoyed a lovely vacation (see my Flickr for the assorted pictures). Work was slow, but I had increased responsibility with my boss on bereavement for three weeks.
Last week was my church's Vacation Bible School and I was quite involved with the technical aspects of the opening and closing programs every evening.
Saturday, a few of us drove out to Covina for our Junior Camp counselor training and leadership meeting. The persistent heatwave made the trek nearly unbearable (107 degrees F).
Yesterday, I spent the morning at the hospital undergoing some testing. While it was largely painless (I was sedated throughout) and not a normal procedure for a person of my age, it helped to allay some of my fears I had concerning my health and whether I was actually facing a serious disease.
All of these "events" had varying types and degrees of emotion attached to them. Some were regular and routine; my vacation was relaxing and enjoyable. My hospital visit produced anxiety in anticipation of the unknown, then relief. Other experiences were frustrating, boring while another event gave a sense of accomplishment.
I could've blogged about any or all of them as they happened, yet I couldn't quite seem to find the words to write in the moment. Part of the reason I suppose is that I really am an analytic- if I can't analyze a situation to completion in my thoughts first, it will never make to paper (or in this case, to computer). My blog perhaps is an imperfect representaion of my walk with God -there are times that I have words to say to Him and sometimes we walk together quietly. In any case, He is always there and I am always thinking. He speaks to my thoughts (no I don't mean that God tells me this and that per se) and I listen. There are times when I pretend that my thoughts are my own, but that is ridiculous, of course He knows. And this is where the representation or the metaphor breaks down - my blog is limited by my exercise, or lack of exercise, of language, God of course is not. He knows the "thoughts and intents of my heart." My blog readers do not and are dependent on my writing truthfully to read what's inside me. So although much has happened, the language is/was not there.
It's not that my life has been all that boring these past few weeks, afterall, I enjoyed a lovely vacation (see my Flickr for the assorted pictures). Work was slow, but I had increased responsibility with my boss on bereavement for three weeks.
Last week was my church's Vacation Bible School and I was quite involved with the technical aspects of the opening and closing programs every evening.
Saturday, a few of us drove out to Covina for our Junior Camp counselor training and leadership meeting. The persistent heatwave made the trek nearly unbearable (107 degrees F).
Yesterday, I spent the morning at the hospital undergoing some testing. While it was largely painless (I was sedated throughout) and not a normal procedure for a person of my age, it helped to allay some of my fears I had concerning my health and whether I was actually facing a serious disease.
All of these "events" had varying types and degrees of emotion attached to them. Some were regular and routine; my vacation was relaxing and enjoyable. My hospital visit produced anxiety in anticipation of the unknown, then relief. Other experiences were frustrating, boring while another event gave a sense of accomplishment.
I could've blogged about any or all of them as they happened, yet I couldn't quite seem to find the words to write in the moment. Part of the reason I suppose is that I really am an analytic- if I can't analyze a situation to completion in my thoughts first, it will never make to paper (or in this case, to computer). My blog perhaps is an imperfect representaion of my walk with God -there are times that I have words to say to Him and sometimes we walk together quietly. In any case, He is always there and I am always thinking. He speaks to my thoughts (no I don't mean that God tells me this and that per se) and I listen. There are times when I pretend that my thoughts are my own, but that is ridiculous, of course He knows. And this is where the representation or the metaphor breaks down - my blog is limited by my exercise, or lack of exercise, of language, God of course is not. He knows the "thoughts and intents of my heart." My blog readers do not and are dependent on my writing truthfully to read what's inside me. So although much has happened, the language is/was not there.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Find Another Dating Pool
It seems there has been an "outbreak" recently of young female teachers getting caught having sex with their male students. The most infamous case from a few years ago was the Mary Kay LeTourneau trial, a married mother and middle school teacher who had an "affair" with her 6th grade student, a coupling that produced two children and sent her to prison for several years. Upon her release, she married her former student and the two are raising their two girls. LeTourneau seemed truly puzzled as to why society would condemn her for her choice of who she would "fall in love with" and wondered why there would be any taboo against such a loving relationship.
In the latest case, a 25 year old former beauty queen and high school teacher was arrested for having sex with her 18 year old male student. What's the problem? -they're both consenting adults, some might say. However, in Texas where these events took place, it is against the law for a teacher to have sex with a student of any age. Susan Estrich writes in her column for FoxNews,
While I normally disagree with a lot of what the liberal Estrich believes, I think she is right on in this opinion. I will even go so far as to state that most of the "power relationships" are, or at least should be, off limits - teacher/student, doctor/patient, therapist/patient, boss/employee, counselor/counselee, lawyer/client, etc. Some of these are already prohibited by the canons of ethics of the licensing/sanctioning body of the professional organizations involved -to go against these canons could mean loss of license and livelihood. Often colleges and universities have codes of conduct forbidding the romantic involvement of professors and students. Companies, wanting to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits and charges of nepotism, are more and more restricting such extracurricular relationships, often forcing one of the pair out of the same chain of command (of course the military has always done this for the sake of "morale"). In all these examples, subverting the restriction by pursuing the forbidden romantic relationship is considered, at the least unethical and often worthy of losing one's job over. Except...
This brings me to my pet peeve - pastors dating people to whom they've been hired to minister. I have read the ABC ministers code of conduct and other than stating that the pastor will not "not seek personal favors of discounts on the basis of my professional status" and will "maintain a disciplined ministry in such ways as keeping hours of prayer and devotions, endeavoring to maintain wholesome family relationships, sexual integrity, financial responsibility, regularly engaging in educational and recreational activities for professional and personal development..." I don't see a direct prohibition against dating one's parishioners, BUT THERE SHOULD BE. How is that a secular group such as the Psychological Association sees the value in prohibiting a therapist from dating someone under their care but a church with a college or young adult pastor working 10-15 hours a week ministering to students is not barred from dating one of them?
Many years ago, I was aware of a youth pastor who counseled one of his 18 year old former students(she had been out of high school all of two months and was now working for him in his ministry) to break up with her boyfriend so that he could date her himself. This was followed by one of the other pastors doing the same thing (18 year old girl, 25+ pastor). Rather than rebuking these young men for inappropriate relationships, they were commended by the rest of the pastoral staff for their resourcefulness in finding brides. Both young men freely admitted to having their eye on these girls when they were minors. The students within the ministry were well aware of this and it created quite a bit of tension, particularly amongst the girl students.
In contrast to these two young men, I know of a youth leader who resigned his position so that he could date one of his former high school students. While I don't approve of his even considering that it was acceptable to date these much younger girls (he was at least 10 years older), I must admit that he acknowledged and sought to rectify the ethical problem his dating choice created for the ministry.
What are the problems with dating students, even former students? Well, besides creating tension and jealousy -the other students see this as being patently unfair that "Sally" has this "relationship" with "Pastor Rick", it interjects ideas of power and control into a dating relationship. Is "Pastor Rick" telling "Sally" to do X because he's her boyfriend or her pastor? One of the reasons therapists are barred from dating patients is that it compromises the integrity of the therapeutic relationship-how can one tell if the doctor is really offering advice that is in the best interest of the patient and not his/her own self interest? Also, if the couple breaks up, "Sally" is the one forced to leave the church because "this is his job". How is it that the world seems to have a higher ethical standard than the body of Christ?
I know I have many readers who perhaps could share their opinions on this subject...
In the latest case, a 25 year old former beauty queen and high school teacher was arrested for having sex with her 18 year old male student. What's the problem? -they're both consenting adults, some might say. However, in Texas where these events took place, it is against the law for a teacher to have sex with a student of any age. Susan Estrich writes in her column for FoxNews,
"Most teachers don't need a criminal law to tell us that it's wrong to have sex with our students no matter how old they are (mine are in their 20's and 30's, and it's still wrong). Teachers have power over students, which undercuts the notion that consent can be given freely; we control their lives, which means it's not fair to the individual student, or to the other students in the class; it's an abuse of the teacher's power, and compromises both the real and perceived fairness of that student's grades and of any overall curve in the class."
While I normally disagree with a lot of what the liberal Estrich believes, I think she is right on in this opinion. I will even go so far as to state that most of the "power relationships" are, or at least should be, off limits - teacher/student, doctor/patient, therapist/patient, boss/employee, counselor/counselee, lawyer/client, etc. Some of these are already prohibited by the canons of ethics of the licensing/sanctioning body of the professional organizations involved -to go against these canons could mean loss of license and livelihood. Often colleges and universities have codes of conduct forbidding the romantic involvement of professors and students. Companies, wanting to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits and charges of nepotism, are more and more restricting such extracurricular relationships, often forcing one of the pair out of the same chain of command (of course the military has always done this for the sake of "morale"). In all these examples, subverting the restriction by pursuing the forbidden romantic relationship is considered, at the least unethical and often worthy of losing one's job over. Except...
This brings me to my pet peeve - pastors dating people to whom they've been hired to minister. I have read the ABC ministers code of conduct and other than stating that the pastor will not "not seek personal favors of discounts on the basis of my professional status" and will "maintain a disciplined ministry in such ways as keeping hours of prayer and devotions, endeavoring to maintain wholesome family relationships, sexual integrity, financial responsibility, regularly engaging in educational and recreational activities for professional and personal development..." I don't see a direct prohibition against dating one's parishioners, BUT THERE SHOULD BE. How is that a secular group such as the Psychological Association sees the value in prohibiting a therapist from dating someone under their care but a church with a college or young adult pastor working 10-15 hours a week ministering to students is not barred from dating one of them?
Many years ago, I was aware of a youth pastor who counseled one of his 18 year old former students(she had been out of high school all of two months and was now working for him in his ministry) to break up with her boyfriend so that he could date her himself. This was followed by one of the other pastors doing the same thing (18 year old girl, 25+ pastor). Rather than rebuking these young men for inappropriate relationships, they were commended by the rest of the pastoral staff for their resourcefulness in finding brides. Both young men freely admitted to having their eye on these girls when they were minors. The students within the ministry were well aware of this and it created quite a bit of tension, particularly amongst the girl students.
In contrast to these two young men, I know of a youth leader who resigned his position so that he could date one of his former high school students. While I don't approve of his even considering that it was acceptable to date these much younger girls (he was at least 10 years older), I must admit that he acknowledged and sought to rectify the ethical problem his dating choice created for the ministry.
What are the problems with dating students, even former students? Well, besides creating tension and jealousy -the other students see this as being patently unfair that "Sally" has this "relationship" with "Pastor Rick", it interjects ideas of power and control into a dating relationship. Is "Pastor Rick" telling "Sally" to do X because he's her boyfriend or her pastor? One of the reasons therapists are barred from dating patients is that it compromises the integrity of the therapeutic relationship-how can one tell if the doctor is really offering advice that is in the best interest of the patient and not his/her own self interest? Also, if the couple breaks up, "Sally" is the one forced to leave the church because "this is his job". How is it that the world seems to have a higher ethical standard than the body of Christ?
I know I have many readers who perhaps could share their opinions on this subject...
Friday, May 26, 2006
Megachurch Mania
I was reading Christianity Today's Weblog which linked to this AP article about how mainline churches are emulating (or at least trying to) evangelical megachurches. What stands out as the "lessons learned" that the mainlines take away and adopt is not the theology of the megas, but the furnishings, the worship styles, the incoporation of technology - as if those were all they needed for church growth. Even more distressing is the opposition that the more traditional members express towards these changes eventhough their churches were on the edge of death had they done nothing. (We have folks like that in my church too.) It all this emphasis on the packaging of the product(in this case, the Gospel) rather than the product itself, that rubs me wrong.
Of course, non-mainline evangelical churches that think just changing music styles or rearranging the furniture will solve their attendance problems are just as deceived. I'm not against any of the changes-we should utilize every means possible to help communicate God's truth. For me, incorporating contemporary elements into our church services has a missiological purpose. If we went to a foreign land, it would be extremely arrogant to insist that the people adopt American culture, dress and language as conditions of their being able to hear the Gospel message. Yet for many churches they do just that, they insist that unchurched visitors dress like them, sing songs written for their grandparent's generation and sit facing forward in rows of pews; talk about cultural arrogance. But taking a bit of liberty with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13: "If I play contemporary worship music, and use a video projector to display words but don't have love, I'd be making meaningless noise like a car alarm going off all night." The "stuff" is not the point -it's a means, not an end.
For a humorous, albeit all-too true view of the megas view this youtube clip.
Of course, non-mainline evangelical churches that think just changing music styles or rearranging the furniture will solve their attendance problems are just as deceived. I'm not against any of the changes-we should utilize every means possible to help communicate God's truth. For me, incorporating contemporary elements into our church services has a missiological purpose. If we went to a foreign land, it would be extremely arrogant to insist that the people adopt American culture, dress and language as conditions of their being able to hear the Gospel message. Yet for many churches they do just that, they insist that unchurched visitors dress like them, sing songs written for their grandparent's generation and sit facing forward in rows of pews; talk about cultural arrogance. But taking a bit of liberty with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13: "If I play contemporary worship music, and use a video projector to display words but don't have love, I'd be making meaningless noise like a car alarm going off all night." The "stuff" is not the point -it's a means, not an end.
For a humorous, albeit all-too true view of the megas view this youtube clip.
Monday, May 22, 2006
More Political Fun
This is distressing -I'm only 95% conservative? How can this be?
| Your Political Profile: |
| Overall: 95% Conservative, 5% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
| Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Stubborn As A Mule
It seems I've been reading a lot lately about the stubborn nature of folks and how that trait has put people in some difficult positions. People hold on to an opinion, a way of doing things, a belief or an idea despite all evidence to the contrary. The simple example is the child who keeps trying to put the square peg into the round hole and gets mad when it doesn't fit. A company president sticks with a management theory he picked up from some leadership guru despite the fact that company morale is in the toilet. I've known some people at my church who hold on to some notion of the way "church oughta be" despite the fact that the culture around them today doesn't resemble their ideal from fifty years ago. President Bush is accused of being stubborn for not modulating his policies in the face of declining poll numbers or opposition from our allies.
Sometimes it's not just individuals, but institutions like my own denomination, the ABCUSA (you can read about that in the previous post); it can be countries like North Korea or Cuba that hold onto their fantasy of their countries being a "workers' paradise" despite the fact that communism, by and large, has been relegated to the "dustbin of history". Even those who label themselves "progressives" can be chained to stubborn ideas- reference those who trot out slogans like, "we must fight for a woman's right to choose" (despite the evidence that the nation is becoming more "pro-life" with time), "we need to spend more money on the poor, education, or whatever social program is their pet project" (despite the trillions thrown at these problems with no effect).
But one person's stubbornness is another's "steadfast commitment to principles" in the minds of many. How can you tell the difference? Was the Apostle Paul encouraging "holy stubbornness" when he wrote:
The Psalmist writes:
So the question is, does our belief (that we hold so stubbornly to our chest) line up with God and His ways? Even (or especially) as Christians we can hold opinions that we equate as being from God when they are no more sanctified than our choice of ice cream flavor. Some ideas might even be in opposition to God's stated laws. The thoughts that are only preferences need to be held loosely, the one that are wrong need to be abandoned, but the ones that reflect the character and call of God are the ones to which we must demonstrate wholly (and holy)stubbornness. The result is this:
Sometimes it's not just individuals, but institutions like my own denomination, the ABCUSA (you can read about that in the previous post); it can be countries like North Korea or Cuba that hold onto their fantasy of their countries being a "workers' paradise" despite the fact that communism, by and large, has been relegated to the "dustbin of history". Even those who label themselves "progressives" can be chained to stubborn ideas- reference those who trot out slogans like, "we must fight for a woman's right to choose" (despite the evidence that the nation is becoming more "pro-life" with time), "we need to spend more money on the poor, education, or whatever social program is their pet project" (despite the trillions thrown at these problems with no effect).
But one person's stubbornness is another's "steadfast commitment to principles" in the minds of many. How can you tell the difference? Was the Apostle Paul encouraging "holy stubbornness" when he wrote:
"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord." 1 Cor 15:58 NASU?
The Psalmist writes:
"You [God] have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands."Psalm 119:4-6 NIV
So the question is, does our belief (that we hold so stubbornly to our chest) line up with God and His ways? Even (or especially) as Christians we can hold opinions that we equate as being from God when they are no more sanctified than our choice of ice cream flavor. Some ideas might even be in opposition to God's stated laws. The thoughts that are only preferences need to be held loosely, the one that are wrong need to be abandoned, but the ones that reflect the character and call of God are the ones to which we must demonstrate wholly (and holy)stubbornness. The result is this:
"You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast,because he trusts in You." Isaiah 26:3 NIV
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The Vote To Leave
I have been pondering on how I was going to post on this subject -the vote of the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest to leave the denomination by withdrawing from the covenant of relationships. I could've just posted the ABCPSW press release seen here. I could've linked to the punditry of His Barking Dog or Durable Data. Yet, as a third generation American Baptist, the day was more than just a political decision, more than just my marking an "X" on a ballot -it was the death of a relationship, a death that required true mourning on my part.
Laura, my friend and roommate, pontificates on it in her theology blog and just links to her theology blog from Laura's Writings. She writes of the profound worship encounter it was to stand alongside 1300 hundred fellow delegates in a simulcast link of seven cities while singing "Holy, Holy, Holy" and "It Is Well" as they counted the ballots. Some of her readers seem to take exception to the idea that the worship of God and the sense of His presence could have occured in an act of "Christian disunity" and schism. However, they weren't there and from what I've read of their comments, they don't quite understand what the vote was all about either.
For me, it was a moment of ultimate sadness -to have come so far and to have been together as a denomination for so long all the while existing in such a dysfunctional relationship was tragic. As a delegate of my church, I was indeed bound to vote for withdrawal, but also as a follower of Christ and His Word, I had a higher allegiance to the truth that compelled me to vote for it as well. Continuing in fellowship with those who reject the authority of the Bible in favor of their own estimation of "truth" is not healthy or wise. Barbara Nicolosi, in an article in ChritianityToday Online makes this comment (with regard to the Davinci Code movie, but I think fits here too) said this:
The national leaders closed their eyes to the open sin of their colleagues and shrugged that they were powerless to do otherwise -"it's not our place to police anyone's behavior, let the offenders' region or their local church do it". When some regions attempted to discipline their own wayward churches and pastors, the national board and the regions that disagreed with discplinary actions provided safe haven and new homes for the unrepentant. Together, they resisted any attempt for reformation and renewal using parlimentary procedures to thwart such acts and to protect their like-minded partisans. They ridiculed their opponents as small-minded bigots and fundamentalists all the while expecting the regions to shut-up and keep sending in the money for the Board's causes. So-called "Baptist values" of "soul liberty and local autonomy",in their mind, trumped Biblical teaching on issues of sexual ethics and morality. This lead to ABCPSW's conclusion that since we can't persuade, we can't convince and we can't co-exist peacefully, it is better to separate. This may be the beginning of the end of the ABC-the more conservative regions may follow shortly now that one has stepped away.
And this is why I mourn, the Baptist forefathers who fought so strongly to build such a great family could never imagined that family being torn apart in such a way.
A comment on Laura's blog referred to the conflict as being one of righteousness versus unity, but how can a group be united when there is such a chasm on what righteousness means?
Laura, my friend and roommate, pontificates on it in her theology blog and just links to her theology blog from Laura's Writings. She writes of the profound worship encounter it was to stand alongside 1300 hundred fellow delegates in a simulcast link of seven cities while singing "Holy, Holy, Holy" and "It Is Well" as they counted the ballots. Some of her readers seem to take exception to the idea that the worship of God and the sense of His presence could have occured in an act of "Christian disunity" and schism. However, they weren't there and from what I've read of their comments, they don't quite understand what the vote was all about either.
For me, it was a moment of ultimate sadness -to have come so far and to have been together as a denomination for so long all the while existing in such a dysfunctional relationship was tragic. As a delegate of my church, I was indeed bound to vote for withdrawal, but also as a follower of Christ and His Word, I had a higher allegiance to the truth that compelled me to vote for it as well. Continuing in fellowship with those who reject the authority of the Bible in favor of their own estimation of "truth" is not healthy or wise. Barbara Nicolosi, in an article in ChritianityToday Online makes this comment (with regard to the Davinci Code movie, but I think fits here too) said this:
"I don't think we should encourage people in the terrible sin against the Holy Spirit of speculating that things that are holy are evil, and that things that are evil are holy... How is that not painful for anyone who knows the Lord?"It is painful to associate with people who call evil, good and good, evil. It's painful to think that no appeal to the Scriptural text can change the mind of a person who thinks it means something completely different than I do. This is what has happened over the past dozen years in the ABCUSA.
The national leaders closed their eyes to the open sin of their colleagues and shrugged that they were powerless to do otherwise -"it's not our place to police anyone's behavior, let the offenders' region or their local church do it". When some regions attempted to discipline their own wayward churches and pastors, the national board and the regions that disagreed with discplinary actions provided safe haven and new homes for the unrepentant. Together, they resisted any attempt for reformation and renewal using parlimentary procedures to thwart such acts and to protect their like-minded partisans. They ridiculed their opponents as small-minded bigots and fundamentalists all the while expecting the regions to shut-up and keep sending in the money for the Board's causes. So-called "Baptist values" of "soul liberty and local autonomy",in their mind, trumped Biblical teaching on issues of sexual ethics and morality. This lead to ABCPSW's conclusion that since we can't persuade, we can't convince and we can't co-exist peacefully, it is better to separate. This may be the beginning of the end of the ABC-the more conservative regions may follow shortly now that one has stepped away.
And this is why I mourn, the Baptist forefathers who fought so strongly to build such a great family could never imagined that family being torn apart in such a way.
A comment on Laura's blog referred to the conflict as being one of righteousness versus unity, but how can a group be united when there is such a chasm on what righteousness means?
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Dante's Levels of Hell Test
The Dante's Inferno Test has sent you to Purgatory!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
I'm glad I don't believe in Purgatory - good Protestant that I am. Amusing though.
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very High |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | High |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very Low |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | High |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Moderate |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | Very Low |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Very Low |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Low |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Moderate |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Very Low |
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
I'm glad I don't believe in Purgatory - good Protestant that I am. Amusing though.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Loyalty Part 4
Persons talking the Naturalization oath to become US citizens pledge:
They renounce allegiance to their country of birth and swear loyalty to their adopted nation. Their loyalty means that in the case of war, they may have to take up arms against their former country in order to defend their new one. During WWII, there were many stories of immigrants doing just that -Japanese-Americans fighting against the European Axis powers, sons of Italian and German migrants fighting against their father's homelands. A person who pretended to support and defend his new country while secretly working for his old would be defined as a traitor; in time of war, his life would be forfeit. At the least, the person would be considered a fraud and their citizenship could be stripped from them.
When a person becomes a Christian, he/she leaves the kingdom of darkness and enters into the Kingdom of Light. As the Apostle Paul puts it:
We owe allegiance to Christ Himself, to follow Him and obey His commands. He stated that our greatest duty was this :
Yet too often Christians behave as if we are still playing for the other team. It seems we act as if we are agents for the kingdom of darkness instead of warriors for the Light. As stated earlier, to maintain the old allegiance while pledged to a new one is treason. If God weren't so patient and gracious towards us despite our wavering loyalty, we would surely and swiftly be put to the death for our crimes against Him. Instead, He lovingly, yet firmly calls us to live out our citizenship anew everyday. As we grow in our relationship with Him, our fidelity to His cause becomes more sure, more certain. The treacherous actions that in which we once participated become a faint memory the more closely we follow our new Master.
Regretfully, there are some that want it both ways -they like the privileges and benefits of the new citizenship -eternal life, forgiveness of sin, guaranteed inheritance as God's child. But they also like the pleasure and "excitement" of the old life. "It's okay," they tell themselves, "God will forgive my indiscretions and welcome me back to my homeland." We might wonder if that person had truly taken the oath and become a new citizen with thinking such as that.
Loyalty demands that we stay true to the one to whom we have pledged our oath. If it is to our friend, we must stand by him/her even when times are difficult. Standing by can mean having the courage to say that they are wrong when they are and not letting them get away with it. We can show loyalty to our nation, even when we disagree with national policies. Most of all though, loyalty is a character trait of God Himself. He is the One "who sticks closer than a brother". As we are transformed into Christ-likeness, loyalty becomes one of the characteristics of our life and manifests itself in our loyalty to our God. The world doesn't truly understand true loyalty because they don't have the mind of Christ. That's why the secularists are so puzzled when a man, such a President Bush, would show such unwavering loyalty to an underling. Whether or not Mr. Bush is demonstrating Christ-like character is not the issue here, but rather a world that does not recognize Jesus as God, certainly would not recognize a virtue as such.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
They renounce allegiance to their country of birth and swear loyalty to their adopted nation. Their loyalty means that in the case of war, they may have to take up arms against their former country in order to defend their new one. During WWII, there were many stories of immigrants doing just that -Japanese-Americans fighting against the European Axis powers, sons of Italian and German migrants fighting against their father's homelands. A person who pretended to support and defend his new country while secretly working for his old would be defined as a traitor; in time of war, his life would be forfeit. At the least, the person would be considered a fraud and their citizenship could be stripped from them.
When a person becomes a Christian, he/she leaves the kingdom of darkness and enters into the Kingdom of Light. As the Apostle Paul puts it:
...you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.(Ephesians 2:19-20, NIV)
We owe allegiance to Christ Himself, to follow Him and obey His commands. He stated that our greatest duty was this :
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35, NIV)
Yet too often Christians behave as if we are still playing for the other team. It seems we act as if we are agents for the kingdom of darkness instead of warriors for the Light. As stated earlier, to maintain the old allegiance while pledged to a new one is treason. If God weren't so patient and gracious towards us despite our wavering loyalty, we would surely and swiftly be put to the death for our crimes against Him. Instead, He lovingly, yet firmly calls us to live out our citizenship anew everyday. As we grow in our relationship with Him, our fidelity to His cause becomes more sure, more certain. The treacherous actions that in which we once participated become a faint memory the more closely we follow our new Master.
Regretfully, there are some that want it both ways -they like the privileges and benefits of the new citizenship -eternal life, forgiveness of sin, guaranteed inheritance as God's child. But they also like the pleasure and "excitement" of the old life. "It's okay," they tell themselves, "God will forgive my indiscretions and welcome me back to my homeland." We might wonder if that person had truly taken the oath and become a new citizen with thinking such as that.
Loyalty demands that we stay true to the one to whom we have pledged our oath. If it is to our friend, we must stand by him/her even when times are difficult. Standing by can mean having the courage to say that they are wrong when they are and not letting them get away with it. We can show loyalty to our nation, even when we disagree with national policies. Most of all though, loyalty is a character trait of God Himself. He is the One "who sticks closer than a brother". As we are transformed into Christ-likeness, loyalty becomes one of the characteristics of our life and manifests itself in our loyalty to our God. The world doesn't truly understand true loyalty because they don't have the mind of Christ. That's why the secularists are so puzzled when a man, such a President Bush, would show such unwavering loyalty to an underling. Whether or not Mr. Bush is demonstrating Christ-like character is not the issue here, but rather a world that does not recognize Jesus as God, certainly would not recognize a virtue as such.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Loyalty Part 3
As a child, my family lived down the street from a family I'll call the "Duncans". Mr. and Mrs. Duncan had 5 or 6 kids (the oldest had left home or were away at college) including twins "Stevie" and "Evie" who were two years younger than I was. Mr. Duncan, an aerospace engineer as I remember, had been raised by strict Christian parents, but had rejected those teachings for himself and his family. He would come home from work around 4pm where his wife would have a pitcher of Martinis waiting for their next-door neighbors and them to consume before dinner. When the pitcher ran dry, Mrs. Duncan (or one of the older children) would refill it so the adults could continue with their own personal "happy hour". Mr. Duncan also liked to leave his copies of Playboy lying around the den for all to see. Probably his only redeeming virtue (and the only reason I was ever allowed at their house) was that he had built his daughters the most amazing two-story play house with lineoleum floors and paneled walls; the second story was a sleeping loft where the two youngest daughters could stretch out their sleeping bags and escape their brothers.
The one value that the Duncans did receive from their devout Scottish parents and then drilled into their children was FAMILY LOYALTY -you stick up for kin, right or wrong. I didn't quite understand this concept - if my brother was acting creepy towards one of my friends, it was my responsibility to make sure that his creepy behavior would be duly accounted for and my friend protected. The Duncans had a different idea. When I was about 11 (my brother would've been 8), Stevie, aged 9, decided it would be fun to sharpen a popsicle stick and repeatedly stab/poke my brother in the back with it. Evidently, my brother didn't mind much because although Stevie was older, my brother was much bigger and stronger than Stevie -Stevie would have come out the worse if my brother had decided to extract retribution for the stabbing.
That night however, my mother saw his scratched-up back after his bath time. After hearing the details of what had transpired earlier in the day, my parents marched my brother four doors down to confront the Duncans (not a good idea, remember the pitchers of Martinis they'd have consumed by then). This family closed ranks tighter than any Marine Corps unit in combat -it must've been my brother's fault, not Stevie's and so nothing resembling discipline happened to him. The following day, Evie told me that she and I were no longer permitted to play together because of what had happened. Neither one of us had been involved in the fray, yet further contact was prohibited - in fact now there was a "feud" between our families. Family loyalty demanded, in the Duncan's thinking, that their hostility be shared among all their members and directed towards all of ours. That mentality, I learned, had been what fueled the conflict between the infamous Hatfields and McCoys. The original offense had long been forgotten, replaced instead with a feud based on "blood", not on the righteousness of position.
And this is what loyalty is not -loyalty does not mean demonstrating unswerving allegiance to someone's misdeeds just because you have a relationship with them. In the story of David and Jonathan I mentioned earlier, Jonathan didn't take his father's "side" against David just because he (Jonathan) was the son of the man at war with his friend. Jonathan knew that Saul's behavior towards David was unjust and therefore he declined to take up his father's feud - so much so that Saul accused Jonathan of being a disloyal son.
Loyalty doesn't mean standing by silently when a friend (or family member) is doing something wrong. Loyalty to a company or country doesn't mean you must sacrifice your moral convictions to be a team player or a patriot. As a Christian, we have a higher duty, a more important loyalty to Whom allegiance is owed. In the next installment, I will discuss that loyalty.
The one value that the Duncans did receive from their devout Scottish parents and then drilled into their children was FAMILY LOYALTY -you stick up for kin, right or wrong. I didn't quite understand this concept - if my brother was acting creepy towards one of my friends, it was my responsibility to make sure that his creepy behavior would be duly accounted for and my friend protected. The Duncans had a different idea. When I was about 11 (my brother would've been 8), Stevie, aged 9, decided it would be fun to sharpen a popsicle stick and repeatedly stab/poke my brother in the back with it. Evidently, my brother didn't mind much because although Stevie was older, my brother was much bigger and stronger than Stevie -Stevie would have come out the worse if my brother had decided to extract retribution for the stabbing.
That night however, my mother saw his scratched-up back after his bath time. After hearing the details of what had transpired earlier in the day, my parents marched my brother four doors down to confront the Duncans (not a good idea, remember the pitchers of Martinis they'd have consumed by then). This family closed ranks tighter than any Marine Corps unit in combat -it must've been my brother's fault, not Stevie's and so nothing resembling discipline happened to him. The following day, Evie told me that she and I were no longer permitted to play together because of what had happened. Neither one of us had been involved in the fray, yet further contact was prohibited - in fact now there was a "feud" between our families. Family loyalty demanded, in the Duncan's thinking, that their hostility be shared among all their members and directed towards all of ours. That mentality, I learned, had been what fueled the conflict between the infamous Hatfields and McCoys. The original offense had long been forgotten, replaced instead with a feud based on "blood", not on the righteousness of position.
And this is what loyalty is not -loyalty does not mean demonstrating unswerving allegiance to someone's misdeeds just because you have a relationship with them. In the story of David and Jonathan I mentioned earlier, Jonathan didn't take his father's "side" against David just because he (Jonathan) was the son of the man at war with his friend. Jonathan knew that Saul's behavior towards David was unjust and therefore he declined to take up his father's feud - so much so that Saul accused Jonathan of being a disloyal son.
Loyalty doesn't mean standing by silently when a friend (or family member) is doing something wrong. Loyalty to a company or country doesn't mean you must sacrifice your moral convictions to be a team player or a patriot. As a Christian, we have a higher duty, a more important loyalty to Whom allegiance is owed. In the next installment, I will discuss that loyalty.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Loyalty Part 2
What is loyalty? Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word loyal as "1 : unswerving in allegiance: as a : faithful in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government b : faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due c : faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product." So loyalty is the "quality or state of being loyal."
To whom or to what do I owe allegiance? How about faithfulness? Part of the difficulty is that far too often, we feel that we owe fidelity only to ourselves. It's all about me and my needs; it's what I want for my life, forget about you. Recently, I was reflecting on a relationship in which I felt betrayed by another person. I remember being angry because this "friend" was less concerned about my feelings or the consequence to our friendship, than they were about their own feelings - sticking by me in the situation had some negative personal costs and so it was easier for them to "save their own skin".
A more specific example comes from my teenybopper years. "Lisa" and I were friends, we'd hang out with each other, spending the night at each other's house, going places, doing things. When school began that fall, "Lisa" started hanging out with a new, more popular crowd that did not treat those outside the clique well. The way she "proved" that she was one of them, was to deny her friendship with me by behaving cruelly towards me. She traded our friendship for the approval and acceptance of others- she traded loyalties from me to them.
One of the most extraordinary examples of loyalty between two friends is found in the Biblical story of Jonathan and David. Despite the fact that Jonathan's father, King Saul wanted to kill David, Jonathan demonstrated amazing fidelity by standing by his friend. Jonathan aided David's escape from Saul's wrath, drawing his father's fierce anger. Their loyalty to one another survived even Jonathan's death as David fulfilled his oath to care for Jonathan's descendants when he brought Jonathan's handicapped son, Mephibosheth to live in his palace and eat at his table. This was despite the fact that as the grandson of the former king, Mephibosheth could've provided a challenge to David's claim on the throne.
In the next installment, I will discuss what I think loyalty is not...
To whom or to what do I owe allegiance? How about faithfulness? Part of the difficulty is that far too often, we feel that we owe fidelity only to ourselves. It's all about me and my needs; it's what I want for my life, forget about you. Recently, I was reflecting on a relationship in which I felt betrayed by another person. I remember being angry because this "friend" was less concerned about my feelings or the consequence to our friendship, than they were about their own feelings - sticking by me in the situation had some negative personal costs and so it was easier for them to "save their own skin".
A more specific example comes from my teenybopper years. "Lisa" and I were friends, we'd hang out with each other, spending the night at each other's house, going places, doing things. When school began that fall, "Lisa" started hanging out with a new, more popular crowd that did not treat those outside the clique well. The way she "proved" that she was one of them, was to deny her friendship with me by behaving cruelly towards me. She traded our friendship for the approval and acceptance of others- she traded loyalties from me to them.
One of the most extraordinary examples of loyalty between two friends is found in the Biblical story of Jonathan and David. Despite the fact that Jonathan's father, King Saul wanted to kill David, Jonathan demonstrated amazing fidelity by standing by his friend. Jonathan aided David's escape from Saul's wrath, drawing his father's fierce anger. Their loyalty to one another survived even Jonathan's death as David fulfilled his oath to care for Jonathan's descendants when he brought Jonathan's handicapped son, Mephibosheth to live in his palace and eat at his table. This was despite the fact that as the grandson of the former king, Mephibosheth could've provided a challenge to David's claim on the throne.
In the next installment, I will discuss what I think loyalty is not...
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Loyalty
On the way home from work tonight, one of the local radio talk show hosts was talking about the concept of loyalty. He and his callers were discussing the loyalty of President Bush towards his staff, particularly as it's been demonstrated towards his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sticking with him despite the cries in the media to fire him. The question for the radio listeners was why would someone demonstrate such loyalty in the face of opposition, especially in our culture where everyone seems to be out for themselves. Why have we as a society seemed to abandon the virtue of loyalty? Is this even a characteristic of Christians? Do followers of Christ demonstrate loyalty anymore than their secular counterparts?
Over the next few days, I would like to discuss this concept here. Feel free to comment on this subject.
Over the next few days, I would like to discuss this concept here. Feel free to comment on this subject.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Political Test
| You are a Social Conservative (18% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (75% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Gee, this has me as a bit more liberal than I would've guessed. Those who have thought I was a fascist are wrong....he he!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)