So the title of this topic give it all away. But I believe that everyone whether you are in the ministry or not should have some sort of helpmate. Now let me clarify, though most of the time the term is used for a spouse/significant other, I am using this as a term for anyone who helps you in your life. This person could be a close friend, or family member, or a spouse.
We see in Genesis from the very beginning that God states that man should not be alone. Once again, usually this passage is for a spouse, but I believe there was a reason why God said that man (as in humanity) should not be alone. I believe that God knew that people would need someone in their life to help them share in the ministries of others, to help them through the hard times, and be there for them in their time of need. This could not be more clear in the life of Elijah.
Early in Elijah's life we see that he was a lone man. Eventually he did find a partner and had Elisha, but during the beginning in what seems like the most pressing times, Elijah was alone. In the beginning of Elijah, when he had to go to the woman for shelter, times were hard. Luckily he had the woman to help him out, but he had no one to confide in or to uplift him. Matter of fact, when ever the times go rough, usually people were going to him to complain or ask for help (like the woman's son dying). Also I think the most important time in Elijah's time was his confrontation of the worshippers of Baal. Though this was a great moment in his life, it is after that I want to focus on. After Elijah slays the prophets of Baal, Jezebel begins to hunt Elijah. Keep in mind he just slayed a bunch of false prophets, but because of this one woman he becomes scared and runs a flees. He hides out, with no one to help him, to encourage him, or to be there to help him. This I believe was his greatest weakness.
Though we don't have any proof of this, I believe that once he got Elisha to help him, things became a lot smoother. Like I said there is no proof of this, but couldn't the lack of proof be the proof? Because we see that even though times were tough Elijah never once backed down after Elisha that he was better?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Was David Really a Good Man?
I know this seems like an odd question, after all the Bible does say that David was a man after God's heart, and he remained faithful (1 Samuel 13:14). A man after God's heart must be a good man right?
While I don't question God at all in this, or David's faithfulness, I do question what sort of character David was. I like David. I hope that God looks down on me and calls me a "man after his heart", and that even through my own screw ups God will still bless me like he did David. But once again I ask the question was David really a good man.
We see that one thing David is from the beginning is a schemer. He manipulates he way around everything, including the David and Goliath story, where he schemes and persuades to go fight Goliath. Although this is a good time, there are other times when his scheming leads to some pitfalls. Like the story of Abigail and Nabal (1 Samuel 25). In this story we see how David attempted to get some supplies because of his assistance with the sheep before. We also see another downfall of David in this story, his rashness. Had it not been for Abigail in this story, David was fully intended to "ride into town, guns blazing."
I am sure that some are saying these are weak examples, that is ok, I know they are. But what about David's scheming when it came to Bathsheba? He knew what he wanted and it was her, and he was not going to let up until he had her. Once he had her he had to "justify" it. So he schemes first to "frame" Uriah, and then eventual to kill him. Nathan appears before him and presents a parable. David being rash, condemns the man in the parable to death, only for Nathan to point out that the man was David. I will give David props here because once he found out the man was him, he immediately repented and confess to God.
Another concrete example is right before he is about to die, he goes to Solomon to appoint him king. While talking with Solomon, David mentions people like Joab and Shimei. These were two people who in some way rebelled against him. David makes them a promise and says he will not harm them, but then he tells Solomon to handle them as he wishes. However, the wording of this seems like David is implying the he should kill them for what they did, since he cannot. David was scheming to make his son clean up after him!
So, conspiracies, assassinations, thieving, all of this from the "great" man called David. So again I ask what David really a good man?
While I don't question God at all in this, or David's faithfulness, I do question what sort of character David was. I like David. I hope that God looks down on me and calls me a "man after his heart", and that even through my own screw ups God will still bless me like he did David. But once again I ask the question was David really a good man.
We see that one thing David is from the beginning is a schemer. He manipulates he way around everything, including the David and Goliath story, where he schemes and persuades to go fight Goliath. Although this is a good time, there are other times when his scheming leads to some pitfalls. Like the story of Abigail and Nabal (1 Samuel 25). In this story we see how David attempted to get some supplies because of his assistance with the sheep before. We also see another downfall of David in this story, his rashness. Had it not been for Abigail in this story, David was fully intended to "ride into town, guns blazing."
I am sure that some are saying these are weak examples, that is ok, I know they are. But what about David's scheming when it came to Bathsheba? He knew what he wanted and it was her, and he was not going to let up until he had her. Once he had her he had to "justify" it. So he schemes first to "frame" Uriah, and then eventual to kill him. Nathan appears before him and presents a parable. David being rash, condemns the man in the parable to death, only for Nathan to point out that the man was David. I will give David props here because once he found out the man was him, he immediately repented and confess to God.
Another concrete example is right before he is about to die, he goes to Solomon to appoint him king. While talking with Solomon, David mentions people like Joab and Shimei. These were two people who in some way rebelled against him. David makes them a promise and says he will not harm them, but then he tells Solomon to handle them as he wishes. However, the wording of this seems like David is implying the he should kill them for what they did, since he cannot. David was scheming to make his son clean up after him!
So, conspiracies, assassinations, thieving, all of this from the "great" man called David. So again I ask what David really a good man?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Importance of Spiritual Leadership Part III: Ignorant and Corrupt Leaders
In the final section of the importance of spiritual leadership posts, I want to focus on what the quality of leaders is bred when there is no strong core of spiritual leaders. If one was to look at the "reign" of Eli as high priest, one can easily see what will happen if there is not a core of grounded leaders.
Most of this discussion will come from 1 Samuel chapters one through three. These passages show just what kind of leader Eli was and what this leadership produced. The first thing that I notice is how a lack of good leaders produced an ignorant leader like Eli. The first time we see this is in the very first chapter when Hannah was praying to God for a son. The text reads that while Hannah was praying silently, Eli saw her moving her lips but because he heard nothing he thought she was drunk. On first glance this might be something you would look over, except that we need to remember that Eli was a priest. However, he was not just any priest, but the High Priest. This was the "cream of the crop" when it came to priests. They were like the direct spokesperson for God. They were the only ones who could enter into the Holy of Holies to make the sacrifices. They were supposed to be the most astute when it came to praying. Yet, he mistook prayer for being drunk! This is not the only example. There are other examples in chapter two that I will come back to, and in chapter three.
In chapter three we see the calling of Samuel as a priest/prophet. In this passage we can see another ignorant move from Eli. The story goes that while Samuel was sleeping he heard the voice of God call his name. Getting up, he ran to see Eli (who was his master since he was in "training"). Eli dismissed the claim and told Samuel that he was hearing things and to go back to bed. Samuel is laying in bed and a second time he hears the voice of God call his name. Once again, Samuel runs to Eli and once again, Eli dismisses him. This same thing happens again, only this time Eli FINALLY realizes that it was God calling out to Eli. Why did it take three times for Eli or Samuel to finally realize what was going on? I can understand one time, since I would dare say almost all of us have heard something go "bump in the night." However two more times! A verse in the text makes it clear of why something like this could have happened. In verse seven the text reads, Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the word of the Lord been revealed to him." Also, a thing to remember is that the place where Samuel was sleeping was in the temple. This was the place where Eli was. They lived in the "church". How could Samuel have grown up so much and not known what the word of the Lord was? The only explanation I can attempt to offer is that Eli had failed his job. As the High Priest his duty was to teach the word to his students. Eli's laziness had made him ignorant of his duties and ignorant of what God's call was like. He had forgotten the very thing that was supposed to have been guiding him! Oh how ignorant and lazy must one be to forget the very job you were called to do!?
A final instance using Eli as an example of what poor leadership develops is found in the second chapter. In this chapter we get a small dose of Eli's family. We as a reader get to see his sons. His sons are also priests, yet we see how they valued their job. The text mentions how they were corrupt doing all sorts of perverse things and even stealing. Now I know that one can easily go into a rant of Eli has a bad parent. However, that is not the route I am wanting to go. When Eli goes to rebuke his sons we read that Eli was very old when he heard this. I take this to mean that these things must have been going on for awhile. How could this have been going on for so long? Why had Eli waited so long before doing something? Once again I believe this is because of his ignorance. He chose to not acknowledge it. And what did his ignorance produce? A breed of corrupt leaders.
Without discipline, without rebuke, leaders that spring up without a foundation will lead to some form of a corrupt leader. How can we expect anyone to be an honest and moral leader who is wise when he has never seen what one was to begin with? How can we expect him to be a strong leader when he has never had anyone to show him what to do? And how can he be disciplined if there is not a leader who first, knows the truth, knows right and wrong, and who is wise, and if second, there is not a leader around to care enough to rebuke and discipline? (Which I believe a good leader must not only rebuke, but also be wise enough to know how and when.)
These are just a few things that lay in store for a society when leaders forget what being a leader is. Or, like in the case of Eli, just become lazy and apathetic. But, I also believe that a society also has a role in shaping a leader. A society should know when their leaders are becoming corrupt, or lazy, or apathetic and not be afraid to call their leader out. This should be a sign of a healthy society.
What do you think societies around the world would look like if they began to practice this? If how would culture change if good, strong, spiritual leaders arose and began to lead? Would we look a little like Josiah in 2 Kings? Would this reform last?
Most of this discussion will come from 1 Samuel chapters one through three. These passages show just what kind of leader Eli was and what this leadership produced. The first thing that I notice is how a lack of good leaders produced an ignorant leader like Eli. The first time we see this is in the very first chapter when Hannah was praying to God for a son. The text reads that while Hannah was praying silently, Eli saw her moving her lips but because he heard nothing he thought she was drunk. On first glance this might be something you would look over, except that we need to remember that Eli was a priest. However, he was not just any priest, but the High Priest. This was the "cream of the crop" when it came to priests. They were like the direct spokesperson for God. They were the only ones who could enter into the Holy of Holies to make the sacrifices. They were supposed to be the most astute when it came to praying. Yet, he mistook prayer for being drunk! This is not the only example. There are other examples in chapter two that I will come back to, and in chapter three.
In chapter three we see the calling of Samuel as a priest/prophet. In this passage we can see another ignorant move from Eli. The story goes that while Samuel was sleeping he heard the voice of God call his name. Getting up, he ran to see Eli (who was his master since he was in "training"). Eli dismissed the claim and told Samuel that he was hearing things and to go back to bed. Samuel is laying in bed and a second time he hears the voice of God call his name. Once again, Samuel runs to Eli and once again, Eli dismisses him. This same thing happens again, only this time Eli FINALLY realizes that it was God calling out to Eli. Why did it take three times for Eli or Samuel to finally realize what was going on? I can understand one time, since I would dare say almost all of us have heard something go "bump in the night." However two more times! A verse in the text makes it clear of why something like this could have happened. In verse seven the text reads, Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the word of the Lord been revealed to him." Also, a thing to remember is that the place where Samuel was sleeping was in the temple. This was the place where Eli was. They lived in the "church". How could Samuel have grown up so much and not known what the word of the Lord was? The only explanation I can attempt to offer is that Eli had failed his job. As the High Priest his duty was to teach the word to his students. Eli's laziness had made him ignorant of his duties and ignorant of what God's call was like. He had forgotten the very thing that was supposed to have been guiding him! Oh how ignorant and lazy must one be to forget the very job you were called to do!?
A final instance using Eli as an example of what poor leadership develops is found in the second chapter. In this chapter we get a small dose of Eli's family. We as a reader get to see his sons. His sons are also priests, yet we see how they valued their job. The text mentions how they were corrupt doing all sorts of perverse things and even stealing. Now I know that one can easily go into a rant of Eli has a bad parent. However, that is not the route I am wanting to go. When Eli goes to rebuke his sons we read that Eli was very old when he heard this. I take this to mean that these things must have been going on for awhile. How could this have been going on for so long? Why had Eli waited so long before doing something? Once again I believe this is because of his ignorance. He chose to not acknowledge it. And what did his ignorance produce? A breed of corrupt leaders.
Without discipline, without rebuke, leaders that spring up without a foundation will lead to some form of a corrupt leader. How can we expect anyone to be an honest and moral leader who is wise when he has never seen what one was to begin with? How can we expect him to be a strong leader when he has never had anyone to show him what to do? And how can he be disciplined if there is not a leader who first, knows the truth, knows right and wrong, and who is wise, and if second, there is not a leader around to care enough to rebuke and discipline? (Which I believe a good leader must not only rebuke, but also be wise enough to know how and when.)
These are just a few things that lay in store for a society when leaders forget what being a leader is. Or, like in the case of Eli, just become lazy and apathetic. But, I also believe that a society also has a role in shaping a leader. A society should know when their leaders are becoming corrupt, or lazy, or apathetic and not be afraid to call their leader out. This should be a sign of a healthy society.
What do you think societies around the world would look like if they began to practice this? If how would culture change if good, strong, spiritual leaders arose and began to lead? Would we look a little like Josiah in 2 Kings? Would this reform last?
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Importance of Spiritual Leadership Part II: The Death of Direction
With this post, I would like to continue discussing why I believe spiritual leadership is so important. With the last post I examined how without spiritual leadership in society the truth is only one generation away from dying out. To show how this seemingly impossibly idea is possible, I used the example found in Judges where it states how a generation grew up who did not know the truth. I believe that another risk that comes with the lack of leadership is what I am calling the death of direction.
As someone reads the book of Judges there is a common phrase that keeps coming up, "in those days Israel had no king, and everyone did what they thought was right in their own eyes." Although I know that a king is not necessarily a spiritual leader, I believe that there is a practical insight with spiritual leaders.
If one was to look at the history of the Israelites a pattern can be seen. This pattern shows the importance of the necessity for a spiritual leader. All throughout Judges and even before and after, as long as there was a strong spiritual leader, Israel flourished and did what was right. They worshiped and obeyed God and God blessed them. However without a strong leader, Israel had not since of direction. They had no idea what they needed to do or how to do it. Because of this, they quickly fell. Nations came in and conquered them taking their land and belongings.
Another thing can be seen upon examining the history of the Hebrew people. Once they did establish their "kingdom," even though they had a "leader" to guide them, Israel would still abandon their direction if that leader was not grounded in God. I mention this point because it doesn't matter what type of charismatic person may be, if that person is not a grounded leader, he cannot give a good direction. In other words, he will lead his followers astray. This is very evident when reading kings.
This, I believe, is another things churches and Christians need to realize. They must realize that without a strong leadership there can be no direction. Without a grounded leadership there will never be a good direction, if there is any at all.
To close, a must for leaders if they want to be good is that they must have and seek good counsel. There are many times in the books of Kings when a king would seek advice from his counsel and several times that advice was horrible. In the times this happened and the advice was followed, it almost always lead to bad things.
So, who do you feel qualified to be a leader? If so are you grounded in God? Who is your counsel?
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The Importance of Spiritual Leadership Part I: The Death of Truth
I will be writing my next couple posts on what I believe are three main reasons for the necessity of spiritual leadership. I began to think about this idea while going through the book of Judges. This first post came after reading a verse in chapter two of Judges. "After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors [the generation of Joshua], another generation grew up who neither the Lord nor what He had done for Israel. Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord. . ." (Judges 2:10-11a). I find this very interesting that an ENTIRE generation grew up who did not know of the Lord or his works. I began to ask myself why.
I once heard that the truth is always one generation from dying. This was the first thing that I thought of once I read this statement. The main way, if not the only way, this can happen is if leaders from the previous generation ceased to be a leader. In other words they ceased to be involved in their kids lives, raising them up in the way of the Lord. (Which, might I add is a direct violation of a previous command when God instructed the Israelites to teach the words to future generations according to Deuteronomy 11:19).
When strong leaders (i.e. Christian leaders) neglect the fundamental role of mentoring and discipleship, their is a lack of torch passing. Leaders do not "raise up" future leaders to pass the torch on to so that the truth will carry on. In the New Testament, Christ mentions how we are to go "and make disciples of all nations. . .and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded" (Matthew 28:19-20). Leaders are important for the sake of the continuity of Truth. Just like the Israelites had no leaders and the truth died, so too can that happen again IF leaders either cease to be, or neglect their "understudy".
I believe that discipleship/mentoring is the key to prevent this from happening. Leaders/adults must find someone they can help raise up in the faith teaching them and living out the command in Deuteronomy. Sadly, I do not see this happening very much in churches today. I was fortunate to have a "mentor" because I see a HUGE lack of leaders stepping up to take on an understudy. Pastors of all kinds, elders, deacons, christian business men and women should all be pouring out their own knowledge that they have received into the life of someone else. Major corporations and entertainment artists have been doing this practice all along, teaching and crafting young people and influencing them. IF the spiritual leaders of today do not begin to see the necessity for discipleship, then I believe we are only one generation from seeing the death of Truth.
I once heard that the truth is always one generation from dying. This was the first thing that I thought of once I read this statement. The main way, if not the only way, this can happen is if leaders from the previous generation ceased to be a leader. In other words they ceased to be involved in their kids lives, raising them up in the way of the Lord. (Which, might I add is a direct violation of a previous command when God instructed the Israelites to teach the words to future generations according to Deuteronomy 11:19).
When strong leaders (i.e. Christian leaders) neglect the fundamental role of mentoring and discipleship, their is a lack of torch passing. Leaders do not "raise up" future leaders to pass the torch on to so that the truth will carry on. In the New Testament, Christ mentions how we are to go "and make disciples of all nations. . .and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded" (Matthew 28:19-20). Leaders are important for the sake of the continuity of Truth. Just like the Israelites had no leaders and the truth died, so too can that happen again IF leaders either cease to be, or neglect their "understudy".
I believe that discipleship/mentoring is the key to prevent this from happening. Leaders/adults must find someone they can help raise up in the faith teaching them and living out the command in Deuteronomy. Sadly, I do not see this happening very much in churches today. I was fortunate to have a "mentor" because I see a HUGE lack of leaders stepping up to take on an understudy. Pastors of all kinds, elders, deacons, christian business men and women should all be pouring out their own knowledge that they have received into the life of someone else. Major corporations and entertainment artists have been doing this practice all along, teaching and crafting young people and influencing them. IF the spiritual leaders of today do not begin to see the necessity for discipleship, then I believe we are only one generation from seeing the death of Truth.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
Today as we celebrate a day of thanks, may we celebrate it with full joy and true thanks.
I am reminded of some of the Jewish festivals during this Thanksgiving. As I have been studying the Old Testament for class, I have studied some of the festivals and history, and one thing I have realized is that the Jewish people were always in a state of thanksgiving and remembrance in almost all of their festivals. Just like most Jewish culture, the festivals are tied back into their history. That is why they are steeped in remembrance and thanksgiving. From the Passover to the Festival of Weeks, each festival explores the history of what their people as been through and from this narrative, they in turn give God the thanks.
With that said, my challenge for everyone this Thanksgiving is that may we embody the spirit of the Jewish festivals. That as we sit around with family and friends eating, fellowship, and watching football, may we remember to give thanks to God for everything He has done for us. May we remember our own exodus story of how God has delivered us from our own oppression, and how He has been our own Divine Warrior fighting our battles for us. And as we are remembering may we as a community, a family, come together and give thanks for what He has done for us.
So what are you thankful for? What has God delivered you from? How has God been your Divine Warrior? What will you do to show him how thankful you are?
I am reminded of some of the Jewish festivals during this Thanksgiving. As I have been studying the Old Testament for class, I have studied some of the festivals and history, and one thing I have realized is that the Jewish people were always in a state of thanksgiving and remembrance in almost all of their festivals. Just like most Jewish culture, the festivals are tied back into their history. That is why they are steeped in remembrance and thanksgiving. From the Passover to the Festival of Weeks, each festival explores the history of what their people as been through and from this narrative, they in turn give God the thanks.
With that said, my challenge for everyone this Thanksgiving is that may we embody the spirit of the Jewish festivals. That as we sit around with family and friends eating, fellowship, and watching football, may we remember to give thanks to God for everything He has done for us. May we remember our own exodus story of how God has delivered us from our own oppression, and how He has been our own Divine Warrior fighting our battles for us. And as we are remembering may we as a community, a family, come together and give thanks for what He has done for us.
So what are you thankful for? What has God delivered you from? How has God been your Divine Warrior? What will you do to show him how thankful you are?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Are You Ready?
So the other day in class we had a guest speaker. He was the head of the Center for Jewish Studies, Dr. Mark Ellis. While discussing the importance of "rediscovering" Judaism, he mentioned that he was ready for judgment day so he could be judged. This got me thinking about if I could say the same thing. Am I ready to be judged? Dr. Ellis said that although part of him wasn't looking forward to the idea (for fear of "missed opportunities"), he was more ready to stand before God and give his account on how he has helped the "poor and needy."
I began to examine myself to see if I could say the same. Could I stand before the Almighty God and give an account of how well I was to the poor, the needy, the less fortunate, etc. Leviticus makes it very clear that we are to "love our neighbors as ourselves" (Leviticus 19). In the same chapter it tells about how we are too help the poor and needy by giving them food and inviting them in if they are a stranger. We are to show those "different" then us the same hospitality as we would show one of our "kind". This statement was not just left for the Old Testament, but Christ quotes this numerous times and to prove his point even gives us the parable of the Good Samaritan. James even mentions this when discussing faith and works.
So again, could I stand boldly before God and confidence knowing I have done my best to fight for the helpless? Have I gone out of my way to be the voice for the voiceless? I am scared to give an accurate answer because I know I have had so many of those missed opportunities.
I know turn the question outward. Are you ready to stand before God and loudly proclaim with confidence that you have done your best to help the poor? Have you given your all to help someone in need? Or will you cower away in fear of the wrath of God in judgement for not living up to His command?
I began to examine myself to see if I could say the same. Could I stand before the Almighty God and give an account of how well I was to the poor, the needy, the less fortunate, etc. Leviticus makes it very clear that we are to "love our neighbors as ourselves" (Leviticus 19). In the same chapter it tells about how we are too help the poor and needy by giving them food and inviting them in if they are a stranger. We are to show those "different" then us the same hospitality as we would show one of our "kind". This statement was not just left for the Old Testament, but Christ quotes this numerous times and to prove his point even gives us the parable of the Good Samaritan. James even mentions this when discussing faith and works.
So again, could I stand boldly before God and confidence knowing I have done my best to fight for the helpless? Have I gone out of my way to be the voice for the voiceless? I am scared to give an accurate answer because I know I have had so many of those missed opportunities.
I know turn the question outward. Are you ready to stand before God and loudly proclaim with confidence that you have done your best to help the poor? Have you given your all to help someone in need? Or will you cower away in fear of the wrath of God in judgement for not living up to His command?
Monday, November 15, 2010
All Elect?
Not too long ago in class we were discussing the idea of election. In this particular case it involved the idea of Israel being elect and therefore how do we handle the idea of election/reprobate. If someone is elect then by definition wouldn't there then have to be someone not elect, a reprobate? However, what if by the mere definition of being elect, we are all elect?
The definition of election is to be chosen for a purpose. In modern times this idea has translated into a means of salvation, to be chosen for a purpose of salvation. This is not what I am going to talk about because of the possible ramifications that will ensue. What I am talking about is the basics of being chosen for a purpose.
In class we have discussed numerous times how Israel and the Hebrew people were chosen by God and how that everyone else is "not chosen" like the Egyptians and the numerous "-ites" of the Promise Land. But what if those people were even chosen by God? I will admit this is a weird position but if we approach it from this angle, I believe most (not all) of our "election" problems will then solve themselves.
As mentioned early the idea of election is to be chosen for a purpose. I believe this to be true. But I believe that not only were the Hebrew people God's chosen people but so were the other nations. The way to describe this though is through subject object terms: the Hebrew people are the subject and the groups they interact with are therefore the objects. I will use the Egyptians to prove this point. God chose the Israelites to show who He is to the nations by various means. They were His people. He blessed them and was with them. However, what if the Egyptians were also chosen by God for a purpose. That purpose, I believe was to show the Egyptians and later the world who God is, by using the Israelites as the subject. The Bible says that God rose Pharaoh up so that His glory would be shown. If that is the case then it is clear by definition of election that God chose the Egyptian people as a means to show his glory to the world by using them in the Israelite narrative. Israel is the subject, Egypt is the object. The purpose, to show God's glory.
This is just one example among what I believe to be many. The Hebrew people taking over the promise land: subject=Israel, object="-ites" of Canaan, purpose=to show God's glory and to pour out His wrath among the wicked nations Canaan by using the Israelites. The same argument can even be applied using Babylon and Persia toward Israel: Subject=Israel, object=invading nations, purpose, to test Israel and later to punish them for their own wickedness.
So, everyone is elect. We all have a purpose. I were so bold I would even attempt to apply this to salvation, however I will leave that up for you.
The definition of election is to be chosen for a purpose. In modern times this idea has translated into a means of salvation, to be chosen for a purpose of salvation. This is not what I am going to talk about because of the possible ramifications that will ensue. What I am talking about is the basics of being chosen for a purpose.
In class we have discussed numerous times how Israel and the Hebrew people were chosen by God and how that everyone else is "not chosen" like the Egyptians and the numerous "-ites" of the Promise Land. But what if those people were even chosen by God? I will admit this is a weird position but if we approach it from this angle, I believe most (not all) of our "election" problems will then solve themselves.
As mentioned early the idea of election is to be chosen for a purpose. I believe this to be true. But I believe that not only were the Hebrew people God's chosen people but so were the other nations. The way to describe this though is through subject object terms: the Hebrew people are the subject and the groups they interact with are therefore the objects. I will use the Egyptians to prove this point. God chose the Israelites to show who He is to the nations by various means. They were His people. He blessed them and was with them. However, what if the Egyptians were also chosen by God for a purpose. That purpose, I believe was to show the Egyptians and later the world who God is, by using the Israelites as the subject. The Bible says that God rose Pharaoh up so that His glory would be shown. If that is the case then it is clear by definition of election that God chose the Egyptian people as a means to show his glory to the world by using them in the Israelite narrative. Israel is the subject, Egypt is the object. The purpose, to show God's glory.
This is just one example among what I believe to be many. The Hebrew people taking over the promise land: subject=Israel, object="-ites" of Canaan, purpose=to show God's glory and to pour out His wrath among the wicked nations Canaan by using the Israelites. The same argument can even be applied using Babylon and Persia toward Israel: Subject=Israel, object=invading nations, purpose, to test Israel and later to punish them for their own wickedness.
So, everyone is elect. We all have a purpose. I were so bold I would even attempt to apply this to salvation, however I will leave that up for you.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
God of Love???
So here recently it seems that in today's time a lot of people in a post modern world are focusing on the idea of basically if God is a God of love how can he send someone to hell? Or why would God tell the Israelites in the Old Testament to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18) and then a few books later tell those same Israelites to commit genocide? I believe that although on the surface this does seem a little contradictory, but what if God was just using the Israelites to carry out His sense of justice.
I firmly believe that God is a God of love, but we also must look at his other characteristics, and in this case not only is He a God of love, but also of justice. So often we focus on specific aspects of God and we forget that God is more than just one thing but many things. yes God is love, but also just and holy, and merciful. For instance it was a few books later after Leviticus in Deuteronomy God tells the Hebrews that it is not because they have done anything special to receive the land, but because of the wickedness of the inhabitants of the land (Deut 9:4,5). This is the exact same thing that God later did with the Israelites when they became united. All throughout the book of Judges God used the nations around Canaan to test the Hebrews, which started because they did not fully listen to God and drive out all of the other nations (Judges 2:19-22). Furthermore, when they kingdom rebelled God sent the Assyrians and the Persians and the Babylonians after them which eventually sent the Jews into Exile. Then they returned and stayed on the course for a little only to rebel again and then God sent the Romans. This seems to be a recurring theme in Scripture of God using people and nations to show His glory and to bring about various forms of justice.
Although if I may be so bold as to propose that I believe that love in some way drives justice. My example of this is to think of a parent. A parent loves their child very much and wants them to do right and to know right from wrong. A parent goes to extreme measure sometimes to discipline a kid, to punish a kid. What type of parent would one be if they let their kid do whatever they wanted and did not try to teach them right and wrong; in my estimation they would be an unloving parent and an unjust one. But when parents discipline their kids for the most part they aren't called rash or hateful, but still full of love.
Also on a further note to show that sometimes rash things are sometimes just, doesn't our own criminal system in order to uphold justice do extreme things. If a minor commits major crimes, are they not tried as an adult and receiving harsh punishments? And do we not also punish women and in some cases put them on death row? What type of judge would be just if for the sake of "love" and "forgiveness" and "mercy" did not punish a criminal in someway. (I am full aware that this may negate my above statement, that is why I am proposing and just "thinking out loud").
In closing, let me add this. If we think about God in more ways then just love, but add in the fact of God being just and merciful, how much more is the beauty of the cross? That God being a just God could not let our sin go unpunished, but out of his love and mercy allowed a way for us out. That way being through Christ. That Christ, out of love, would be become sin for us and so much that he would die an agonizing death on the cross. Love compelling Justice. God of love, God of justice.
I firmly believe that God is a God of love, but we also must look at his other characteristics, and in this case not only is He a God of love, but also of justice. So often we focus on specific aspects of God and we forget that God is more than just one thing but many things. yes God is love, but also just and holy, and merciful. For instance it was a few books later after Leviticus in Deuteronomy God tells the Hebrews that it is not because they have done anything special to receive the land, but because of the wickedness of the inhabitants of the land (Deut 9:4,5). This is the exact same thing that God later did with the Israelites when they became united. All throughout the book of Judges God used the nations around Canaan to test the Hebrews, which started because they did not fully listen to God and drive out all of the other nations (Judges 2:19-22). Furthermore, when they kingdom rebelled God sent the Assyrians and the Persians and the Babylonians after them which eventually sent the Jews into Exile. Then they returned and stayed on the course for a little only to rebel again and then God sent the Romans. This seems to be a recurring theme in Scripture of God using people and nations to show His glory and to bring about various forms of justice.
Although if I may be so bold as to propose that I believe that love in some way drives justice. My example of this is to think of a parent. A parent loves their child very much and wants them to do right and to know right from wrong. A parent goes to extreme measure sometimes to discipline a kid, to punish a kid. What type of parent would one be if they let their kid do whatever they wanted and did not try to teach them right and wrong; in my estimation they would be an unloving parent and an unjust one. But when parents discipline their kids for the most part they aren't called rash or hateful, but still full of love.
Also on a further note to show that sometimes rash things are sometimes just, doesn't our own criminal system in order to uphold justice do extreme things. If a minor commits major crimes, are they not tried as an adult and receiving harsh punishments? And do we not also punish women and in some cases put them on death row? What type of judge would be just if for the sake of "love" and "forgiveness" and "mercy" did not punish a criminal in someway. (I am full aware that this may negate my above statement, that is why I am proposing and just "thinking out loud").
In closing, let me add this. If we think about God in more ways then just love, but add in the fact of God being just and merciful, how much more is the beauty of the cross? That God being a just God could not let our sin go unpunished, but out of his love and mercy allowed a way for us out. That way being through Christ. That Christ, out of love, would be become sin for us and so much that he would die an agonizing death on the cross. Love compelling Justice. God of love, God of justice.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Women as Subjects of the Law
The other day in class we were discussing the role of women in the Torah. After some serious dialogue one of the things that was established was that women played a "behind the scenes" role in the torah. We all agreed on this, and things were going great until we tried to establish the role of women in Leviticus and with the law. The common belief held is that since the Torah was mainly written by men during a time of Patriarchal dominance, the Bible and in particular the Torah is a chauvinistic story will male dominance that views women as objects. However in class I proposed an idea and for the blog am proposing it now, and that is that what if we are looking at this notion as women as objects wrong? What if women AREN'T the objects, but rather instead were the subjects of the law?
Now I know I don't have much proof of this fact, so I am basing this on a very weak notion of the culture of the time and a somewhat clouded view of what I think about God. With this said I will begin to briefly discuss why I think women could be subjects of the law, which if this is the case, would then also show that God views women greatly among his creation.
To my understand about the culture in that time is that it was very barbaric. If a man wanted something he would just take it. Everything was viewed as property that could either be bought, sold, or taken. The world was to own by mankind. This is very evident in some of the Torah especially in Genesis. You have Abraham having to lie to some kings so that the men wouldn't kill him to take his wife. You also have Isaac doing the same exact thing. Also let us not forget the story of Tamar! All of these show that men were brutal and they took what they wanted. Therefore, what if God being the Supreme Being Who knows everything, knowing how men would be without laws and restrictions. Thus, God was now able to restrict men from "having" their way with women, but instead forcing them to treat them with some sort of respect. Furthermore, what better way to show that God actually cares about women, by putting these restrictions of them and by making them subjects, it implies that "Hey this is not just any other aspect of creation, but I made this FOR you. You need to treasure it!"
Now I know the potential flaws in this argument. The laws on "owenership" of women according to Leviticus and the laws of "rape." But what if this is just God speaking into a system that was already in place. Making it stricter to "set apart" his people. God knowing that he could not fully stop the idea of ownership of women instead put in a system that protected them. Women as subjects, NOT objects.
Now I know I don't have much proof of this fact, so I am basing this on a very weak notion of the culture of the time and a somewhat clouded view of what I think about God. With this said I will begin to briefly discuss why I think women could be subjects of the law, which if this is the case, would then also show that God views women greatly among his creation.
To my understand about the culture in that time is that it was very barbaric. If a man wanted something he would just take it. Everything was viewed as property that could either be bought, sold, or taken. The world was to own by mankind. This is very evident in some of the Torah especially in Genesis. You have Abraham having to lie to some kings so that the men wouldn't kill him to take his wife. You also have Isaac doing the same exact thing. Also let us not forget the story of Tamar! All of these show that men were brutal and they took what they wanted. Therefore, what if God being the Supreme Being Who knows everything, knowing how men would be without laws and restrictions. Thus, God was now able to restrict men from "having" their way with women, but instead forcing them to treat them with some sort of respect. Furthermore, what better way to show that God actually cares about women, by putting these restrictions of them and by making them subjects, it implies that "Hey this is not just any other aspect of creation, but I made this FOR you. You need to treasure it!"
Now I know the potential flaws in this argument. The laws on "owenership" of women according to Leviticus and the laws of "rape." But what if this is just God speaking into a system that was already in place. Making it stricter to "set apart" his people. God knowing that he could not fully stop the idea of ownership of women instead put in a system that protected them. Women as subjects, NOT objects.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Idol hand's=Devil's Workshop?
I think most of us have hear this phrase or at least a some derivative of it. The idea that unless we are doing something, striving to some goal, putting our hands to good use, in other words good ol' fashion work we will get in trouble. Society as a whole has this idea that if people are lazy and aren't working well then they are up to no good and will just cause trouble. Books all the time talk about how a man cannot be man unless he is working. In the beginning of mankind we can see how this is somewhat true. God placed Adam in the Garden and told him to basically get to work, to cultivate. Ever since then it seems that deep down mankind must be working in some way.I have even heard (though have not done the study) that men without work are more likely to suffer from depression and have a crises of identity. Though I may be wrong in thinking this, I believe there is a lot of truth to this idea. As I was reading through Exodus this idea even was shown with the life of the Hebrews after their freedom from Egypt.
If you know anything about the Hebrew nation in the Old Testament it is that they were always complaining. It was a constant thing. It seemed like no matter what God did they were never satisfied. Just in Exodus alone, after being released, they complained before the crossed the Red Sea, then they complained because they were hungry so God provides for them Quail and Mana from Heaven, then they are thirsty so God provides for the water. Even despite of all of God's provisions for them, the complain yet again when Moses goes to talk with God on Mt. Sinai and receive the commandments they complain yet again that Moses was taking too long and needed a god. So they build the Golden Calf. It is a common thing. Yet one thing really struck me as odd. The only time that it seemed no one complained was when they were building the tabernacle. As I was reading this and getting all the specifics of how the Tabernacle should be built along with the altars and the ark and the other instruments, I was realizing how this was going to be a lot of work. Very gruesome. Yet the Hebrew people take the challenge full on. They were told to give and they gave, and gave, and gave, gave so much that they were eventual told to stop giving. Then they set out to work. And they work and work, building the tabernacle, shaping the altars and the other instruments, never once do you read they complained. I began to ask myself why is this? Why do they not complain when that have some a hard task before them? They complained over every little thing it seems but not for the big thing. And I believe they didn't complain because they were busy doing something, but not just anything. It was something productive and something tangible.
Before this the Hebrews just walked. They were set out for a destination and they were going to it. But let's be honest. How boring can traveling be sometimes?Yes traveling can be productive, but if you have ever been on a long road trip, whether with family or what, or flying overseas, you can somewhat sympathize with the Hebrews. All they were doing was walking. Day after day, mile after mile. Eventual they would become complacent and want something more. This is what we know as the "are we there yet?" syndrome. With the building of the tabernacle, they could take a small break from the wares of traveling and actually work. They could build and construct. The women could weave and sow. They were all finally able to be productive with something tangible.
With my small understanding of the Old Testament and the history of Israel and the Hebrew people I find that this is a common trend. Every time in their history whenever they become complacent bad things happen and they begin to complain. They take it upon themselves to try and be productive. Yet when they aren't complaining is when they are working in some way. I believe this is true today. That whenever we are not being productive in someway that is when trouble comes to us. And like the Hebrews we begin to complain to God. And I think when this happens God addresses us like He did the Hebrew people in Exodus 14. When Moses goes before God before crossing the Red Sea, God asks Moses why are they just standing around. But move. I firmly believe that a lot of problems would be solved in personal lives if, whenever things become complacent or stagnant, we should move. Let us being to do and work for God.
If you know anything about the Hebrew nation in the Old Testament it is that they were always complaining. It was a constant thing. It seemed like no matter what God did they were never satisfied. Just in Exodus alone, after being released, they complained before the crossed the Red Sea, then they complained because they were hungry so God provides for them Quail and Mana from Heaven, then they are thirsty so God provides for the water. Even despite of all of God's provisions for them, the complain yet again when Moses goes to talk with God on Mt. Sinai and receive the commandments they complain yet again that Moses was taking too long and needed a god. So they build the Golden Calf. It is a common thing. Yet one thing really struck me as odd. The only time that it seemed no one complained was when they were building the tabernacle. As I was reading this and getting all the specifics of how the Tabernacle should be built along with the altars and the ark and the other instruments, I was realizing how this was going to be a lot of work. Very gruesome. Yet the Hebrew people take the challenge full on. They were told to give and they gave, and gave, and gave, gave so much that they were eventual told to stop giving. Then they set out to work. And they work and work, building the tabernacle, shaping the altars and the other instruments, never once do you read they complained. I began to ask myself why is this? Why do they not complain when that have some a hard task before them? They complained over every little thing it seems but not for the big thing. And I believe they didn't complain because they were busy doing something, but not just anything. It was something productive and something tangible.
Before this the Hebrews just walked. They were set out for a destination and they were going to it. But let's be honest. How boring can traveling be sometimes?Yes traveling can be productive, but if you have ever been on a long road trip, whether with family or what, or flying overseas, you can somewhat sympathize with the Hebrews. All they were doing was walking. Day after day, mile after mile. Eventual they would become complacent and want something more. This is what we know as the "are we there yet?" syndrome. With the building of the tabernacle, they could take a small break from the wares of traveling and actually work. They could build and construct. The women could weave and sow. They were all finally able to be productive with something tangible.
With my small understanding of the Old Testament and the history of Israel and the Hebrew people I find that this is a common trend. Every time in their history whenever they become complacent bad things happen and they begin to complain. They take it upon themselves to try and be productive. Yet when they aren't complaining is when they are working in some way. I believe this is true today. That whenever we are not being productive in someway that is when trouble comes to us. And like the Hebrews we begin to complain to God. And I think when this happens God addresses us like He did the Hebrew people in Exodus 14. When Moses goes before God before crossing the Red Sea, God asks Moses why are they just standing around. But move. I firmly believe that a lot of problems would be solved in personal lives if, whenever things become complacent or stagnant, we should move. Let us being to do and work for God.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Failures of the Church, Separation of Church and State, and Mafioso in Genesis?
A few weeks ago we had special guest speakers from the BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas) come and talk to our class about not only what they did with the BGCT, but also how you can find parts of their roles in the first half of the Old Testament. These speakers were Paul Atkinson and Stephen Reeves.
I will start first with Paul Atkinson because I believe the stuff he said should be a really big eye opener, or at least the things he led to. I know they began to open my eyes. First to introduce Paul. Paul is the head of BGCT Church Planting. He is responsible to help those who feel led to start a church. He opened up with the reading of 2 Kings 6:8-22. This is the story of Elisha being surrounded by the men of the king of Aram. In the story, the king of Aram sends several hundred men to kill Elisha, while being surrounded Elisha's servant got scared and questions Elisha as to what to do. Elisha responds by saying that those who are for us outnumber those who are against us, and then Elisha prays and asks God to open up his servants eyes. In doing so the servant see basically an army of angels. Paul Atkinson used this passage to point out a few things. One of those things was that despite Elisha not having resources, (his army was a group of "preacher boys") God still can work. He applied this by saying that on average it takes about $2 million to plant a church. However, they usually only start a church with just under $10,000 (to be more precise it is $800/months). Yet despite this huge shortcoming, church planting still happens because as in Elisha what resources are available doesn't stop God from taking charge. He actually just uses those resources around (5 loaves and 2 fish). Which leads into the second point Paul made that day: that the resource of God is already there when we need it, we just have to ask God to open our eyes. Even though, this message can "preach," this is not what I really want to talk about.
One of the main things that I guess can be implied from part of the talk he gave us, I believe, is what I call the failure of the church. He stated that just along the border there are so many Hispanics leaving in poverty and crime. These communities hold on average 400 people and there are multiple communities in a section. (Forgive me on the numbers and the actual terms he gave these communities, I cannot remember either precisely.) He said that crime is so bad there that even the local police won't even patrol it. Yet what is so sad is that there are very few churches stepping out and reaching to that area. He even made the point that even though the church plants are BGCT churches and therefore baptist that most of them won't even put Baptist in the name, because they don't want those close ties to a "baptist" church. I am sure some of you might have even seen this trend. So the question I raise is this: why is this so? Is the church failing so bad that, one, church plants don't even want to be associated with baptist because of the stereotype and presuppositions that come with being called Baptists? Furthermore, why are these churches not reaching out to that Hispanic community? And that is just one case! I would dare say that this happens to any location you are in just instead of Hispanic culture fill in the blank with the African-Americans, homosexuals, homeless, etc. I don't want to point the finger and not blame myself, I know that in part I can be the blame too. I know at times I don't go out of my way, but for an entire community not to be reached is a shame! Here is what I believe part of the problem is, I believe that God is calling those people to go and reach them, but people are not answering that call! I also believe that because of the Americanization of churches today that we refuse to go to where there is trouble, or high crime, or people not like us and we don't go to those places thinking someone else will. What has gone wrong?
Stephen Reeves can definitely be put right here I believe. Stephen Reeves is one of the lobbyists for a group called Christian Life Commission. This group, though not specifically under BGCT but associated, works closely with the Texas representatives in order to lobby or show the representatives the views of Texas Christians. Notice I said Texas Christians, not BGCT Christians. They want to make sure that they lobby and stand of biblical grounds for the sake of the Bible, not BGCT viewpoints. They stand for "social justice" from a biblical perspective more or less. To give an example, the most recent political issue they tackled was the expansion of gambling in Texas. The interesting thing they are doing is they are not attacking things by saying they are "unchristian" what they are doing is stating hey we believe this goes against what we believe and here is why you shouldn't vote on it or pass it because it will do this to the community. In relation to the gambling debate, they argued that the main people going to the casinos if they got them would be low income and those are the very people who didn't need to lose their money, and we would just be creating another addiction which would then cause more people to fault on their loans, miss payments, etc. So it would be better, they argued if we didn't not expand the gambling.
Although this is very interesting the question that does arise out of this is what about the separation between church and state? This today is a big argument. I fully agree with what the CLM is doing, don't get me wrong, but for the sake of this blog and discussion just was wondering where is that line of separation? I believe whole heartily that most if not all will say there definitely is a line and should be a line, but do we move that line when it is convenient for us? Kind of something that I have been thinking is this: I definitely think there should be a line separating the state from the church. This is to keep official state religions out, and to keep a repeat of English history with the Anglican Church and Catholic Church from happening in America. But I do not believe there should be a line separating the church from the states. What I mean is this, I think the church should be involved in Government, but the Government not involved in the church. I know this is very confusing and this is why I am thinking about it and still don't have it figured out. But I believe that the church should decide in governing issues. Just think if the church would have stepped up more in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s what might would have happened. (Furthermore going back to the previous topic, if the church would have stepped up in the community to help the needy and poor at that time how things might have been different.) This is a hard topic I think to wrestle with because it encompasses so much. For instance how far should, if any, the church go with the government? Should we be completely opposed to war? Should Christians even fight in the military? Now before I get lambasted with comments saying I am opposed to the military let me clarify now, I am 100 percent with the military. I have friends going into the military who are hardcore Christians and who are in the military now and I even considered going into the military. I just ask these questions to begin to get us as Christians and as a community to think.
I know I have thrown some deep stuff to ponder, and probably very controversial stuff. I hope we can figure some of this out together in life and can even agree to disagree. But to end in a lighter note, a few days ago in class we were discussing in the Old Testament, and more specifically in Genesis that the family was very important to the Hebrew culture. That you did NOT go against family. So can it be said that Abraham is the first Godfather?
I will start first with Paul Atkinson because I believe the stuff he said should be a really big eye opener, or at least the things he led to. I know they began to open my eyes. First to introduce Paul. Paul is the head of BGCT Church Planting. He is responsible to help those who feel led to start a church. He opened up with the reading of 2 Kings 6:8-22. This is the story of Elisha being surrounded by the men of the king of Aram. In the story, the king of Aram sends several hundred men to kill Elisha, while being surrounded Elisha's servant got scared and questions Elisha as to what to do. Elisha responds by saying that those who are for us outnumber those who are against us, and then Elisha prays and asks God to open up his servants eyes. In doing so the servant see basically an army of angels. Paul Atkinson used this passage to point out a few things. One of those things was that despite Elisha not having resources, (his army was a group of "preacher boys") God still can work. He applied this by saying that on average it takes about $2 million to plant a church. However, they usually only start a church with just under $10,000 (to be more precise it is $800/months). Yet despite this huge shortcoming, church planting still happens because as in Elisha what resources are available doesn't stop God from taking charge. He actually just uses those resources around (5 loaves and 2 fish). Which leads into the second point Paul made that day: that the resource of God is already there when we need it, we just have to ask God to open our eyes. Even though, this message can "preach," this is not what I really want to talk about.
One of the main things that I guess can be implied from part of the talk he gave us, I believe, is what I call the failure of the church. He stated that just along the border there are so many Hispanics leaving in poverty and crime. These communities hold on average 400 people and there are multiple communities in a section. (Forgive me on the numbers and the actual terms he gave these communities, I cannot remember either precisely.) He said that crime is so bad there that even the local police won't even patrol it. Yet what is so sad is that there are very few churches stepping out and reaching to that area. He even made the point that even though the church plants are BGCT churches and therefore baptist that most of them won't even put Baptist in the name, because they don't want those close ties to a "baptist" church. I am sure some of you might have even seen this trend. So the question I raise is this: why is this so? Is the church failing so bad that, one, church plants don't even want to be associated with baptist because of the stereotype and presuppositions that come with being called Baptists? Furthermore, why are these churches not reaching out to that Hispanic community? And that is just one case! I would dare say that this happens to any location you are in just instead of Hispanic culture fill in the blank with the African-Americans, homosexuals, homeless, etc. I don't want to point the finger and not blame myself, I know that in part I can be the blame too. I know at times I don't go out of my way, but for an entire community not to be reached is a shame! Here is what I believe part of the problem is, I believe that God is calling those people to go and reach them, but people are not answering that call! I also believe that because of the Americanization of churches today that we refuse to go to where there is trouble, or high crime, or people not like us and we don't go to those places thinking someone else will. What has gone wrong?
Stephen Reeves can definitely be put right here I believe. Stephen Reeves is one of the lobbyists for a group called Christian Life Commission. This group, though not specifically under BGCT but associated, works closely with the Texas representatives in order to lobby or show the representatives the views of Texas Christians. Notice I said Texas Christians, not BGCT Christians. They want to make sure that they lobby and stand of biblical grounds for the sake of the Bible, not BGCT viewpoints. They stand for "social justice" from a biblical perspective more or less. To give an example, the most recent political issue they tackled was the expansion of gambling in Texas. The interesting thing they are doing is they are not attacking things by saying they are "unchristian" what they are doing is stating hey we believe this goes against what we believe and here is why you shouldn't vote on it or pass it because it will do this to the community. In relation to the gambling debate, they argued that the main people going to the casinos if they got them would be low income and those are the very people who didn't need to lose their money, and we would just be creating another addiction which would then cause more people to fault on their loans, miss payments, etc. So it would be better, they argued if we didn't not expand the gambling.
Although this is very interesting the question that does arise out of this is what about the separation between church and state? This today is a big argument. I fully agree with what the CLM is doing, don't get me wrong, but for the sake of this blog and discussion just was wondering where is that line of separation? I believe whole heartily that most if not all will say there definitely is a line and should be a line, but do we move that line when it is convenient for us? Kind of something that I have been thinking is this: I definitely think there should be a line separating the state from the church. This is to keep official state religions out, and to keep a repeat of English history with the Anglican Church and Catholic Church from happening in America. But I do not believe there should be a line separating the church from the states. What I mean is this, I think the church should be involved in Government, but the Government not involved in the church. I know this is very confusing and this is why I am thinking about it and still don't have it figured out. But I believe that the church should decide in governing issues. Just think if the church would have stepped up more in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s what might would have happened. (Furthermore going back to the previous topic, if the church would have stepped up in the community to help the needy and poor at that time how things might have been different.) This is a hard topic I think to wrestle with because it encompasses so much. For instance how far should, if any, the church go with the government? Should we be completely opposed to war? Should Christians even fight in the military? Now before I get lambasted with comments saying I am opposed to the military let me clarify now, I am 100 percent with the military. I have friends going into the military who are hardcore Christians and who are in the military now and I even considered going into the military. I just ask these questions to begin to get us as Christians and as a community to think.
I know I have thrown some deep stuff to ponder, and probably very controversial stuff. I hope we can figure some of this out together in life and can even agree to disagree. But to end in a lighter note, a few days ago in class we were discussing in the Old Testament, and more specifically in Genesis that the family was very important to the Hebrew culture. That you did NOT go against family. So can it be said that Abraham is the first Godfather?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Welcome
Welcome to the first blog of Grant's Rants, or the Rants of Grant depending on how you look at it. For all who care to follow this I am trying to do something maybe a little different. To most you probably won't care about this blog, but to some you might. I am having to do a blog for one of my classes at Truett pertaining to stuff discussed in class. So a lot of what this blog will entail is topics discussed in class. However, the catch will be as I discuss topics I will explain some stuff we discussed as well as my thoughts and then leave it open for everyone to discuss.
Not everything I will mention on here will be class related. There will be times when I will just have something bother me that I will want to rant about, but for those of you who do follow this because of class; I will mention in the first sentence that the post has nothing to do with the class so you won't have to read the entire blog if you choose not to. However, most of the stuff that I will discuss will be things that can lead into discussion, which I know could be very problematic, so that may change later. I just believe in discussing things and also believe that with respectful arguments and discussions we can learn a lot from each other.
Well that is a brief intro to my blog. Welcome everyone and more will come later.
Not everything I will mention on here will be class related. There will be times when I will just have something bother me that I will want to rant about, but for those of you who do follow this because of class; I will mention in the first sentence that the post has nothing to do with the class so you won't have to read the entire blog if you choose not to. However, most of the stuff that I will discuss will be things that can lead into discussion, which I know could be very problematic, so that may change later. I just believe in discussing things and also believe that with respectful arguments and discussions we can learn a lot from each other.
Well that is a brief intro to my blog. Welcome everyone and more will come later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)