Friday night at Redeemer

There was an attempt to recreate the spirit of the old Friday night service from the 70's. My we looked old. George Mims, Brian Howard and others led the service.

I came along mainly because my wife was interested. It was billed as a sort of reunion. I think it was. An old friend and co-worker in Boy Scouts drove in from Austin.

I was a bit shocked and surprised to experience a little of the old charismatic Holy Spirit peace and excitement. Others encouraged us that the Holy Spirit was here.

Brian Howard - I never did recognize him. There was an old guy playing guitar and helping to lead with vocals. But only later when I read a review saying Mims and Howard led us did I realize what I saw.

We sang some old favorites but there were also a lot of new songs led by George Mims. So it wasn't really the songs. But the Holy Spirit graciously did come down. I think God was very gracious to give a little peek at the old excitement at Redeemer of the 60's and 70's.

This was also to be a healing weekend led by Jack and Anna Marie Sheffield. I love Jack. Jack found us a fairly dead congregation for his healing talk. He kept having to ask us to respond please. He wanted a bit of positive feedback but he was not getting it. I think he was a bit surprised.

That's why I say it was very gracious of God to send the peace of God. Otherwise we were a pretty heavy group.

I was remembering what Graham Pulkingham said in his first two books about the people who received spectacular healing. He noticed that those who God healed were willing to change, to repent and amend their lives. Not only did they receive physical healing, they received spiritual healing as well.

Many came for healing who did not receive. He felt it was because they were there for healing only and not for amendment of life.

To receive the healing required a personal response on their part. One could not simply be a passive recipient.

I think this is because God is much more interested in our spiritual well being. The spiritual is forever, the physical is only for a short time. But we have our spiritual bodies forever.

God wants to use physical healing to work spiritual change in our hearts. Not that there is any hard and fast rule. I'd never mean that.

But I think it is important to realize when God does not heal or immediately heal we should look in the spiritual realm.

At church when people give words of knowledge at the behest of the pastor many of them are about spiritual needs not physical needs. I think this is appropriate as that is where God's heart is.

Walking this morning

I got in about 7 miles this morning because Saturday morning I will be busy.

I was just thinking weird stuff happens on Sherman. Sherman is past Canal before Navigation parallel to those streets. But it is one of the few that continues without break for several miles. There are homes and businesses on Sherman. It is both major road and residential street. Or rather it is totally neither.

I like walking down Sherman but there have been strange things that happened.

This morning a older woman came out of her house, saw me walking towards home with bags full of plastic bottles. Yes I am a weird sight.

She asked me how far I had been. I answered her. She then said, "No, no, how far do you have to go?" I said "Not far." She repeated, "How far?" So I said, "About two miles." She said, "Your going to Milby right?" She seemed to be wanted to know where I lived and I was reluctant to tell her. So I responded, "I'm OK." And I turned and kept walking. I pretty much closed down the conversation.

What was her motive? I was thinking maybe she wanted to take me home. I surely was not going to allow her to take me home. I don't know her. I want to extend my walk.

Any way I am suspicious. I wondered what her idea was. It might have been well meaning but it seemed misguided.

Paradoxes (I love) and John 15 (sort of)

On Sunday I gave a sermon at Brighton based on an article in Biblioteca Sacra, the quarterly publication of Dallas Theological Seminary.

The article was on paradoxes in Paul's writings. He listed three. I mentioned all three and also talked about the paradoxical nature of Jesus' Beatitudes in his sermon on the Mount. I specifically spoke on "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth".

I then mostly spoke on Paul's talk in 2 Corinthians 12 where he summarizes, "For when I am weak, then I am strong".

In John 15 Jesus speaks of abiding in him, abiding in Jesus. If you abide in Jesus you will bear much fruit. To me the whole idea of abiding is paradoxical. How can one do that and at the same time bear fruit? I don't get it.

Abiding to me means sitting in my quiet place praying, reading, meditating, listening. But to bear much fruit I have to be out doing: serving, loving, interacting, leading, following others. That does not seem like abiding to me.

I'm sure I've got it wrong. Why am I sure? Because Jesus seems to have no problem with it. He just tells us to abide and we will bear. It is a statement.

But when I do anything I get distracted. It looks and feel like I am doing it on my own. I try to do it in God's will, God's way. But I fall so short.

I love it when, as I act in God's behalf God jumps in and makes something happen supernaturally. I love it. But of course I never know when that will happen beforehand.

I think I can trust God with the fruit. I may not see it. If there is truly much fruit I know I do not see it. I believe in faith that God is making it happen.

Jesus further states in 15:8 "God, my Father, is glorified when I bear much fruit (and so prove to be my disciples). Again this a statement. God will receive the glory, we have been assured. I just love it when a plan comes together.

So get out there and do it. Abide in Jesus and bear much fruit. Be ambitious to serve and do what you see Jesus doing. Do it and bear much fruit. God is glorified. Praise God! He deserves it.

Jesus' sermon rises to a climax. He adds that we abide in his love. Keep his commandments and you will know you abide in his love. My joy will be in you and your joy will be full.

This chapter is a sermon, it proceeds from abiding, continues to bearing fruit, to love, then he speaks of laying down him life out of love, and concludes by calling them (and us) friends if we do all this. We are friends who know everything he knows. What joy to be the friend of the Son of God!

It may not be paradoxical but it is so amazing it is hard to get the mind around.

Someone summarized it as: Jesus first, Others second, Yourself last. That spells: JOY

weekend doings

Well, let me just mention the Saturday soccer (futbol) tournament sponsored by our church. We had a lot of kids and young adults but few parents. I think most everyone there was from the church.

I played in three games on Saturday. Fortunately they were only 20 minutes each. I did not play terribly well. I tried to stick to one position. I played goal in the last game at least partially because I was so bad at everything else. But as a goalie I wasn't too bad. I was pretty good as a goal kicker if I do say so myself. The field was smaller, that helped.

Well anyway on Sunday I was involved with three services, first at Brighton I helped with communion and gave a sermon. The Joneses are great. Nancy comes in after me and does a shorter homily. Sam leads worship and does devotional thoughts between songs. They are wonderful. Anyway we all do it together. Barbara closed with a benediction. We just come once a month to support the Joneses.

We went to the late service at Vineyard. DW and I helped with communion there as well. I was blessed that a family that was serving communion as well came to be with us for communion after they finished. HF in his sermon spoke on our spiritual bodies in heaven.

DW went to LW. I heard it was good.

I sang in the evening choral group "Celebration" (as usual) at St. John the Divine in the evening. All of the paid singers must have had other commitments at school. There were five full time singers. Yes the instrumentalists also sing when they can. There was only one woman. We have a man who easily can do the alto part so he pitched in and did. As usual "we has the bases covered". So said JF in the break room before service. I think even with the small number of people the special anthem we sang at offertory went very well. It was nice to have Richard back playing bass. He hopes to be more regular.

We had the new priest for the first time. He has a brusque sermon style. Can I say that? He was honest, no softening the punches for him. Today was the celebration of All Saints day.

Oh yes. I've pretty much given up on the Texans. Sad. I will not watch them but I can listen to them. Yes RN I "can" watch them, I am not blind. But for emotional reasons I choose not to. I guess I am not a fanatic. I am a fair weather fan.

But I'm also not one who will call for the firing of the coach either. It's not all his fault. So I think I will avoid sports talk shows too. That's what the sports talk shows will all be about this week.

What does that leave me on the radio? I tried to listen to some FM music stations this morning but most of them have "talk" too and that is even worse that sports talk. So I'm at an impasse. I don't think I want silence. I guess I can plug in my ipod.

God according to God, by Gerald Schroeder, third blog post

God according to God, by Gerald Schroeder, third blog post

I have omitted some good stuff.

Schroeder spends a chapter showing from scripture that God wants us to argue with him. He wants us to protest when we feel he is being unfair. That goes for modern things too. When we feel someone is sick or has cancer and it’s not fair we should protest. It goes beyond prayer.

Schroeder feels that Abraham was very much wrong when he did not protest God’s call for him to sacrifice his son. He feels that God no longer communicated with him directly after this. God was displeased that he was obedient with arguing about it. Just before this Abram had argued about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God was disappointed that Abraham did not argue with God. I think this is an excellent take. But just because we argue does not mean God will give in. Moses argued that he was not the person to lead Israel out of Egypt. God listened and made some changes to the agreement. But God did not give in. Moses was ordered to do it.

I’d like to explain his physical spiritual “duality” which isn’t really a duality at all because energy, which he equates more closely to the spiritual, comes before the physical universe. Taking Einstein’s formula of E = mc2 energy and mass (matter) are two forms of the same thing. But energy came first. That is what God created and that is sort of like what God is, active energy. God created energy and at the Big Bang it converted into mass and expanded rapidly.

The basic unit of matter is the atom, I suppose. The basic unit of the spiritual realm is the thought. Schroeder seems to think that the soul is tied to the body while we are alive but then is freed after death. He says that is what is suggested by reported near death experiences where people say they can remember the actions of the doctors and nurses trying to save them. While physically dead their soul is free to come out of the body and is conscious of what is going on around them. This is part of his concept of the relation between physical (brain and body) and the spiritual (soul).

Talmudic tradition once taught to children: God sends an angel to teach every unborn babe, while in the mother’s womb, all the secrets of the universe, those of the heavens and those of the earth. Then, just before birth, the angel kisses each child just above the upper lip causing the slight indentation each person has just below the nose. With this mark God shows us the universality of his care for His creatures. The angel’s kiss erases all conscious knowledge of the lessons but leaves the information tucked in the subconscious. So when we hear a profound remark it has the ring of truth about it and our subliminal knowledge of truth surfaces momentarily. We have heard it before but it is in the memory of our soul, not our brain.

There is a lovely story, tantamount to a parable about Marcos and Aristos in the Talmud. It runs from pages 175 to 179. So I cannot report it here. It is about the wonder of a true friendship. God wants us to be friends with him like that. But even more God wants us to be friends with each other like that.



I have omitted some good stuff.

Schroeder spends a chapter showing from scripture that God wants us to argue with him. He wants us to protest when we feel he is being unfair. That goes for modern things too. When we feel someone is sick or has cancer and it’s not fair we should protest. It goes beyond prayer.

Schroeder feels that Abraham was very much wrong when he did not protest God’s call for him to sacrifice his son. He feels that God no longer communicated with him directly after this. God was displeased that he was obedient with arguing about it. Just before this Abram had argued about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God was disappointed that Abraham did not argue with God. I think this is an excellent take. But just because we argue does not mean God will give in. Moses argued that he was not the person to lead Israel out of Egypt. God listened and made some changes to the agreement. But God did not give in. Moses was ordered to do it.

I’d like to explain his physical spiritual “duality” which isn’t really a duality at all because energy, which he equates more closely to the spiritual, comes before the physical universe. Taking Einstein’s formula of E = mc2 energy and mass (matter) are two forms of the same thing. But energy came first. That is what God created and that is sort of like what God is, active energy. God created energy and at the Big Bang it converted into mass and expanded rapidly.

The basic unit of matter is the atom, I suppose. The basic unit of the spiritual realm is the thought. Schroeder seems to think that the soul is tied to the body while we are alive but then is freed after death. He says that is what is suggested by reported near death experiences where people say they can remember the actions of the doctors and nurses trying to save them. While physically dead their soul is free to come out of the body and is conscious of what is going on around them. This is part of his concept of the relation between physical (brain and body) and the spiritual (soul).

Talmudic tradition once taught to children: God sends an angel to teach every unborn babe, while in the mother’s womb, all the secrets of the universe, those of the heavens and those of the earth. Then, just before birth, the angel kisses each child just above the upper lip causing the slight indentation each person has just below the nose. With this mark God shows us the universality of his care for His creatures. The angel’s kiss erases all conscious knowledge of the lessons but leaves the information tucked in the subconscious. So when we hear a profound remark it has the ring of truth about it and our subliminal knowledge of truth surfaces momentarily. We have heard it before but it is in the memory of our soul, not our brain.

There is a lovely story, tantamount to a parable about Marcos and Aristos in the Talmud. It runs from pages 175 to 179. So I cannot report it here. It is about the wonder of a true friendship. God wants us to be friends with him like that. But even more God wants us to be friends with each other like that.

God according to God, by Gerald Schroeder - Second post

God according to God by Gerald Schroeder

1. Schroeder says that the expression God uses in Exodus 3:14 to explain his name to Moses is better translated: I will be that which I will be. The KJV translates it I am that I am. This appears more static, perhaps more Greek. He suggests this comes two steps away from the Hebrew, The KJV is translated from Latin and that translated from a Greek version of the original Hebrew text. The Hebrew suggests using a future tense. God is not static but very dynamic.

2. He explains on page 86 that he will use the major ancient Hebrew commentaries to help interpret God’s word: 1) Talmud (compiled 400 AD), 2) Rashi (1040-1105), 3) Maimonides (1135-1204), and 4) Nahmanides (1195-1270). He likes these because they came before the invention of modern science so they will not be influenced by its teachings.

3. He decided the first thing God created was energy. This has serious theological ramifications.

Energy coalesces to matter and that is how the Big Bang happened. Somehow God is the agent behind the Big Bang. Schroeder is a great believer in the Big Bang. He believes that the account of creation in Genesis fits in well with this scientific explanation.

4. Going back to the account of the seven day creation Schroeder suggest that the fact that God called it “very good” seven times might imply that is was not so good in between his pronouncements. He believes that creation from nothing only happened once. This fits with Big Bang. On day three the earth “brought forth” plant life. It did not come from nothing. Exiting matter was used to make the plants.

5. His major example is from Rashi. Rashi suggests that the first rebellion did not take place in the garden. In Genesis 1:11 “And God said let the earth sprout vegetation, herbs yielding sees, fruit trees yielding fruit after its own kind with seed in it …” In verse 1:12 the response of the earth is to yield “trees yielding fruit”. Rashi tells us that this is not exactly what God commanded. God commanded fruit trees that bore fruit but the earth produced trees bearing fruit. Is this difference significant? We might disagree but Rashi says yes. He says that the earth rebelled by not doing exactly as God commanded. How is it different, fruit trees bearing fruit and trees bearing fruit? I’m not sure. I do not think Schroeder ever clearly tells us. On page 89 he says “Perhaps God’s demand exceeded nature’s potential. Can the wood of a tree ever be a fruit?”

6. Schroeder takes great pains to explain that a planet like the earth is very rare in the universe. This is something I did not know. I did know that scientists are looking at nearby stars for evidence of a solar system like our own and none has been found. Some stars seem to have large planets that might be dead stars. But nothing like a multiple system with an iron rich planet with a lot of liquid water. All of these conditions need to be present to create a planet amicable to life: spiral galaxy not in collision, low concentration of stars nearby, in a galaxy that has a high concentration of metals to produce a metal rich solar system, a star like our own that is just the size to produce a constant amount of energy for five billions years, a low (relative to asteroid composition) content of carbon and a low (relative to asteroid composition) content of water to allow some land masses, molten core of iron to allow continents to float and drift, planet of nearly circular orbit, a system with huge outer planets to protect it from meteors, a planetary rotation similar to ours to allow distribution of solar energy, a moderate tilt of the planet’s axis to allow for seasons, a more uniform distribution of solar energy in the north south direction, and even a large moon (for tidal mixing of the oceans). He figures the odds of a planet meeting these requirements is 1 in 1018. The estimated number of stars is 1022 meaning there are likely 10,000 planets like ours in the whole universe. That is one planet like ours in every ten million galaxies.

The point is ours is a pretty special planet. We are not likely to find one like it close by. This clear an explanation was new to me.

Gerald Schroeder "God according to God"

I am just about finished with the above book, found in my college library. I will leave a few links to where you can learn more about this book and the author Gerald Schroeder.
It is published by Harper Collins.

This man is a MIT trained physicist. So he is smart. He uses analogies from physics quite a bit. I have had a lot of science training so I think I mostly understand those parts. He tries to make it simple. But it does take a while to work through the images to get to his analogy. I think it is worth it.

But the thing that makes this book unique is that he is coming to the idea of a created universe from a pretty strictly Jewish point of view. He goes through what we would call the old testament, he calls it that too. But he also uses the Jewish commentaries a lot. He also quotes the Jewish sages of Europe Rashi and Maimonides. He wanted to include theologians of the era before the scientific revolution to show that God revealed things that seem modern to men before the Big Bang theory was created. He wants us to know that God revealed how he created the universe to the writers of the Bible and those who commented on it later.

When he quotes modern scientists and theologians he almost exclusively restricts himself to men who have Jewish sounding names. Without saying so this seems to be scientific creationism from a distinctly Jewish perspective. This seems unique to me. These Jewish minds do not share the same taboos that Christians have. I love it.

Much of his ways of reading the Bible are conjecture. But they are fun conjectures. I think those open to new vantage points will very much enjoy this book. But some of his ideas could be off putting. I hope no one will consider these ideas as sacrilegious. I do not think they are.

Most of what he says cannot be proved either way. That is the thing about this whole area of thought. No one was there. There is little evidence, all evidence is very indirect. It is place where imagination is paramount.

Let me try to continue with some examples over the next few days. This is will get me out of politics. Life has been much too political lately. There is no salvation except through Jesus. Even though "we won" I do not feel like celebrating. Next time we may like "lose". But without Jesus and a righteous country everyone will still lose. There must be repentance from self centered behavior. I know many on both sides work for justice in the public sector. But the vast majority of people vote their pocketbooks and know virtually nothing about the issues involved. I guess even if people did know more how would it be better? Yes, just thinking about this depresses me.