The scripture reading guide I use has got us in Hebrews. We are reading about the new atonement that Jesus made for us one time on the cross. It is better than the old way, the way detailed in Leviticus 16. So Saturday's reading takes us back to that old day. We read three or four different variations on the description on how it is done. Is this repetition for effect? Or is it different writers telling it a slightly different way?
But the point is clear. The priest must make himself as holy as possible before he makes the sacrifice for sin for the whole people. He does it once a year. Hebrews makes it clear Jesus was a willing sacrifice for all of our sins, past, present, and future. So he makes his sacrifice once for all time. He is truly holy.
The priest can make himself holy on the outside by washing and wearing clean white linen which he only wears for the occasion and take off before he leave the temple. He makes a sacrifice of a bull for himself and then a goat for the people.
Anyway the Jews dare not enter into the holy of holies. Yet we do dare because the temple veil was torn when Jesus died on the cross. By the atonement of Jesus, even though we are sinners God calls us holy. So we can now enter the holy of holies and talk to God, as Moses did.
But we dare not take this for granted. We still should work to be as holy as we can. I think by obedience to God's laws, as much as we can, this helps the channel between us and God to be more open. "You shall be my friends if you do what I tell you." Obedience is involved. Yet it is still a work of Jesus and not ourselves for our holiness is as filthy rags before a truly holy God.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Saturday activities
I had a nice walk through east end and downtown this morning. I said hi as a walked to the Rodeo 5k. I did the walk starting at 9:45. I used a couple of younger people walking to give me a pace. Then I jogged in the last one tenth of a mile. Perhaps I should have started the jog a bit earlier. I finished at a 16:15 per mile pace, not bad.
Then I collected a whole lot of free food from the after party. Well everyone else was doing it too.
Then I walked home. I was loaded down. I went slower. The radio kept me going. Oh, on the way up I read my Haggard book "She". And I listened to gardening. That reminded me that I should fertilize the roses and azaleas.
Then JB and I went to Rice baseball. I talked him into it. He was happy since we won. Rice beat Nebraska to get to 2-3.
Then I collected a whole lot of free food from the after party. Well everyone else was doing it too.
Then I walked home. I was loaded down. I went slower. The radio kept me going. Oh, on the way up I read my Haggard book "She". And I listened to gardening. That reminded me that I should fertilize the roses and azaleas.
Then JB and I went to Rice baseball. I talked him into it. He was happy since we won. Rice beat Nebraska to get to 2-3.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Rodeo Walk tommorrow - Evony going going ...
I plan to walk the Rodeo Run Walk, non competitive 5K walk. I will walk to the site of the start, at Texas and Smith, that's another 5k. Then I will walk home, for another 4-5K. So I'll get my workout. This thing starts at 9:45 AM. That is pretty late. But I should be home by noon.
I did one of these last year only that time I chose the 10k. But all the others who choose 10k are serious runners. I was by far the last one on the course. The race volunteers practically gave me a parade escort to the finish line. That was embarrassing for me and I sure annoying to them. That last race I was with a lot of people until we got to the place where the 5k people split from the 10k people. I was the only one who chose the 10k route. I should have gotten the message. I am slow about these things but this time I think I get it. I'll just do the 5k but for my own interest I will do more before and after. 5k is not really enough for me.
Does anyone know Evony? Well I have an Evony friend that showed me an automated program that automates one of the most annoying features of Evony. But this is an adventure game, a war game simulating Byzantine warfare technology played by players on the internet from all over the world. Besides the USA there are a lot of English, Germans, and Australians. It is run out of Hong Kong. Anyway these kids of programs, called "bots" are expressly forbidden. You can be evicted from the game.
I have done everything I can really in this game. Now its a matter of mostly staying alive. So eviction might be my best bet. I'm having trouble quitting cold turkey. Right now I am on three day restriction. That's like suspension to the Green Room. Or being grounded like when I was a kid.
I did one of these last year only that time I chose the 10k. But all the others who choose 10k are serious runners. I was by far the last one on the course. The race volunteers practically gave me a parade escort to the finish line. That was embarrassing for me and I sure annoying to them. That last race I was with a lot of people until we got to the place where the 5k people split from the 10k people. I was the only one who chose the 10k route. I should have gotten the message. I am slow about these things but this time I think I get it. I'll just do the 5k but for my own interest I will do more before and after. 5k is not really enough for me.
Does anyone know Evony? Well I have an Evony friend that showed me an automated program that automates one of the most annoying features of Evony. But this is an adventure game, a war game simulating Byzantine warfare technology played by players on the internet from all over the world. Besides the USA there are a lot of English, Germans, and Australians. It is run out of Hong Kong. Anyway these kids of programs, called "bots" are expressly forbidden. You can be evicted from the game.
I have done everything I can really in this game. Now its a matter of mostly staying alive. So eviction might be my best bet. I'm having trouble quitting cold turkey. Right now I am on three day restriction. That's like suspension to the Green Room. Or being grounded like when I was a kid.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Rice Owl baseball finally opened with a loss at home last night. They got swept at Stanford last weekend. Pitching is a big problem. Hitting and fielding seem OK, maybe above average. Last night as the innings wound down several freshmen got to try out. Anyone who shows a spark will get more time.
Game started at 4. There was a 10 minute glare delay, that happens every spring. The game ended a little after 7. I tried to get to Kegans for small group.
I ran into rules again. Prisons are all about rules. The woman at the gate said no one could come in (by rule) if they are 15 minutes late. So MB and I decided we would follow rules and not try to tempt her to break it. MB got me the invitations for the Alpha marriage class for DW to call the wives. Then I got home earlier than I thought.
My neighbor JB noticed that as he got to see me before he went to bed. So he came over. The house was empty. I don't know where DW went. She did not tell me anything.
JB and I watched a little Olympics. Olympics = boring. We switched over and watched some CSI-NY as well. Luge is pretty good. Aerials is tough to watch. Actually JB mentioned something important. Every luge run looks the same, only the colors are different. Only the comments by the announcer lets us know how well they are doing. Otherwise they all look exactly the same.
Game started at 4. There was a 10 minute glare delay, that happens every spring. The game ended a little after 7. I tried to get to Kegans for small group.
I ran into rules again. Prisons are all about rules. The woman at the gate said no one could come in (by rule) if they are 15 minutes late. So MB and I decided we would follow rules and not try to tempt her to break it. MB got me the invitations for the Alpha marriage class for DW to call the wives. Then I got home earlier than I thought.
My neighbor JB noticed that as he got to see me before he went to bed. So he came over. The house was empty. I don't know where DW went. She did not tell me anything.
JB and I watched a little Olympics. Olympics = boring. We switched over and watched some CSI-NY as well. Luge is pretty good. Aerials is tough to watch. Actually JB mentioned something important. Every luge run looks the same, only the colors are different. Only the comments by the announcer lets us know how well they are doing. Otherwise they all look exactly the same.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Breaking rules and ... turn signals
I was telling someone the other day that I am rule breaker, not a rule follower.
Two of my rule breakings over at Rice University had consequences a couple of weeks ago. They got slammed shut.
First I found a parking place on the campus where I did not have to pay, it is close to the Inner Loop shuttle. But I am not supposed to park there. I have been running just ahead of the authorities for over two years. I would swear that when I started parking there, there was no sign. But the sign has been there for a while. I got a ticket. The small print on the ticket envelope describes where I can park at Rice for free. So now I am following rules.
Secondly I found a carrel at the Rice library with an open drawer. Almost all the drawers are locked. There I could store stuff, mostly small office stuff and things like candy, paper napkins, toothbrush, comb, and the like. The drawer had been raided a few times over the years but this time it was locked. I have to admit I took it too far. I was keeping a library book without checking it out. So I get what I deserve.
I have checked around. I found another unlocked drawer. But after my last problem I will stay where I usually study with the locked drawer. At least for a while. Probably I need a better one still.
OK, that was all introduction. I was reminded off this because of my road rule breaking experience recently. Recently I got a ticket for not using my turn signal. I got out of it. (Yeah!) Perhaps I should chalk that up to grace.
But since all that I have been using my turn signal. I would have told you I already did most of the time. (My family scoffs when I say that.) Now I see that that was not true. I still have to be pretty conscious of it. I think a common reason for not using the turn signal is that it just signals to people behind you what you are about to do so they can speed up and stop you.
My fear of that has been relatively unfounded. For every people who does speed up there are two who see the signal and let you in. So I commend to you the use of your turn signal, if you are not already doing it.
Two of my rule breakings over at Rice University had consequences a couple of weeks ago. They got slammed shut.
First I found a parking place on the campus where I did not have to pay, it is close to the Inner Loop shuttle. But I am not supposed to park there. I have been running just ahead of the authorities for over two years. I would swear that when I started parking there, there was no sign. But the sign has been there for a while. I got a ticket. The small print on the ticket envelope describes where I can park at Rice for free. So now I am following rules.
Secondly I found a carrel at the Rice library with an open drawer. Almost all the drawers are locked. There I could store stuff, mostly small office stuff and things like candy, paper napkins, toothbrush, comb, and the like. The drawer had been raided a few times over the years but this time it was locked. I have to admit I took it too far. I was keeping a library book without checking it out. So I get what I deserve.
I have checked around. I found another unlocked drawer. But after my last problem I will stay where I usually study with the locked drawer. At least for a while. Probably I need a better one still.
OK, that was all introduction. I was reminded off this because of my road rule breaking experience recently. Recently I got a ticket for not using my turn signal. I got out of it. (Yeah!) Perhaps I should chalk that up to grace.
But since all that I have been using my turn signal. I would have told you I already did most of the time. (My family scoffs when I say that.) Now I see that that was not true. I still have to be pretty conscious of it. I think a common reason for not using the turn signal is that it just signals to people behind you what you are about to do so they can speed up and stop you.
My fear of that has been relatively unfounded. For every people who does speed up there are two who see the signal and let you in. So I commend to you the use of your turn signal, if you are not already doing it.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Final review Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbiging
Finished reading Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbigin on my morning walk. His last two chapters are the conclusion to the book. He has spent five chapters detailing the problem and explaining historically how it came to be. To me in many ways this was the best part of the book. I find the links between different philosophical stages fascinating. There was some stuff I was only vaguely aware of. Newbigin’s position is that for the last 1000 or so years the most important philosophical thinking was begin done in Europe. I’ll bet there are some Indians and Chinese who would beg to differ. But anyway.
Newbigin’s conclusions are not new. To me he does earn the right to state them from his describing the problem so well. So his conclusions are described from the aspect of this problem. That is helpful.
His conclusion is that we must believe by faith and then our obedience to acting out our faith will give us assurance. He feels that the idea that we can know for certain (a la Descartes) is impossible. Descartes’ proposition turns out to be false. We can never know without first be called to faith and responding to it. The illustration of Jesus calling Peter to follow him is still apt. We are called just like Peter and we respond by following.
The only one who can take a culturally independent standpoint on life is God himself (page 98). Descartes was certainly wrong when he stated that we too can have such a standpoint. In reading this I have trouble I think for that very reason. I cannot be dispassionate. My enlightenment based biases scream at me. I want to find certainty, to be able to “prove it”. A part of me knows it’s by faith stupid. But I like the Greeks and all of us who follow, want to find an independent way of knowing God exists, outside of revelation. This is called Natural Theology. Newbigin denies that you can know God in this way. Others might say you can know something of God, just not about our Savior Jesus Christ.
A not so minor point: Newbigin denies the infallibility of the Bible (page 85). He implies it before this but here he expressly states it. He says infallibility is a response (by Fundamentalists) to the enlightenment and Descartes. Infallibility arguments lead to absurdity. On page 90 he states that Jesus promised the disciples he would give them the gift of the Holy Spirit. The HS will interpret the meaning of the words and deeds that had gone on before and lead them to the truth. But that does not make them infallible.
He does, on page 91, describe his understanding of Biblical authority. He bases it on John 15:15 – “I no longer call you servants, for a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from my Father I have made known to you.” Knowing involves doing and loving. Quoting here: “The important thing is not how we formulate a doctrine of biblical authority but how we allow the Bible to function in our daily lives.”
Newbigin has some great turns of phrase. There are also places where I struggle to understand what he is getting at. It is short, only 105 pages. He explains why faith can be put on equal faith with some kind of false attempt to be scientific. All such constructs must rely on unproved suppositions. So a Christians assertion that he believes on faith has equal weight with the man who says I do not believe. His is also a kind of faith and he cannot prove his position either. Einstein’s statement that there is no absolute proof in the real world works here.
When I think of that I think of the miraculous, specifically the miraculous healing. No matter how amazing the miracle one can always doubt the truth of what one has seen, explain it away by some physical understanding or simple doubt the honesty of those involved. One chooses to have faith or not.
(Another view of this book)
Newbigin’s conclusions are not new. To me he does earn the right to state them from his describing the problem so well. So his conclusions are described from the aspect of this problem. That is helpful.
His conclusion is that we must believe by faith and then our obedience to acting out our faith will give us assurance. He feels that the idea that we can know for certain (a la Descartes) is impossible. Descartes’ proposition turns out to be false. We can never know without first be called to faith and responding to it. The illustration of Jesus calling Peter to follow him is still apt. We are called just like Peter and we respond by following.
The only one who can take a culturally independent standpoint on life is God himself (page 98). Descartes was certainly wrong when he stated that we too can have such a standpoint. In reading this I have trouble I think for that very reason. I cannot be dispassionate. My enlightenment based biases scream at me. I want to find certainty, to be able to “prove it”. A part of me knows it’s by faith stupid. But I like the Greeks and all of us who follow, want to find an independent way of knowing God exists, outside of revelation. This is called Natural Theology. Newbigin denies that you can know God in this way. Others might say you can know something of God, just not about our Savior Jesus Christ.
A not so minor point: Newbigin denies the infallibility of the Bible (page 85). He implies it before this but here he expressly states it. He says infallibility is a response (by Fundamentalists) to the enlightenment and Descartes. Infallibility arguments lead to absurdity. On page 90 he states that Jesus promised the disciples he would give them the gift of the Holy Spirit. The HS will interpret the meaning of the words and deeds that had gone on before and lead them to the truth. But that does not make them infallible.
He does, on page 91, describe his understanding of Biblical authority. He bases it on John 15:15 – “I no longer call you servants, for a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from my Father I have made known to you.” Knowing involves doing and loving. Quoting here: “The important thing is not how we formulate a doctrine of biblical authority but how we allow the Bible to function in our daily lives.”
Newbigin has some great turns of phrase. There are also places where I struggle to understand what he is getting at. It is short, only 105 pages. He explains why faith can be put on equal faith with some kind of false attempt to be scientific. All such constructs must rely on unproved suppositions. So a Christians assertion that he believes on faith has equal weight with the man who says I do not believe. His is also a kind of faith and he cannot prove his position either. Einstein’s statement that there is no absolute proof in the real world works here.
When I think of that I think of the miraculous, specifically the miraculous healing. No matter how amazing the miracle one can always doubt the truth of what one has seen, explain it away by some physical understanding or simple doubt the honesty of those involved. One chooses to have faith or not.
(Another view of this book)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Purpose of My Life ?!
Someone mentioned having a purpose to his life. So that got me thinking. What is the purpose of my life? This is a hard question for me. It is so hard that I have not attempted to think of it for a long while. Should I attempt to revisit this?
What is the purpose of my life or even parts of my life? I have not really consciously thought of it in a while. Because when I did I was stumped. I suppose I do not feel worthy of having a purpose. That might involve some kind of overarching goal.
I raised four wonderful children. Was that part of my purpose? I certainly feel satisfied with that part of my life, praise God.
Is my purpose intrinsic? I think I reject that? Maybe I do not understand what people mean by a purpose?
The only thing I can say is my purpose is to try to serve God. By serving him I love him. I just saw a variant of that as part of a catechism. That is pretty vague though. It does not leave me with specifics. When people talk about having a purpose I think they must have specifics in mind.
What is the purpose of my life or even parts of my life? I have not really consciously thought of it in a while. Because when I did I was stumped. I suppose I do not feel worthy of having a purpose. That might involve some kind of overarching goal.
I raised four wonderful children. Was that part of my purpose? I certainly feel satisfied with that part of my life, praise God.
Is my purpose intrinsic? I think I reject that? Maybe I do not understand what people mean by a purpose?
The only thing I can say is my purpose is to try to serve God. By serving him I love him. I just saw a variant of that as part of a catechism. That is pretty vague though. It does not leave me with specifics. When people talk about having a purpose I think they must have specifics in mind.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Hebrew 4:1-16
verse 4:1 Let us fear lest while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it..
4:3 This quote of Ps. 95:11 refers to the Exodus. So the writer is thinking of the illustration of the Israelites losing their promised privilege of entering into the promised land (rest) because of their disobedience. (Remember after God condemned them, in their embarrassment they tried to go in and do it on their own strength. And they failed miserably.)
On the other hand I was wondering how closely the “rest” of Exodus is closely analogous to heaven. The “rest” of the Israelites is actually going to be a whole lot of work. First they have to fight and kill all the present inhabitants. Then they will have to farm and reap the crops. They won’t grow themselves. They will get married and raise families. I’d like to think heaven will be like this too. We won’t be raising families in heaven but our “rest” in heaven will involve activity. It will be activity with a purpose. We will be occupied by rightful praise too.
Hebrew 4:7 also is quoting Psalm 95 referring to the Exodus. Psalm 55 is like a prophesy admonishing the Israelites to remember the disobedience of their ancestors and “don’t do it again!”. “Do not harden your hearts as a Meribah and Masseh. That is where they complained to Moss about not having water. God provided once and they did it again. Let us ask God with faith, believing He will do it. The Israelites did not have faith even after they had seen before. They did not trust God.
This chapter is beginning the development of a long argument explaining to converted Jews that they have done the right thing. The promise of Jesus is much greater than the promise made to Moses. These men are reconsidering their faith. Being a Christian is causing them a lot of persecution. They are pressured by their Jewish families and friends. They are pressured by Romans for while the Jewish religion has been given several important privileges the Christian religion has not.
So I am backing off of my (somewhat facetious) claim that Hebrews 3-4 are a proof text for Arminianism. I had a private question about that. In thinking through it more thoroughly I realized really I was trying to be jocular.
But now reading 4:1 again. It says “seem to come”. This is important because the writer is beginning a long argument comparing the new covenant of Jesus with the old covenant of Moses and Abraham. He may very well be implying here that you have not actually come short of it at all, despite your disobedience, because Jesus has brought us a greater promise. Because Jesus did all the work by becoming a man and dying on the cross you, have come to a much greater promise. I think the writer meant just that. The “seem to” is an important nuance that will get expanded on as we continue to read.
Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbigin - Part Four - Michael Polanyi
Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbigin – Part Four
Setting the groundwork Descartes set out to prove God through philosophy, not theology. His framework is the basis of modernity. He reinforces the duality of mind from the rest of the body.
After this Newbigin uses the work of a scientific philosopher named Michael Polanyi. Polanyi thinks that the idea of pure science: being totally and logically working towards absolute truth is an illusion. Polanyi thinks that the idea that scientists are objective is impossible. Scientists are personally committed to what they do. They cannot, and perhaps should not be objective. He states in summary, “But this does not make our understanding subjective. Comprehension is neither an arbitrary act nor a passive experience, but a responsible act claiming universal validity. Such knowledge is indeed objective in the sense of establishing contact with a hidden reality, contact that is defined as the condition for anticipating an indeterminate range of as yet unknown (and perhaps yet inconceivable) true implications. It seems reasonable to describe this fusion of the personal and the objective as personal knowledge.” (Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, pp. vii-viii) So Polanyi thinks that despite the personal feelings of the scientist objective truths can be obtained.
Newbigin thinks this very relevant. He thinks our definition of certainty is flawed. (I’m not sure I totally follow him here.) Christians who have inwardly accepted the three dualisms I mentioned before (that came from this book) will have a wrong idea of what it means to be certain of one’s faith.
I admit to not quite understanding all that Newbigin is saying. I do not think I have yet really understood how much my scheme of thought is based on the Greek philosophical understandings. Newbigin wants to show us that faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive.
I like that statement by Einstein. I had never heard it before. It is worth repeating. “The statements of mathematics are only certain when they make no contact with reality.” Newtonian physics turns out to be like that. F = mv turns out only to be an approximation in the real world. It works in most situations but as you approach the speed of light things change. Also with very small particles things are different.
At that SVS conference I went to last week we had a couple of young scientists give papers, one appealing to us to accept evolution the other appealing to us to accept the theory of global warming as fact and act accordingly. Polanyi speaks of the passionate personal commitment of scientists to their work. These two young scientists were exhibits A and B. The first lady made a very telling statement during Q & A. “These experiments are my babies, I love them.” Both of these people firmly believed what they were telling us. But in the real world their “facts” can be doubted, just as the “fact” that Jesus died and rose can be doubted too.
Newbigin thinks that Polanyi’s work on knowing facts which he applies to scientists is closely analogous to what a Christian does when he works to prove his faith in Jesus. Both start with assumptions and both cannot totally be stripped of all preconceived beliefs which come from our culture.
Setting the groundwork Descartes set out to prove God through philosophy, not theology. His framework is the basis of modernity. He reinforces the duality of mind from the rest of the body.
After this Newbigin uses the work of a scientific philosopher named Michael Polanyi. Polanyi thinks that the idea of pure science: being totally and logically working towards absolute truth is an illusion. Polanyi thinks that the idea that scientists are objective is impossible. Scientists are personally committed to what they do. They cannot, and perhaps should not be objective. He states in summary, “But this does not make our understanding subjective. Comprehension is neither an arbitrary act nor a passive experience, but a responsible act claiming universal validity. Such knowledge is indeed objective in the sense of establishing contact with a hidden reality, contact that is defined as the condition for anticipating an indeterminate range of as yet unknown (and perhaps yet inconceivable) true implications. It seems reasonable to describe this fusion of the personal and the objective as personal knowledge.” (Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, pp. vii-viii) So Polanyi thinks that despite the personal feelings of the scientist objective truths can be obtained.
Newbigin thinks this very relevant. He thinks our definition of certainty is flawed. (I’m not sure I totally follow him here.) Christians who have inwardly accepted the three dualisms I mentioned before (that came from this book) will have a wrong idea of what it means to be certain of one’s faith.
I admit to not quite understanding all that Newbigin is saying. I do not think I have yet really understood how much my scheme of thought is based on the Greek philosophical understandings. Newbigin wants to show us that faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive.
I like that statement by Einstein. I had never heard it before. It is worth repeating. “The statements of mathematics are only certain when they make no contact with reality.” Newtonian physics turns out to be like that. F = mv turns out only to be an approximation in the real world. It works in most situations but as you approach the speed of light things change. Also with very small particles things are different.
At that SVS conference I went to last week we had a couple of young scientists give papers, one appealing to us to accept evolution the other appealing to us to accept the theory of global warming as fact and act accordingly. Polanyi speaks of the passionate personal commitment of scientists to their work. These two young scientists were exhibits A and B. The first lady made a very telling statement during Q & A. “These experiments are my babies, I love them.” Both of these people firmly believed what they were telling us. But in the real world their “facts” can be doubted, just as the “fact” that Jesus died and rose can be doubted too.
Newbigin thinks that Polanyi’s work on knowing facts which he applies to scientists is closely analogous to what a Christian does when he works to prove his faith in Jesus. Both start with assumptions and both cannot totally be stripped of all preconceived beliefs which come from our culture.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbigin - Three dualisms
Dualism
1. The thinking mind and the external world (in Latin res cogitans and res extensa) This had led to the popular idea that God who belongs to the thinking or spiritual world cannot influence the material world. The early church had to overcome this dualism when it asserted that the logos became Jesus Christ, a physical man. God is the creator of both the visible and the invisible.
2. Second closely related is the dualism of the objective and the subjective. We think that everyone can have his own truth. Yet God's view is the objective one. Is beauty or goodness only in the eye of the beholder. Or is there a truth objective goodness and/or beauty. They are not totally subjective. On the other hand the findings of science are often held out to be totally objective facts the same in any society.
3. The third duality is that between theory and practice. These words are based on two Greek words, theoria and praxis. Interestingly neither of these two words is in the Bible because their way of describing the world is foreign to the writers of the Bible. In the Bible the operative contrast is between believing and obeying on the one hand and refusal to believe and obey on the other hand (p.39). He uses the example I quoted in another post, when Jesus said to Simon "Follow me." Simon's response is one. There is no gap between mental action of believing and physical action of following. The person is not a mind connected to a body but a single being.
Newbigin states that the most important dualism to look at is the second one if we are to become confident in a certainty of our faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
1. The thinking mind and the external world (in Latin res cogitans and res extensa) This had led to the popular idea that God who belongs to the thinking or spiritual world cannot influence the material world. The early church had to overcome this dualism when it asserted that the logos became Jesus Christ, a physical man. God is the creator of both the visible and the invisible.
2. Second closely related is the dualism of the objective and the subjective. We think that everyone can have his own truth. Yet God's view is the objective one. Is beauty or goodness only in the eye of the beholder. Or is there a truth objective goodness and/or beauty. They are not totally subjective. On the other hand the findings of science are often held out to be totally objective facts the same in any society.
3. The third duality is that between theory and practice. These words are based on two Greek words, theoria and praxis. Interestingly neither of these two words is in the Bible because their way of describing the world is foreign to the writers of the Bible. In the Bible the operative contrast is between believing and obeying on the one hand and refusal to believe and obey on the other hand (p.39). He uses the example I quoted in another post, when Jesus said to Simon "Follow me." Simon's response is one. There is no gap between mental action of believing and physical action of following. The person is not a mind connected to a body but a single being.
Newbigin states that the most important dualism to look at is the second one if we are to become confident in a certainty of our faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbigin
DG had a book he wanted me to read by Newbigin. It is called the Gospel in a Pluralistic Society Well since I am very reticent to buy another book I checked the Rice Library and the Houston Public Library and could not find it available. I do not have enough influence at Rice to get the book on an interlibrary loan. I need to check to see if I can get them to buy as one of their acquisitions.
Well anyway I decided to get another book that the Rice library did have. It was the one he wrote just before the one DG recommended. It is obviously not on a related subject at all. But it is great.
He starts off with a short history of how thought developed in Europe from the time of Christ until at least the enlightenment. I have only read snippets of Locke and Hume and Bacon. I get my understanding second hand, like in this book.
One thing that was interesting was that Thomas Aquinas wrote his works that became "Thomism" in reaction to some great Muslim theologians Avicenna (980-1032) and Averroes (1126-1198). They lived in Moorish Spain, I think. At that time Moslems were advancing civilization greatly. It was after all from them that we got our numbering system, commonly called Arabic numerals. There was actually a time when people tried to add and subtract and multiply using Roman numerals. Can you imagine? There are attempts at algorithms for doing this. The introduction of Arabic numerals greatly advanced mathematics and science, first in the Moslem world and then in Christian Europe. These Muslim philosophers were introducing rationalism. It seems their ideas were later repudiated and now seem foreign to many Muslim cultures.
Thomas worked out how to combine Western Christianity with rationalism. His greatest work was Summa contra Gentiles. That's right, Aquinas set out to prove that God existed. We can know by reason alone. He also claimed that when science and revelation clashed the revelation must be the truth. The knowledge of God (theology) was higher than philosophy.
But an unintended consequence was that what we can know is separated from what we believe on faith.
Thomas felt that God could be proved and over the centuries people did attempt to do that. But finally it was concluded that God could not be proven. That led to doubts. By the 1600's skepticism was dominant in the intellectual life of western Europe (p. 19). This is what brought Rene Decartes' thesis summarized as "I think, therefore I am." Decartes tried to empty the field start from nothing and see what was certain. Decartes is referred through often in this book.
I am covering some of what is in this book. I love his quick summarizing intellectual developments in Europe especially as he shows how one movement is a reaction to the last one.
Perhaps Newbigin's main purpose in writing this book is to show how we got to this postmodern state we are in now. I still have not read the concluding two chapters but it is clear he is not happy with this postmodern state. He has already included several critiques and I think the last two chapters will put that all together with positive suggestions.
I am trying to do his ideas justice but sometimes I am not sure I totally get his meaning.
Well anyway I decided to get another book that the Rice library did have. It was the one he wrote just before the one DG recommended. It is obviously not on a related subject at all. But it is great.
He starts off with a short history of how thought developed in Europe from the time of Christ until at least the enlightenment. I have only read snippets of Locke and Hume and Bacon. I get my understanding second hand, like in this book.
One thing that was interesting was that Thomas Aquinas wrote his works that became "Thomism" in reaction to some great Muslim theologians Avicenna (980-1032) and Averroes (1126-1198). They lived in Moorish Spain, I think. At that time Moslems were advancing civilization greatly. It was after all from them that we got our numbering system, commonly called Arabic numerals. There was actually a time when people tried to add and subtract and multiply using Roman numerals. Can you imagine? There are attempts at algorithms for doing this. The introduction of Arabic numerals greatly advanced mathematics and science, first in the Moslem world and then in Christian Europe. These Muslim philosophers were introducing rationalism. It seems their ideas were later repudiated and now seem foreign to many Muslim cultures.
Thomas worked out how to combine Western Christianity with rationalism. His greatest work was Summa contra Gentiles. That's right, Aquinas set out to prove that God existed. We can know by reason alone. He also claimed that when science and revelation clashed the revelation must be the truth. The knowledge of God (theology) was higher than philosophy.
But an unintended consequence was that what we can know is separated from what we believe on faith.
Thomas felt that God could be proved and over the centuries people did attempt to do that. But finally it was concluded that God could not be proven. That led to doubts. By the 1600's skepticism was dominant in the intellectual life of western Europe (p. 19). This is what brought Rene Decartes' thesis summarized as "I think, therefore I am." Decartes tried to empty the field start from nothing and see what was certain. Decartes is referred through often in this book.
I am covering some of what is in this book. I love his quick summarizing intellectual developments in Europe especially as he shows how one movement is a reaction to the last one.
Perhaps Newbigin's main purpose in writing this book is to show how we got to this postmodern state we are in now. I still have not read the concluding two chapters but it is clear he is not happy with this postmodern state. He has already included several critiques and I think the last two chapters will put that all together with positive suggestions.
I am trying to do his ideas justice but sometimes I am not sure I totally get his meaning.
Hebrew 3-4
When I read Hebrews 3 and 4 I am reminded why I am an Arminian. What is the word for the opposite of Armenian. Some would say "orthodoxy". Arminianism is the belief that some one might lose his salvation. Some would say this is heresy. But it is mostly mincing words.
What does one do with Hebrews 3-4? The writer of Hebrews is speaking to believers. He is concerned that they continue in the faith. They need to produce fruit. James speaks to the same thing. "How do you show your faith. I show my faith by my works." It is not enough to simply say "I believe".
How about the illustration of the Exodus which is often used as an allegory about our walk of faith? What is the equivalent to salvation? Is it the walking through the Red Sea or is it crossing the Jordan into the promised land? Is there a different in being chosen and being saved? It seems walking across the Red Sea makes them committed, no turning back to Egypt. It could be likened to a confession of faith. Yet because of disobedience all but two did not make it into the promised land. The promised land could be likened to heaven, our final reward, running the race to the end, salvation.
So did the Israelites lose their salvation by their disobedience? The certainly lost their reward of the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
I am reading Newbigin Proper Confidence He speaks of Greek dualities that we have internalized in our culture but which are totally absent from the Bible. Faith and obedience come together. We try to separate them somehow. But James and the writer of Hebrews do not understand this duality. It is foreign to them. When Jesus calls Peter to follow him Peter's faith was shown by his immediate obedience.
Now there is a lot of room for grace. But let us take our faith seriously. A faithful person will be obedient.
What does one do with Hebrews 3-4? The writer of Hebrews is speaking to believers. He is concerned that they continue in the faith. They need to produce fruit. James speaks to the same thing. "How do you show your faith. I show my faith by my works." It is not enough to simply say "I believe".
How about the illustration of the Exodus which is often used as an allegory about our walk of faith? What is the equivalent to salvation? Is it the walking through the Red Sea or is it crossing the Jordan into the promised land? Is there a different in being chosen and being saved? It seems walking across the Red Sea makes them committed, no turning back to Egypt. It could be likened to a confession of faith. Yet because of disobedience all but two did not make it into the promised land. The promised land could be likened to heaven, our final reward, running the race to the end, salvation.
So did the Israelites lose their salvation by their disobedience? The certainly lost their reward of the promised land, the land of milk and honey.
I am reading Newbigin Proper Confidence He speaks of Greek dualities that we have internalized in our culture but which are totally absent from the Bible. Faith and obedience come together. We try to separate them somehow. But James and the writer of Hebrews do not understand this duality. It is foreign to them. When Jesus calls Peter to follow him Peter's faith was shown by his immediate obedience.
Now there is a lot of room for grace. But let us take our faith seriously. A faithful person will be obedient.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Vineyard Scholars
I spent a long day listening to papers at the Vineyard Scholars in Sugar Land. I saw several old faces. I spoke to some nice people. Actually there were about 50 people there many from out of town. There were 14 20 minutes presentations.
One was on Farmville. It was funny but serious too.
Two scientists gave the cases for evolution alongside Christianity and a plea for taking global warming seriously. Both of those were hot button topics but there was not much time for discussion.
There were a lot of young post moderns who were on fire for social justice and doing good works.
I got to sit with Bill when he showed around 3 PM. He had been with MH in the hospital. I know that was important.
Harry F. was there too with his SIL.
The last session tonight was by Don Williams. Bill said he would be worth waiting for and he was. But then I took off without getting my wine and cheese. That's going to have to be for the men and women who were staying in nearby hotels. I had a long drive back.
Don Williams knows and jokes with a lot of people in the crowd. He also knew and was mentored by John Wimber. We got some good stories.
There were a lot of women here and three speakers were women too.
I got several ideas for blogs. Stay tuned.
One was on Farmville. It was funny but serious too.
Two scientists gave the cases for evolution alongside Christianity and a plea for taking global warming seriously. Both of those were hot button topics but there was not much time for discussion.
There were a lot of young post moderns who were on fire for social justice and doing good works.
I got to sit with Bill when he showed around 3 PM. He had been with MH in the hospital. I know that was important.
Harry F. was there too with his SIL.
The last session tonight was by Don Williams. Bill said he would be worth waiting for and he was. But then I took off without getting my wine and cheese. That's going to have to be for the men and women who were staying in nearby hotels. I had a long drive back.
Don Williams knows and jokes with a lot of people in the crowd. He also knew and was mentored by John Wimber. We got some good stories.
There were a lot of women here and three speakers were women too.
I got several ideas for blogs. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Hebrews 1
This book is well organized in a Greek homiletic sort of way.
The first chapter introduces his thesis which is the greatness of Jesus.
He quotes, without citing, the Old Testament extensively. The author wants us to know that Jesus is God and that the Old Testament is full of references to him. He extensively quotes Psalms. Are the quotes in the New Testament the only places where the Old Testament refers to Jesus?
If you are reading Hebrews 1 along with me here are the quotes:
Psalm 2:7 - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (KJV)
Psalm 2:7 I will announce the LORD'S decree. He said to me: "You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. (GNB)
Psalm 104:4 he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire.
The angels are God's servants. But his Son will be different, more glorious. He is not like the angels.
Psalms 45:6-7 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; (7) you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)
Psalms 102:25-27 In the beginning, LORD, you laid the earth's foundation and created the heavens. (26) They will all disappear and wear out like clothes. You change them, as you would a coat, but you last forever. (27) You are always the same. Years cannot change you.
This whole psalm 102 can easily be seen as a reference to Jesus. No one else could satisfy these qualifications.
Psalms 102:12-28 Our LORD, you are King forever and will always be famous. (13) You will show pity to Zion because the time has come. (14) We, your servants, love each stone in the city, and we are sad to see them lying in the dirt. (15) Our LORD, the nations will honor you, and all kings on earth will praise your glory. (16) You will rebuild the city of Zion. Your glory will be seen, (17) and the prayers of the homeless will be answered. (18) Future generations must also praise the LORD, so write this for them: (19) "From his holy temple, the LORD looked down at the earth. (20) He listened to the groans of prisoners, and he rescued everyone who was doomed to die." (21) All Jerusalem should praise you, our LORD, (22) when people from every nation meet to worship you. (23) I should still be strong, but you, LORD, have made an old person of me. (24) You will live forever! Years mean nothing to you. Don't cut my life in half! (25) In the beginning, LORD, you laid the earth's foundation and created the heavens. (26) They will all disappear and wear out like clothes. You change them, as you would a coat, but you last forever. (27) You are always the same. Years cannot change you. (28) Every generation of those who serve you will live in your presence.
Isaiah 51:6 Look closely at the sky! Stare at the earth. The sky will vanish like smoke; the earth will wear out like clothes. Everyone on this earth will die like flies. But my victory will last; my saving power never ends.
Even the earth will wear out before Jesus does. He is forever.
Psalms 110:1 The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at my right side, until I make your enemies into a footstool for you."
Psalm 110 is also all about Jesus. This is the psalm that refers to the priest of Melchizedek. Hebrews will refer to this extensively later.
Psalms 110:1-7 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD saith unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (2) The LORD shall send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. (3) Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of thy power: in the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth. (4) The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (5) The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. (6) He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill the places with dead bodies; he shall strike through the head in many countries. (7) He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
Another parallel allusion:
Joshua 10:24 And it came to pass, when they brought forth those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the chiefs of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.
Jesus is referred to extensively in the OT. He is God. He is God's son. He existed from the beginning.
He will rules over the whole world.
The first chapter introduces his thesis which is the greatness of Jesus.
He quotes, without citing, the Old Testament extensively. The author wants us to know that Jesus is God and that the Old Testament is full of references to him. He extensively quotes Psalms. Are the quotes in the New Testament the only places where the Old Testament refers to Jesus?
If you are reading Hebrews 1 along with me here are the quotes:
Psalm 2:7 - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (KJV)
Psalm 2:7 I will announce the LORD'S decree. He said to me: "You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. (GNB)
Psalm 104:4 he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire.
The angels are God's servants. But his Son will be different, more glorious. He is not like the angels.
Psalms 45:6-7 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; (7) you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)
Psalms 102:25-27 In the beginning, LORD, you laid the earth's foundation and created the heavens. (26) They will all disappear and wear out like clothes. You change them, as you would a coat, but you last forever. (27) You are always the same. Years cannot change you.
This whole psalm 102 can easily be seen as a reference to Jesus. No one else could satisfy these qualifications.
Psalms 102:12-28 Our LORD, you are King forever and will always be famous. (13) You will show pity to Zion because the time has come. (14) We, your servants, love each stone in the city, and we are sad to see them lying in the dirt. (15) Our LORD, the nations will honor you, and all kings on earth will praise your glory. (16) You will rebuild the city of Zion. Your glory will be seen, (17) and the prayers of the homeless will be answered. (18) Future generations must also praise the LORD, so write this for them: (19) "From his holy temple, the LORD looked down at the earth. (20) He listened to the groans of prisoners, and he rescued everyone who was doomed to die." (21) All Jerusalem should praise you, our LORD, (22) when people from every nation meet to worship you. (23) I should still be strong, but you, LORD, have made an old person of me. (24) You will live forever! Years mean nothing to you. Don't cut my life in half! (25) In the beginning, LORD, you laid the earth's foundation and created the heavens. (26) They will all disappear and wear out like clothes. You change them, as you would a coat, but you last forever. (27) You are always the same. Years cannot change you. (28) Every generation of those who serve you will live in your presence.
Isaiah 51:6 Look closely at the sky! Stare at the earth. The sky will vanish like smoke; the earth will wear out like clothes. Everyone on this earth will die like flies. But my victory will last; my saving power never ends.
Even the earth will wear out before Jesus does. He is forever.
Psalms 110:1 The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at my right side, until I make your enemies into a footstool for you."
Psalm 110 is also all about Jesus. This is the psalm that refers to the priest of Melchizedek. Hebrews will refer to this extensively later.
Psalms 110:1-7 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD saith unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (2) The LORD shall send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. (3) Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of thy power: in the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth. (4) The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (5) The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. (6) He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill the places with dead bodies; he shall strike through the head in many countries. (7) He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
Another parallel allusion:
Joshua 10:24 And it came to pass, when they brought forth those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the chiefs of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.
Jesus is referred to extensively in the OT. He is God. He is God's son. He existed from the beginning.
He will rules over the whole world.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Gideon - Judges 6+
I have run across Gideon twice recently and love the story. It's a great story. There is so much about human nature and God's nature in this story. I am guest speaking at an retirement home service this Sunday. I think I will speak about Gideon.
I heard this as part of the Sunday evening service Judges 6:11-24a. The reader actually read some of what came before but I do not have this on the service bulletin.
"The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, as his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press, to hid it from the Midianites. (Notice Gideon was wise here. Fear had nothing to do with it. He could not win this batter. Why fight a losing battle?)
The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you you mighty warrior." (You know Gideon does not deny here that he is a mighty warrior. This just starts him on a rant. Gideon is probably willing to go to war, if only he knows he can win.)
Gideon answered him, "But sir, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, 'Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has cast us off, and given us into the hand of Midian." (The angel got him worked up. Gideon is incensed here. He is incensed at their situation. He is incensed at God. God can use this kind of passion. Be careful what cause or problem gets you incensed. God may send you to fix it.)
I did that the other night. I spoke to a person about how blessed they were. That got them going. They went on to tell me how bad things were. They were looking at all the bad but I was still right they were very blessed in other ways.
The angel does the same thing here. He knows what to say to get Gideon going. Isn't it strange that Gideon opens up like this to a perfect stranger?
Then the LORD turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian; I hearby commission you." He responded, "But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manassah, and I am the least in my family." (Judging by the fact that he owns a winepress and has wheat to threash this is probably an overstatement at best. Gideon wants assurance that he will win. He is not willing to follow up on a losing cause.)
The LORD said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall strike down the Midianites, every one of them." (Notice we have switched from "the angel of the LORD" to simply "the LORD".) Then he said to him, "If now I have found favor with you, then show me a sign that it is you who speak with me. Do not depart from here until I come to you, and bring out my present, and set it before you." And he said, "I will stay until you return."
(Gideon goes in and prepares a meal which becomes a sacrifice. This seems a lot like Abraham's meeting with the three men (angels) and the oak of Mamre. It's hospitality. And its a test. Gideon openly speaks of a sign here. He remembers Abraham's example, perhaps, and knows that this will get him the understanding that he wants. Is he speaking to God or not? We too should test all spirits. God is patient and waits. Cooking an animal kid this has got to take hours. Then when the angel burns up the food Gideon freaks out.)
I heard this as part of the Sunday evening service Judges 6:11-24a. The reader actually read some of what came before but I do not have this on the service bulletin.
"The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, as his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press, to hid it from the Midianites. (Notice Gideon was wise here. Fear had nothing to do with it. He could not win this batter. Why fight a losing battle?)
The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you you mighty warrior." (You know Gideon does not deny here that he is a mighty warrior. This just starts him on a rant. Gideon is probably willing to go to war, if only he knows he can win.)
Gideon answered him, "But sir, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, 'Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has cast us off, and given us into the hand of Midian." (The angel got him worked up. Gideon is incensed here. He is incensed at their situation. He is incensed at God. God can use this kind of passion. Be careful what cause or problem gets you incensed. God may send you to fix it.)
I did that the other night. I spoke to a person about how blessed they were. That got them going. They went on to tell me how bad things were. They were looking at all the bad but I was still right they were very blessed in other ways.
The angel does the same thing here. He knows what to say to get Gideon going. Isn't it strange that Gideon opens up like this to a perfect stranger?
Then the LORD turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian; I hearby commission you." He responded, "But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manassah, and I am the least in my family." (Judging by the fact that he owns a winepress and has wheat to threash this is probably an overstatement at best. Gideon wants assurance that he will win. He is not willing to follow up on a losing cause.)
The LORD said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall strike down the Midianites, every one of them." (Notice we have switched from "the angel of the LORD" to simply "the LORD".) Then he said to him, "If now I have found favor with you, then show me a sign that it is you who speak with me. Do not depart from here until I come to you, and bring out my present, and set it before you." And he said, "I will stay until you return."
(Gideon goes in and prepares a meal which becomes a sacrifice. This seems a lot like Abraham's meeting with the three men (angels) and the oak of Mamre. It's hospitality. And its a test. Gideon openly speaks of a sign here. He remembers Abraham's example, perhaps, and knows that this will get him the understanding that he wants. Is he speaking to God or not? We too should test all spirits. God is patient and waits. Cooking an animal kid this has got to take hours. Then when the angel burns up the food Gideon freaks out.)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Memorable sermon
It's the geek in me but for a sermon to be memorable I have to learn something new. It doesn't have to be earth shattering. The bar is not that high. It can be a new aspect a new angle on an old truth.
Sermons that review what we have already heard are necessary and can be great. But they were not be memorable. We need sermons like that because we have not truly learned what we have been taught before. We are still sinning, missing the mark. We need to be reminded.
So a good sermon might not be memorable.
I want to gush though about HF's introduction(s) to communion. We do not use a set written prayer but we do communion once a month. There does have to be something of a preparation. We need to make it clear that this is important. We must not take the Lord's Supper without preparation, without taking it in a faithful manner.
A written prayer gets old. Each time we take communion using a set prayer we may pick out one thing to meditate on. Or we may just daydream through the whole thing. That's our loss though.
One could space out through a more extemporaneous introduction too. Maybe its harder though, maybe not. Either way it is our loss.
But I want to repeat, HF did a great job of finding a good scripture to underscore his little message. And he finished strong. It is harder than it looks to do it right. But he did great.
Sermons that review what we have already heard are necessary and can be great. But they were not be memorable. We need sermons like that because we have not truly learned what we have been taught before. We are still sinning, missing the mark. We need to be reminded.
So a good sermon might not be memorable.
I want to gush though about HF's introduction(s) to communion. We do not use a set written prayer but we do communion once a month. There does have to be something of a preparation. We need to make it clear that this is important. We must not take the Lord's Supper without preparation, without taking it in a faithful manner.
A written prayer gets old. Each time we take communion using a set prayer we may pick out one thing to meditate on. Or we may just daydream through the whole thing. That's our loss though.
One could space out through a more extemporaneous introduction too. Maybe its harder though, maybe not. Either way it is our loss.
But I want to repeat, HF did a great job of finding a good scripture to underscore his little message. And he finished strong. It is harder than it looks to do it right. But he did great.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Musing on 1 Kings 11 (beginning)
Solomon "lived large". How can a man really, completely love one woman well? But Solomon has women from many nations. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines! David had many wives but Solomon was ridiculous. Solomon also built his house, "Forest of Lebanon", larger than his dad's house.
His wives were part of his policy of allying himself with all his neighbors. The author criticizes Solomon by quoting Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy 7:3. Solomon held fast for a while but later in life he was persuaded to worship with them. He was persuaded to make altars for these wives so that they might worship the gods of their nation. Unfortunately many people saw his example and followed his lead.
I suspect Solomon's gift of wisdom finally went to his head. Wisdom is not sufficient without humility. The source of wisdom is God. When we forget that we are liable to do foolish things.
Solomon's pride made him think he was different from other men. His book of Ecclesiastes gives me reason to think this is so. Because God gave his wisdom he was immune from the temptations that other men fall victim to. But Solomon got jaded. He got cynical. His power and riches gave him the ability to do things we can never imagine. Yet it was not enough to satisfy.
Only God can satisfy. And yet we want to experience everything in the world. We want to try everything under the sun, as Solomon bragged that he did.
But let us be satisfied with God. Can we do that? We should but we get tempted, don't we? Let us take a negative example from Solomon. Let us be satisfied with one wife. Let us enjoy the wife (or husband) of our youth.
His wives were part of his policy of allying himself with all his neighbors. The author criticizes Solomon by quoting Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy 7:3. Solomon held fast for a while but later in life he was persuaded to worship with them. He was persuaded to make altars for these wives so that they might worship the gods of their nation. Unfortunately many people saw his example and followed his lead.
I suspect Solomon's gift of wisdom finally went to his head. Wisdom is not sufficient without humility. The source of wisdom is God. When we forget that we are liable to do foolish things.
Solomon's pride made him think he was different from other men. His book of Ecclesiastes gives me reason to think this is so. Because God gave his wisdom he was immune from the temptations that other men fall victim to. But Solomon got jaded. He got cynical. His power and riches gave him the ability to do things we can never imagine. Yet it was not enough to satisfy.
Only God can satisfy. And yet we want to experience everything in the world. We want to try everything under the sun, as Solomon bragged that he did.
But let us be satisfied with God. Can we do that? We should but we get tempted, don't we? Let us take a negative example from Solomon. Let us be satisfied with one wife. Let us enjoy the wife (or husband) of our youth.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Obama's state of the union - revisited
I heard Limbaugh for a few seconds while riding in the car.
He described it in words I wish I had thought of. "It was petulant. It was self serving. He baited Republicans. There was nothing in it to encourage us."
I heard the last two thirds of the speech. I would agree wholeheartedly. It was not presidential at all. Obama had no intention of trying to bring the country together. Isn't that what a state of the union speech should try to do?
He is power hungry and is annoyed at anyone who tries to limit his power. He thinks all of us who oppose him are little gnats he can simply swat away.
He described it in words I wish I had thought of. "It was petulant. It was self serving. He baited Republicans. There was nothing in it to encourage us."
I heard the last two thirds of the speech. I would agree wholeheartedly. It was not presidential at all. Obama had no intention of trying to bring the country together. Isn't that what a state of the union speech should try to do?
He is power hungry and is annoyed at anyone who tries to limit his power. He thinks all of us who oppose him are little gnats he can simply swat away.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Commenting through Genesis 22
Genesis 22 – God Tests Abraham
Does God test us? Is this test fair?
After these things God tested Abraham’s faith. God said to him, “Abraham!” And he answered, “Here I am.” 2 Then God said, “Take your only son, Isaac, but this is certainly not his only son the son you love. Did not Abraham love Ishmael as well? Go to the land of Moriah. Then kill him and offer him as a whole burnt offering. Do this on one of the mountains I will tell you about. A sacrifice is first killed humanely and then burnt. No animal is burned alive. Abraham is offering his son in the same way descendants will offer animals. What kind of an offering is this? It’s not an offering for sin. An important part of the process for making meat kosher is to certify that the animal is killed humanely. The rabbi inspecting the killing makes sure that the animal has no fear when he is killed. Would this be applicable to Isaac? Would it be important that he have no fear?
Early in the morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. He cut the wood for the sacrifice. Then they want to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to the servants, “Stay here with the donkey. My son and will go over there and worship. Then we will come back to you.” DW and CL both mentioned that Abraham expected Isaac to somehow be alive when they were done. Or was he just saying that not to cause alarm with the servants? Surely they knew this was a pilgrimage to offer sacrifice.
Abraham took the wood for the sacrifice and gave it to his son to carry. Abraham took the knife and the fire. So he and his son went on together.
Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” Abraham answered, “Yes, my son.” Isaac said, “We have the fire and the wood. But where is the lamb we will burn as a sacrifice?”
This is an emotional scene. Why is this part added to the story? Surely this could have been left out and we would still get the point? Why is this part included? We can read into this Abraham’s care for his son. He has not told his son what he intends. So his son is not to be given a choice in the matter. Yet Isaac is probably an older boy, possibly a teenager. He could make a run for it. But where would he go? Trying to live alone would be suicide.
We can possibly conclude that Isaac is beginning to understand what is about to happen. He is the lamb. He is old enough to understand about sacrifice. Others around him may sacrifice children to their gods. And yet he never tries to escape. Would you try to escape in a similar situation?
Abraham answered, “God will give us the lamb for the sacrifice, my son.” Is this unintentionally prophetic?” Or does Abraham believe that eventually he will sacrifice a lamb instead of his son? Surely not.
So Abraham and his son went on together. They came to the place God had told him about. There Abraham built an altar. He laid the wood on it. Then he tied up his son Isaac. And he laid Isaac on the wood on the altar. Then Abraham took his knife and was about to kill his son. Notice the literary effect. The writer repeatedly uses “son” and his name to personalize the act.
But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven. The angel said, “Abraham! Abraham!” Abraham answered, “Yes?” The angel said, “Don’t kill your son or hurt him in any way. Now I can see that you respect God. I see that you have not kept your son, you only son, from me.” What does it mean “not kept him from me”?
Then Abraham looked up and saw a male sheep. Its horns were caught in a bush. So Abraham went and took the sheep and killed it. He offered it as a whole burnt offering to God. Abraham’s son was saved. So Abraham named the place The Lord Gives. Even today people say, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be given.”
Genesis 31:42 Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now hadst thou sent me away empty. God hath seen mine affliction and the labor of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight.
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time. The angel said, “The Lord says, ‘You did not keep back your son, your only son from me. Because you did this, I make you this promise by my own name” I will surely bless you and give you many descendants. They will be as many as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. And they will capture the cities of their enemies. Through your descendents all the nations of the world will be blessed. This is because you obeyed me.’” We take this “all the nations of the world will be blessed to be an allusion to the savior of the world Jesus.
Then Abraham returned to his servants. They all traveled back to Beersheba, and Abraham stayed there. This is a sign of his obedience. He stayed where God had put him. To me this is analogous to the statement by Abraham, when asked where Sarai was to say, “In the tent.” She was where she was supposed to be. He was proud of it. Here this comment tells us Abraham is where he is supposed to be. Often we are to wait. We are not to be busy doing, just for doing’s sake.
Why does this passage show Abraham talking to the "angel of the Lord" and no God himself? In other places Abraham speaks to God directly. Why not here?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Genesis 22 and 24
I spent some time yesterday preparing to teach on Genesis 22. I really enjoyed going over it and writing out comments. I used a paraphrase called the New Century Version to go through. I was taken aback by some of the turns of phrase in 22. It was fun and I got a lot of insights. It turns out they were mostly for me.
I got to Life Group last night and found that CL wanted me to do 24, not 22. 22 is about the almost sacrifice of Isaac. 24 is about Rebekah becoming Isaac's wife.
Because of the people who did not come last night CL wanted to do 24 first so I did it cold.
It turned out not to be too bad. No one reacted in an argumentative fashion to my not so serious ways. I do need to remember to tone it down. I explained that the servant, whom CL identifies as Eleazar of Damascus, "put out a fleece" when he arrived at the village of Abraham's relatives. I had to explain quickly the story of Gideon, the original fleece putter. That brought me up short, surely everyone knows that story. But no I think we did have a couple of people who did not know the story. It would be good to go back over it in more depth.
I am too blunt. I need to pray that I will be more loving and patient at Life Group. Thank God they were very loving and patient with me last night.
I got to Life Group last night and found that CL wanted me to do 24, not 22. 22 is about the almost sacrifice of Isaac. 24 is about Rebekah becoming Isaac's wife.
Because of the people who did not come last night CL wanted to do 24 first so I did it cold.
It turned out not to be too bad. No one reacted in an argumentative fashion to my not so serious ways. I do need to remember to tone it down. I explained that the servant, whom CL identifies as Eleazar of Damascus, "put out a fleece" when he arrived at the village of Abraham's relatives. I had to explain quickly the story of Gideon, the original fleece putter. That brought me up short, surely everyone knows that story. But no I think we did have a couple of people who did not know the story. It would be good to go back over it in more depth.
I am too blunt. I need to pray that I will be more loving and patient at Life Group. Thank God they were very loving and patient with me last night.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Court last night
Another adventure. You may remember that I got a ticket at 5 AM on a Saturday morning about three months ago It was on Memorial Drive. There was no one on the road but me and this policeman. I got a ticket for not signaling when changing lanes. I was very polite slowly moving into the lane at least two seconds in front of him. I was very polite when taking the ticket. But I did express my disgust at his behavior both in giving me the ticket and in making me wait 5 minutes while he stood by his squad car and I sat impatient to try to make it to Marathon prep in time to start with the rest of them. I did make it BTW, barely.
Anyway I had to go to court a month ago and got arraigned and a court date set. Last night was my court date. It was dismissed.
I was so proud of myself until I realized that DW and DD2 and others were praying for me. I have to give God the credit. No one else on this light docket was getting off. There is really no explanation except that God gave me favor. I felt that I was morally right, but that can mean little in a case like this.
He had me on the facts. The fact that the policeman did not show may or may not have been important. There were other policemen there waiting for their cases to come up.
I am tempted to think that the policeman was too embarrassed to face me in court. But maybe not. He had all the power of government on his side. He had the facts on his side. I did change lanes w/o signaling. However the situation on the road might make him look silly. He may have realized that.
I still cannot understand why he pulled me over unless he was just bored or felt dissed that I changed lanes in front of him. I did not mean to annoy him but in retrospect I should have known better.
I always park in the little neighborhood across the street from the police station. The same homeless man was there from last month to give me advice on the parking rules. He was very nice. Last month I gave him a tip. This month I did not have a small enough bill.
Anyway I had to go to court a month ago and got arraigned and a court date set. Last night was my court date. It was dismissed.
I was so proud of myself until I realized that DW and DD2 and others were praying for me. I have to give God the credit. No one else on this light docket was getting off. There is really no explanation except that God gave me favor. I felt that I was morally right, but that can mean little in a case like this.
He had me on the facts. The fact that the policeman did not show may or may not have been important. There were other policemen there waiting for their cases to come up.
I am tempted to think that the policeman was too embarrassed to face me in court. But maybe not. He had all the power of government on his side. He had the facts on his side. I did change lanes w/o signaling. However the situation on the road might make him look silly. He may have realized that.
I still cannot understand why he pulled me over unless he was just bored or felt dissed that I changed lanes in front of him. I did not mean to annoy him but in retrospect I should have known better.
I always park in the little neighborhood across the street from the police station. The same homeless man was there from last month to give me advice on the parking rules. He was very nice. Last month I gave him a tip. This month I did not have a small enough bill.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sunday - car batteries - not reading at 6 PM - Some Kind of Wonderful
Hmm, was there anything special yesterday? Well the thing I was most proud of is that when April's car needed a new battery I was able to put it in. April's car wouldn't start. She charged it about a week ago and now it was low again. This time an overnight charge would not hold. So we figured it needed a new one.
It meant her wings were a bit clipped. She could not go to church by herself. She had to ride with her parents. We had to stay through two services since she worked in childcare during the late service.
(You know Jill I was actually a good child care worked when I was April's age. Do you believe it? It's hard for me to believe."
So after service we agreed to find an auto parts store open that sold batteries. I was convinced they all sold batteries and most were open on Sundays. They were not sure. I decided to drive down North Main into town looking for auto parts stores. THERE IS ACTUALLY ONE RIGHT THERE AT 11th (whatever it turns into) and North Main. So we went in there and bought the battery.
I have actually had practice putting batteries in my Toyotas. Usually they are really not special that just sit loosely on the housing and put the cables back on. This one was especially fit for the housing, one had to unscrew and mounting bolt. It was sort of tongue and groove, one had to angle it in and then put the bolt back on. April helped me. I wanted her to get a learning experience out of this.
My procedure for getting the cables off is to carefully hit the cable connector back and forth until it gets loose and then wiggle it off. We found (by God's grace) a wire brush to clean off everything from the corrosion that accumulates. That took some time because I did not want to use too much force and break something. But after they did start moving the cables came right off. We then had to remove the bolt from the housing to take the old battery off. April quickly put the new one on and rebolted it in place. She also placed new post washers (those red and black asbestos rings) underneath the cables. They work a little bit.
The cables went on and we quickly found that the car now started right up. Praise God!!
I was so excited that I had bought new washers for my old battery on my Toyota. I went out and replaced them. I was proud of myself. (Not that it will probably allow me to avoid buying a new battery for my car soon.)
So I heard Michael's sermon twice. We get to see his granddaughter a lot. About a year ago it ceased to be about motorcycles and became his granddaughter. I am glad that he loves her and can find ways to make her into a sermon example.
RC spoke at the evening service. I read my Greek bible and admittedly heard very little of it. An old singing partner BMc came early to get a good seat for 6 PM. He said he'd been called by several people to come to hear BP's sermon. On one sheet BP was the preacher tonight. But the bulletin said RC. And so it was.
The funny thing was that RMc called me at 3:30 and said he was still in Austin and asked could I read the lectionary. I said sure and prepared for it. But I did not communicate with anyone, not RC or BMc so before the service RC asked BMc to read. I saw them talking and guessed what it was about. I felt it was probably the best since I was already singing. It's not impossible to do both but it is awkward. Even though I knew with my head it was a good thing I still felt rejected. That is silly. But emotions can be.
I think in the future if there is a registered reader in the congregation I will ask them to serve if I am ever again caught in this situation.
It meant her wings were a bit clipped. She could not go to church by herself. She had to ride with her parents. We had to stay through two services since she worked in childcare during the late service.
(You know Jill I was actually a good child care worked when I was April's age. Do you believe it? It's hard for me to believe."
So after service we agreed to find an auto parts store open that sold batteries. I was convinced they all sold batteries and most were open on Sundays. They were not sure. I decided to drive down North Main into town looking for auto parts stores. THERE IS ACTUALLY ONE RIGHT THERE AT 11th (whatever it turns into) and North Main. So we went in there and bought the battery.
I have actually had practice putting batteries in my Toyotas. Usually they are really not special that just sit loosely on the housing and put the cables back on. This one was especially fit for the housing, one had to unscrew and mounting bolt. It was sort of tongue and groove, one had to angle it in and then put the bolt back on. April helped me. I wanted her to get a learning experience out of this.
My procedure for getting the cables off is to carefully hit the cable connector back and forth until it gets loose and then wiggle it off. We found (by God's grace) a wire brush to clean off everything from the corrosion that accumulates. That took some time because I did not want to use too much force and break something. But after they did start moving the cables came right off. We then had to remove the bolt from the housing to take the old battery off. April quickly put the new one on and rebolted it in place. She also placed new post washers (those red and black asbestos rings) underneath the cables. They work a little bit.
The cables went on and we quickly found that the car now started right up. Praise God!!
I was so excited that I had bought new washers for my old battery on my Toyota. I went out and replaced them. I was proud of myself. (Not that it will probably allow me to avoid buying a new battery for my car soon.)
So I heard Michael's sermon twice. We get to see his granddaughter a lot. About a year ago it ceased to be about motorcycles and became his granddaughter. I am glad that he loves her and can find ways to make her into a sermon example.
RC spoke at the evening service. I read my Greek bible and admittedly heard very little of it. An old singing partner BMc came early to get a good seat for 6 PM. He said he'd been called by several people to come to hear BP's sermon. On one sheet BP was the preacher tonight. But the bulletin said RC. And so it was.
The funny thing was that RMc called me at 3:30 and said he was still in Austin and asked could I read the lectionary. I said sure and prepared for it. But I did not communicate with anyone, not RC or BMc so before the service RC asked BMc to read. I saw them talking and guessed what it was about. I felt it was probably the best since I was already singing. It's not impossible to do both but it is awkward. Even though I knew with my head it was a good thing I still felt rejected. That is silly. But emotions can be.
I think in the future if there is a registered reader in the congregation I will ask them to serve if I am ever again caught in this situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
