Two weeks in a row - say it aint so! Two Saturdays in a row with something to say (other than Boomer Sooner). I'll use this post as some sort of confession, if you don't mind.
I learn best in dialogue - conversation with those around a table (literal or proverbial), some who may agree and those who may not. I've always been intrigued by attempting to understand what people believe and why. For example, almost a year ago, God allowed me to meet a man who was a pastor of a church just a few miles from the congregation I pastored. The pastor and I began having lunch and praying for one another. From time to time, we'd discuss theology. We agreed on much. We disagreed on a few things. The friendship during the previous year has blessed me in many ways.
One of the disagreements the pastor and I had was one of election - specifically how Scripture defines the Elect. Although I was sure of what I believed, our discussions led me to begin a deeper study on the subject. Reading some of his recent posts, I know we continue to disagree; however, we're still friends.
All that, to say this. There are blogs I've run across where the purpose seems to be arguing for one view over the other - even to the detriment of relationships. That was never the case with As The Crow Flies and will never be this blogs intent. Again, everyone should be allowed at the "table" to discuss the issues as they see them. Each one should bring coffee, beer, or whatever drink of choice, pull up a chair at the table, and share their opinion. The older I get, the more I realize I need to learn.
Recently, the Thursday posts have concerned election while reviewing Perspectives on Election. I've attempted to present two sides (Calvinism and Arminian). As I recently mentioned, there will be times that I also have a comment about the articles written. The debate between Calvinism and Arminians, the question of who and who is not elect, and how those elect are determined, is often somewhat heated. For that reason, some believe these are discussions that might be avoided. In other words, "There has always been disagreement and there will always be, why throw fuel to the fire?" My respectful response is: If we don't study (even the hard things in Scripture) then we've relegated our responsibility as believers to something that it should't be.
My attempt is not to convince anyone of my opinion. I'd really like to hear the opposing view. Again, that's the way I learn and that's how my faith is strengthened. I'll attempt to complete the study, without making it too tedious.
Thanks for hearing my "confession" and for listening. And if the study is something you're even remotely interested in, please join the discussion on Thursdays. If not, the table is open Tuesday-Friday as well.
Blessings!
Mike
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Friday Fodder
One of the things I really appreciate about our corporate worship time is the time we speak about prayer concerns. If facilitated well, those sharing won't preach or see this opportunity as a time for "open mic". However, we've had our challenges.
For those of you who are unaware, we take 5-10 minutes during worship to mention any new requests and then pray about those things. Prayer is not just talked about. We actually do it. I've had those visiting tell me that was something that really "stood out" for them.
After facilitating the time for several weeks, I was convicted stronger and stronger each day about the time becoming a laundry list of wants, needs, and desires. I've attempted to refocus our attention on how blessed we are. I begin with the question, "How has God blessed you this morning? This week?"
It seems when we focus our attention on how God has blessed, the needs, wants, and desires are not as numerous. God has blessed us in so many ways! So what about it? Are you more concerned with your wants, needs, and desires? Or do you recognize God's gracious hand upon your life?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Purpose of Election?
Today, we continue our study through Perspectives on Election. We've reached the point where we need to discuss texts from the Pauline corpus.
Again, we'll begin with Dr. Ware. "One of the clearest and strongest assertions of the unconditional nature of God's election is given by Paul in Romans 9:10-16" (Ware 9). Maintaining that some scholars believe that this particular passage is in regards to calling for service rather than salvation, Ware points to the beginning of the chapter and then 10:1-4 to make a stand for Paul speaking of salvation. He makes mention of God's concern for Israel's salvation (ibid). However, Ware then somehow moves to an individualistic idea of salvation (for those loved enough to be chosen). "As Paul explains, before the two had been born, and before either had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob over his older brother Esau" (Ware 10).
Ware then moves to Romans 11:5-7. Interestingly enough, Dr. Ware returns now to a nationalistic view of salvation (the nation of Israel). Based on this passage, Ware argues the Apostle is referring to a gift of election and not salvation (12, emphasis mine). In other words, although the nation of Israel was chosen by God, only a select "remnant" from the nation was elected. Again, Dr. Ware states, "Here God's grace is not only grace (unmerited favor) that saves but grace (unmerited favor) that elects. Those who otherwise would be hardened in their rebellion are instead saved, and this has happened only because God's grace has elected them to be saved. Election then is unconditional" (12-13).
Cottrell begins his statements in regards to Romans 9:10-16. "As I argue in my own essay in this book, the point is unconditional election to service, not to salvation" (Cottrell 60, emphasis his). According to Cottrell, where Dr. Ware errs is using the beginning of Chapter 9 and 10:1-4 to make his argument in regards to the type of election. "This argument [election to salvation] is fallacious, however, because the issue is not whether the passage is about salvation but whether the election to which the passage refers is about salvation..."(ibid., emphasis his).
As to Romans 11:5-7, Cottrell distinguishes the "election" in this passage from that in Chapter 9 - this being for the purpose of salvation and the previous for service. Cottrell makes the point "The error here is to equate unconditional and undeserved" (60-61).
Personal Thoughts
1. I recognize some see this study as somewhat tedious. More about that in another post.
2. I've attempted to and will continue to provide "both sides" of the issue as described in Perspectives on Election. From time to time, I will point out what I perceive to be strengths or weaknesses with both sides.
3. I've pointed out above that I think it strange for Dr. Ware to choose his text, make the argument (in this case seeing the salvation of Israel as a nation) and then changing the argument (to a more individual salvation), before returning again to his previous thought of Israel. If Paul is writing with any coherence, wouldn't it make sense for him to continue the previous thought (God's relationship with Israel as a nation)? For those interested, the pizza man has a good post here in regards to Romans 9.
4. Next week: Election in Ephesians 1
Again, we'll begin with Dr. Ware. "One of the clearest and strongest assertions of the unconditional nature of God's election is given by Paul in Romans 9:10-16" (Ware 9). Maintaining that some scholars believe that this particular passage is in regards to calling for service rather than salvation, Ware points to the beginning of the chapter and then 10:1-4 to make a stand for Paul speaking of salvation. He makes mention of God's concern for Israel's salvation (ibid). However, Ware then somehow moves to an individualistic idea of salvation (for those loved enough to be chosen). "As Paul explains, before the two had been born, and before either had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob over his older brother Esau" (Ware 10).
Ware then moves to Romans 11:5-7. Interestingly enough, Dr. Ware returns now to a nationalistic view of salvation (the nation of Israel). Based on this passage, Ware argues the Apostle is referring to a gift of election and not salvation (12, emphasis mine). In other words, although the nation of Israel was chosen by God, only a select "remnant" from the nation was elected. Again, Dr. Ware states, "Here God's grace is not only grace (unmerited favor) that saves but grace (unmerited favor) that elects. Those who otherwise would be hardened in their rebellion are instead saved, and this has happened only because God's grace has elected them to be saved. Election then is unconditional" (12-13).
Cottrell begins his statements in regards to Romans 9:10-16. "As I argue in my own essay in this book, the point is unconditional election to service, not to salvation" (Cottrell 60, emphasis his). According to Cottrell, where Dr. Ware errs is using the beginning of Chapter 9 and 10:1-4 to make his argument in regards to the type of election. "This argument [election to salvation] is fallacious, however, because the issue is not whether the passage is about salvation but whether the election to which the passage refers is about salvation..."(ibid., emphasis his).
As to Romans 11:5-7, Cottrell distinguishes the "election" in this passage from that in Chapter 9 - this being for the purpose of salvation and the previous for service. Cottrell makes the point "The error here is to equate unconditional and undeserved" (60-61).
Personal Thoughts
1. I recognize some see this study as somewhat tedious. More about that in another post.
2. I've attempted to and will continue to provide "both sides" of the issue as described in Perspectives on Election. From time to time, I will point out what I perceive to be strengths or weaknesses with both sides.
3. I've pointed out above that I think it strange for Dr. Ware to choose his text, make the argument (in this case seeing the salvation of Israel as a nation) and then changing the argument (to a more individual salvation), before returning again to his previous thought of Israel. If Paul is writing with any coherence, wouldn't it make sense for him to continue the previous thought (God's relationship with Israel as a nation)? For those interested, the pizza man has a good post here in regards to Romans 9.
4. Next week: Election in Ephesians 1
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Review of McKnight's Blue Parakeet #1
Recently, I was blessed to be able to receive an Advance Reader Copy of Scot Mcknight's the Blue Parakeet. The book hits the shelves in November. Based upon his blog and other books, I was looking forward to receiving this book to review.
McKnight begins by asking how one determines how to read Scripture. He then introduces us to a concept known as a "blue parakeet" - ways in which we read the Bible and attempt to "tame" those various passages. McKnight argues it shouldn't be attempted and can't be done. His foundation for his work is completed in the introduction (Chapters 1 and 2).
Section 1 (Chapters 3-5) then takes the reader into how McKnight teaches the Bible should be read, specifically, as Story. According to McKnight, too many go to the Bible and read snipets of a story, believing them to stand alone. For example, many choose to focus on God's promises or God's blessings, as they read. However, when one reads the Bible in it's entireity, one sees God's Story in 66 books.
I appreciated McKnight's example of wikipedia. After pointing out that wikipedia is a site of ongoing definitions, McKnight perceives the compiling of Scripture in that way. In other words, several authors describing one Story with their individual story. In the Story, McKnight points out 1) Oneness (the way God created); 2) Otherness (the result of the Fall and mankind's pride); and 3) Oneness (restoration of relationships including God, man, self, and others).
A review of sections 2 and 3 will follow next week.
McKnight begins by asking how one determines how to read Scripture. He then introduces us to a concept known as a "blue parakeet" - ways in which we read the Bible and attempt to "tame" those various passages. McKnight argues it shouldn't be attempted and can't be done. His foundation for his work is completed in the introduction (Chapters 1 and 2).
Section 1 (Chapters 3-5) then takes the reader into how McKnight teaches the Bible should be read, specifically, as Story. According to McKnight, too many go to the Bible and read snipets of a story, believing them to stand alone. For example, many choose to focus on God's promises or God's blessings, as they read. However, when one reads the Bible in it's entireity, one sees God's Story in 66 books.
I appreciated McKnight's example of wikipedia. After pointing out that wikipedia is a site of ongoing definitions, McKnight perceives the compiling of Scripture in that way. In other words, several authors describing one Story with their individual story. In the Story, McKnight points out 1) Oneness (the way God created); 2) Otherness (the result of the Fall and mankind's pride); and 3) Oneness (restoration of relationships including God, man, self, and others).
A review of sections 2 and 3 will follow next week.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
What's With the #s?
Advertising and marketing firms have always used numbers for the purpose of "knowing their target audience". For example, when one goes to the supermarket and makes a purchase, the bar codes on the items are recorded. Although there are various reasons, some include 1) minimizing the work at the time of inventory; and 2) determining who is purchasing what items for the purpose of marketing those items in creative/better ways.
I worked in radio for sometime. Part of the job included calling people at random and determining what radio station they listened to, at what times of the day, for what reason, etc. The radio stations would then compare their findings with that of a national survey company and then provide the #s to those in sells positions. After all, those buying advertising could then determine where, when, and how often to advertise.
One might think the church is immune to some of the #s. However, they would be wrong. Consider the work of George Barna, Christian researcher. Every few months, Barna provides those in ministry with #s, in an attempt to better equip them for their ministries. Ed Stetzer, church growth "guru", also has something to say about Christian research. Although the post is lengthy, you might benefit from reading what Stetzer has to say about Christian research. The link is here.
I've always been a bit skeptical about the validity of #s. In other words, who's doing the survey, what's their motive, and who are they talking to? For example, I could do a survey on the importance of dairy in one's life and use the Dairy Farmers of America to provide my data. Chances are, the farmers would assure me they have "happy cows" and dairy is a necessity in one's diet. Those reading the compiled #s might not question the farmer's integrity or honesty, but would do well to learn why I chose to survey 1000 farmers in Wisconsin.
So what are your thoughts? Should we rely on #s? After all, it's an election year. And I've been told, "The numbers don't lie." Should we do away with surveys altogether? Anyone else a bit skeptical?
I worked in radio for sometime. Part of the job included calling people at random and determining what radio station they listened to, at what times of the day, for what reason, etc. The radio stations would then compare their findings with that of a national survey company and then provide the #s to those in sells positions. After all, those buying advertising could then determine where, when, and how often to advertise.
One might think the church is immune to some of the #s. However, they would be wrong. Consider the work of George Barna, Christian researcher. Every few months, Barna provides those in ministry with #s, in an attempt to better equip them for their ministries. Ed Stetzer, church growth "guru", also has something to say about Christian research. Although the post is lengthy, you might benefit from reading what Stetzer has to say about Christian research. The link is here.
I've always been a bit skeptical about the validity of #s. In other words, who's doing the survey, what's their motive, and who are they talking to? For example, I could do a survey on the importance of dairy in one's life and use the Dairy Farmers of America to provide my data. Chances are, the farmers would assure me they have "happy cows" and dairy is a necessity in one's diet. Those reading the compiled #s might not question the farmer's integrity or honesty, but would do well to learn why I chose to survey 1000 farmers in Wisconsin.
So what are your thoughts? Should we rely on #s? After all, it's an election year. And I've been told, "The numbers don't lie." Should we do away with surveys altogether? Anyone else a bit skeptical?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Weekend Fodder
Typically, I attempt to provide some chewing material on Fridays. However, I ran across the phrase below on a blog and wanted to get your thoughts. The context is in regards to Christianity and healthcare; more specifically, "How would God want us to deal with healthcare?". The post was written by Neale Donald Walsch. You can find it here.
Now here's the quote. The question is asked (bold type) and then Walsch's response.
What does God will in this question?
God's Will is our will. God wills for us what we will for ourselves. God is not some being separate from us, "willing" something that He cannot make us do, but wishes that He could. God is the Life that is flowing through us. We are God, physicalized. We are the physical manifestation of the Divine. And because we are Divine, we can create life any way that we want it on this earth. We have the collective power to do so. We can solve any problem that we face -- including the problem of health care. It is simply a matter of Will.
Any objections to what Walsch says? Any applause? Other thoughts?
Now here's the quote. The question is asked (bold type) and then Walsch's response.
What does God will in this question?
God's Will is our will. God wills for us what we will for ourselves. God is not some being separate from us, "willing" something that He cannot make us do, but wishes that He could. God is the Life that is flowing through us. We are God, physicalized. We are the physical manifestation of the Divine. And because we are Divine, we can create life any way that we want it on this earth. We have the collective power to do so. We can solve any problem that we face -- including the problem of health care. It is simply a matter of Will.
Any objections to what Walsch says? Any applause? Other thoughts?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Friday Fodder
Yaaaaaaaaaahooooooooooooooooooo!
Mcknight's The Blue Parakeet came in the mail yesterday. I look forward to reading the book and reviewing it here. Because of the responsibility I feel towards Scot and Zondervan, other books have been pushed aside for a short time. You'll note what I've read this year. I continue to reread A Community Called Atonement and N.T. Wright's Surprised By Hope among others.
On deck, I plan to read Frank Viola's Reimagining Church and Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book. Although I'm unaware of any patterns, you can see what I read and attempt to take in. Any suggestions?
Mcknight's The Blue Parakeet came in the mail yesterday. I look forward to reading the book and reviewing it here. Because of the responsibility I feel towards Scot and Zondervan, other books have been pushed aside for a short time. You'll note what I've read this year. I continue to reread A Community Called Atonement and N.T. Wright's Surprised By Hope among others.
On deck, I plan to read Frank Viola's Reimagining Church and Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book. Although I'm unaware of any patterns, you can see what I read and attempt to take in. Any suggestions?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
"Election" in Acts
Today, we continue our study through the perspectives on election.
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. (NRSV)
Bruce Ware turns to his second text in Acts 13:48. Concerning the emphasized phrase above, Ware uses the Holman Christian Standard Bible and maintains, "One indisputable aspect of Luke's statement, 'All who had been appointed to eternal life believed,' is that God's appointment of those who would receive eternal life preceded the belief of these very people" (8). He goes on to say if those believed simply based upon their decision and no act of God, then why would Luke make so big of a point (ibid)? Ware maintains Luke is pointing out God's choosing. In other words, when the Gospel is presented to the Gentiles, according to Ware, it's because the Jews (as a whole) rejected the Gospel, whereas the Gentiles (as a whole) accepted the Good News. "In short, these Gentiles believed the Gospel, while Jews rejected the same saving message because God had chosen these very Gentiles to believe" (9).
The response to Ware is taken up by Jack Cottrell. As to this particular verse, Cottrell maintains the verb form of tetagmenoi "should be taken as middle voice, not passive" (60). In other words, Cottrell translates the verse, "As many as arranged themselves unto eternal life believed" or "As many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed" (ibid). How one translates the tense of the verb from the original language seems to make a difference.
Next week, we turn to the writings of Paul. Any thoughts in regards to the verse in Acts?
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. (NRSV)
Bruce Ware turns to his second text in Acts 13:48. Concerning the emphasized phrase above, Ware uses the Holman Christian Standard Bible and maintains, "One indisputable aspect of Luke's statement, 'All who had been appointed to eternal life believed,' is that God's appointment of those who would receive eternal life preceded the belief of these very people" (8). He goes on to say if those believed simply based upon their decision and no act of God, then why would Luke make so big of a point (ibid)? Ware maintains Luke is pointing out God's choosing. In other words, when the Gospel is presented to the Gentiles, according to Ware, it's because the Jews (as a whole) rejected the Gospel, whereas the Gentiles (as a whole) accepted the Good News. "In short, these Gentiles believed the Gospel, while Jews rejected the same saving message because God had chosen these very Gentiles to believe" (9).
The response to Ware is taken up by Jack Cottrell. As to this particular verse, Cottrell maintains the verb form of tetagmenoi "should be taken as middle voice, not passive" (60). In other words, Cottrell translates the verse, "As many as arranged themselves unto eternal life believed" or "As many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed" (ibid). How one translates the tense of the verb from the original language seems to make a difference.
Next week, we turn to the writings of Paul. Any thoughts in regards to the verse in Acts?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Holiness, Righteousness, Faithfulness
Deuteronomy 28 is what most would call "black and white". In other words, there are consequences for obeying God's Law and consequences for disobeying the same Law. Obedience leads to blessings. Disobedience results in curses and destruction.
The original readers were reminded of God's grace and mercy. Years prior, they were led from slavery in Egypt - a horrific way of life - to freedom and on their way to the land God had promised. Things would work out well if they valued their freedom and chose to honor the One who provides that same freedom. Again, it appears their future would be a result based on their decisions.
Since God sent His Son to die for the sins of the world (2 Cor 5:21, 1 Jn 2:2), we have lived under grace rather than Law (cf. Paul's admonitions to the Galatians among other texts). Although I want to make decisions that result in the blessings mentioned in Deut. 28, my flesh continues to drag me "south". And the Bible makes it clear this is going to be an issue until Christ returns and restores all things.
About this time, Romans 7 might have come to mind. There's a great post from a friend here. Kinney Mabry has a good post on the Law here.
Although we no longer live under the Law, the New Testament is clear New Testament Christians continue to have responsibilities. Consider Jesus declaring, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17 NRSV) or Peter reminding readers "For it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:16 NRSV).
My decision today is to live for Christ. I know based on previous experience, I'm going to sin. I'm going to be selfish. I'm going to "miss the mark". But I'm not going to rationalize those things. I refuse to push them aside and just claim "That's just the way I am." I'll call them what they are - SIN. Then I'll go to Christ and repent, knowing "...he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9).
Anything you want to say?
The original readers were reminded of God's grace and mercy. Years prior, they were led from slavery in Egypt - a horrific way of life - to freedom and on their way to the land God had promised. Things would work out well if they valued their freedom and chose to honor the One who provides that same freedom. Again, it appears their future would be a result based on their decisions.
Since God sent His Son to die for the sins of the world (2 Cor 5:21, 1 Jn 2:2), we have lived under grace rather than Law (cf. Paul's admonitions to the Galatians among other texts). Although I want to make decisions that result in the blessings mentioned in Deut. 28, my flesh continues to drag me "south". And the Bible makes it clear this is going to be an issue until Christ returns and restores all things.
About this time, Romans 7 might have come to mind. There's a great post from a friend here. Kinney Mabry has a good post on the Law here.
Although we no longer live under the Law, the New Testament is clear New Testament Christians continue to have responsibilities. Consider Jesus declaring, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17 NRSV) or Peter reminding readers "For it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:16 NRSV).
My decision today is to live for Christ. I know based on previous experience, I'm going to sin. I'm going to be selfish. I'm going to "miss the mark". But I'm not going to rationalize those things. I refuse to push them aside and just claim "That's just the way I am." I'll call them what they are - SIN. Then I'll go to Christ and repent, knowing "...he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9).
Anything you want to say?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Things Learned On The Road
The family and I had the chance to return to the Austin area last weekend. The primary reason for going back was performing a wedding; however, the visits we had with those people we love was unbeatable. Here are a few things learned or confirmed from the recent trip.
1. Somehow, the stress of a wedding (rehearsal, planning, order of service, weather, etc.) is always worth it.
2. Traffic in central Texas is definitely getting worse. With a few rare exceptions, people are in a hurry and their errand is more important than anyone else's errand.
3. The people who had become our family at a recent ministry (and allowed us to become a part of theirs) still love us. Sharing memories was priceless.
4. We stayed at friends house who also hosted evacuees from Ike. During the stressful time of watching the news coverage, I was reminded of how much I take for granted. It could all be gone tomorrow and insurance doesn't bring it all back.
5. There are 433 miles, 15 towns or cities, and 1,573,829,001 bugs between here and there. BTW, we hit all but 4 of the bugs.
It's good to be home!
Friday, September 12, 2008
Friday Fodder
Anyone at the church I pastor will tell you I'm BIG about discipleship. One of the things I've been convinced of the last few years is the church dumbing down the message we have for the world. In other words, why do people who claim to be a follower of Christ look the same as they did as before? Why is there no change? How important is discipleship? What's the difference between discipleship and someone going over the edge into legalsim? Should these things even be a part of conversation? Check out this video and then let me know what you think.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
September 11 7#
Today marks the 7th anniversary that our country was so violently attacked. There will be several memorials throughout the day. Many people will have things to say and they will say them much better than I ever could.
For that reason, I would encourage you to check out their thoughts. Our study on election will resume next week.
God Bless America and America Bless God!
For that reason, I would encourage you to check out their thoughts. Our study on election will resume next week.
God Bless America and America Bless God!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
I've Been Tagged!
Okay. My friend Ted was kind enough to tag me. It seems, these are the rules:
So here goes:
1. Blogging for me has been fun. Although I've been tempted to quit from time to time, I'm always encouraged by friends in the blogosphere to keep writing. I look back in the archives from time to time and review what I was reading/studying months ago. Blogging takes time and effort. I'm still attempting to get on a "set schedule" - whatever that means in ministry. The negatives are miniscule with blogging. The positives are priceless.
2. Blogs I enjoy reading include Jesus Community, The Jesus Creed, Ben Witherington, She who reads, may write, and Preacherman.
3. Here's L.L's blog. Her thoughts are always worth the time.
4. I'm tagging a friend at Political Hope.
5. See above. Good reading!
1. Write about 5 specific ways blogging has affected you, either positively or negatively.
2. link back to the person who tagged you
3. link back to this parent post (L.L. Barkat is not so much interested in generating links, but rather in tracking the meme so she can perhaps do a summary post later on that looks at patterns and interesting discoveries.)
4. tag a few friends or five, or none at all
5. post these rules— or just have fun breaking them
So here goes:
1. Blogging for me has been fun. Although I've been tempted to quit from time to time, I'm always encouraged by friends in the blogosphere to keep writing. I look back in the archives from time to time and review what I was reading/studying months ago. Blogging takes time and effort. I'm still attempting to get on a "set schedule" - whatever that means in ministry. The negatives are miniscule with blogging. The positives are priceless.
2. Blogs I enjoy reading include Jesus Community, The Jesus Creed, Ben Witherington, She who reads, may write, and Preacherman.
3. Here's L.L's blog. Her thoughts are always worth the time.
4. I'm tagging a friend at Political Hope.
5. See above. Good reading!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The North American Church
From time to time, I check out church research "guru" Ed Stetzer's blog. You can find it here. The most recent trend Stetzer points to is evangelical churches in North America forgetting their mission of sharing the Gospel message and replacing it with a "twelve step program for inner peace." The results have been a lack of importance for evangelism in the North American church.
Stetzer's biggest concern is Christians have lost confidence in the Gospel. In other words, we've moved past the good news of Christ providing restoration, hope, and love to a dying cosmos. We've begun to see salvation more as a individual blessing and for that reason, the challenges in people's lives and meeting those challenges (recovery groups, benevolence ministries, etc.) have taken the lead over the power of the cross. For that reason, the church in North America in is decline. Those "outside our walls" become complacent, apathetic, or skeptical about what goes on inside the church - that is, until a practical problem arises in their lives. The North American church has become a therapy center rather than a place to understand the Gospel.
What are your thoughts?
Stetzer's biggest concern is Christians have lost confidence in the Gospel. In other words, we've moved past the good news of Christ providing restoration, hope, and love to a dying cosmos. We've begun to see salvation more as a individual blessing and for that reason, the challenges in people's lives and meeting those challenges (recovery groups, benevolence ministries, etc.) have taken the lead over the power of the cross. For that reason, the church in North America in is decline. Those "outside our walls" become complacent, apathetic, or skeptical about what goes on inside the church - that is, until a practical problem arises in their lives. The North American church has become a therapy center rather than a place to understand the Gospel.
What are your thoughts?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Friday Fodder
"The only people who can hurt you deeply are the ones you allow to get deep inside your soul." - Erwin McManus
Transparency in relationships is something we all struggle with (some, of course, more than others). Many of us carry scars from previous relationships. The scars run deep and sometimes last for years. Because of the past hurts, many choose to be intentional about keeping others at arms length. They miss the love they so desperately need.
Without the possibility of love, there would be no scars. Without love, we could never experience God's greatest attribute. We would never be able to know one another intimately. Isn't the danger of scars worth the love we experience?
What are your thoughts?
Transparency in relationships is something we all struggle with (some, of course, more than others). Many of us carry scars from previous relationships. The scars run deep and sometimes last for years. Because of the past hurts, many choose to be intentional about keeping others at arms length. They miss the love they so desperately need.
Without the possibility of love, there would be no scars. Without love, we could never experience God's greatest attribute. We would never be able to know one another intimately. Isn't the danger of scars worth the love we experience?
What are your thoughts?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Unconditional Election in John 17
Bruce Ware, Senior Associate Dean at the School of Theology of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville is the first essayist regarding the doctrine of election. The response for this particular passage is provided by Jack Cottrell, Professor at Cinncinati Bible Seminary.
Ware writes from the Calvinist perspective and argues firstly for unconditional election.
Dean Ware begins to make his case with the prayer of Jesus in John 17, using specifically verses 2, 6, 9, and 24. The phrase Ware points to over and over again is "to all whom you have given him (Jesus)." The phrase occurs in similar ways in the verses Ware mentions above. Anticipating an argument from classical Arminians, Ware states, "Belief is necessary, to be sure. But those who believe are those given to Christ by the Father" (7).
Professor Cottrell responds to the idea, by maintaining "...that Jesus' references to 'those whom the Father has given him' apply to the twelve apostles, not to the totality of saved individuals" (59). Cottrell's argument is based upon verse 20, which reads, "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word" (NRSV). Cottrell moves on to argue the election in John 17 is for apostolic service rather than for salvation (59). His belief is the call to apostolic service is also true of John 15:16. The Arminian professor then maintains "their (the apostle's) salvation is not assured simply because they have been 'given' to Jesus by the Father" (60).
It's obvious that the two interpretations of the prayer of Jesus in John 17 (at least with election) are polar opposites. One of these distinguished individuals might be wrong (causing the other to be in error), both may be wrong, but it seems both cannot be correct. Which begs the question: Is the exegesis provided good exegesis? Do either or both of these individuals go to this passage with "an end" in mind? If so, isn't that dangerous?
What are your thoughts about this particular passage and how it fits into election?
Ware writes from the Calvinist perspective and argues firstly for unconditional election.
"Unconditional election refers to the claim that God's selection of those whom he would save was not based upon (or, not 'conditioned' on) some fact or feature of those individuals' lives, in particular...not conditioned on something they would do, some choice they would make, how good or bad they might be, or anything else specifically true about them in contrast to others also enslaved to sin and deserving God's just condemnation." (3)
Dean Ware begins to make his case with the prayer of Jesus in John 17, using specifically verses 2, 6, 9, and 24. The phrase Ware points to over and over again is "to all whom you have given him (Jesus)." The phrase occurs in similar ways in the verses Ware mentions above. Anticipating an argument from classical Arminians, Ware states, "Belief is necessary, to be sure. But those who believe are those given to Christ by the Father" (7).
Professor Cottrell responds to the idea, by maintaining "...that Jesus' references to 'those whom the Father has given him' apply to the twelve apostles, not to the totality of saved individuals" (59). Cottrell's argument is based upon verse 20, which reads, "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word" (NRSV). Cottrell moves on to argue the election in John 17 is for apostolic service rather than for salvation (59). His belief is the call to apostolic service is also true of John 15:16. The Arminian professor then maintains "their (the apostle's) salvation is not assured simply because they have been 'given' to Jesus by the Father" (60).
It's obvious that the two interpretations of the prayer of Jesus in John 17 (at least with election) are polar opposites. One of these distinguished individuals might be wrong (causing the other to be in error), both may be wrong, but it seems both cannot be correct. Which begs the question: Is the exegesis provided good exegesis? Do either or both of these individuals go to this passage with "an end" in mind? If so, isn't that dangerous?
What are your thoughts about this particular passage and how it fits into election?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Election starts Thursday!
I've looked forward to receiving a particular book in the mail for the last few weeks. Finally, the book arrived. The work is edited by Chad Owen Brand and is entitled Perspectives On Election. Five theologians write essays describing their view on the doctrine of election and then a response is given.
The Apostle Paul writes to the Ephesians "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world...this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God's own people, to the praise of his glory" (Eph. 1:3-14).
For centuries, this text has been paramount among those who debate what election means through the New Testament. Of course there are others. But the Ephesian text seems to cause people on both sides to stake their claim to the truth. From the time Luther and Erasmus disagreed about the term and its meaning in the 5th century until the modern era, good people have disagreed.
Our task on Thursdays for the next several weeks is to look at the different perspectives and attempt to determine Paul's meaning of the term. I'll attempt to summarize the essays and the responses. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.
The Apostle Paul writes to the Ephesians "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world...this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God's own people, to the praise of his glory" (Eph. 1:3-14).
For centuries, this text has been paramount among those who debate what election means through the New Testament. Of course there are others. But the Ephesian text seems to cause people on both sides to stake their claim to the truth. From the time Luther and Erasmus disagreed about the term and its meaning in the 5th century until the modern era, good people have disagreed.
Our task on Thursdays for the next several weeks is to look at the different perspectives and attempt to determine Paul's meaning of the term. I'll attempt to summarize the essays and the responses. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Better Late Than Never...I guess!
Last week, I'd planned to post on William Young's The Shack near the end of the week. You've figured out by now, that didn't happen. I should have warned you. I have a very analytical mind. Sometimes that's beneficial. Other times, not so much. This time, it's taken me a few extra hours to get through this particular book.
To be honest, I really didn't want to read Young's work. My reading list is always full and this book wasn't on it. And then friends and family read the book inquiring of what I thought. I still wasn't interested. I heard someone else say, "This book will change your life." I'd heard that before. But the way it was said had me thinking, "What's the big deal?" I was then shown the cover and noticed Eugene Peterson's quote. "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!" I knew I had no choice but to read it and weigh in with my humble opinion. So here goes:
Mackenzie Phillips takes his children on a camping trip. His young girl is abducted and murdered. For good reason, Phillips grieves and experiences A Great Sadness. He steps over the line when he accuses God of being responsible for the tragedy.
Phillips receives a letter from God inviting him back to the scene of the crime. He returns to interact with God through something of a time/location warp. Through the three personalities of God and wisdom, Phillips begins to understand God and His love for mankind. He's then given the choice of whether to stay and continue to learn from God or return to his "other life" and continue the healing process with his family. He chooses to return knowing that decision will bring different challenges.
First, the good things:
1. This book really makes the reader think about theological concepts. Every reader that follows the plot will be challenged to think about his/her beliefs. God can use any media (including a fictional book) to call mankind to Himself.
2. I appreciate the way Young describes the interaction between God and the primary character. The outflowing of God (and His love) throughout Mack's time at the shack flowed easily throughout.
3. Young's "setting the scene" in the first few chapters was difficult to traverse. After the plotline begins to share the story, this became much easier. All in all, I found the work to be enjoyable.
Some issues:
1. Although I appreciated Young challenging the common view of God (an old man with a flowing beard), there were times I felt God's humanity was stressed more than God's divinity. I realize Jesus was fully human. But He was also fully God.
2. Young's view of God is about love, acceptance, and forgiveness. However, because of the importance of seeing God's love, justice and man's responsibility takes a back seat to Young's attributes of God.
3. When Mack is allowed to observe his earthly father and attempt to reconcile, it's almost as if Young moves a little bit New Age(y).
Again, I really appreciated the book as a whole. Would I give it as much praise as Peterson? Uh...no. Is it worth the read? I think so. Almost anything that raises questions about God and our relationship with God should be considered. Is there a genre for Young in the future? Let's wait and see his next project.
To be honest, I really didn't want to read Young's work. My reading list is always full and this book wasn't on it. And then friends and family read the book inquiring of what I thought. I still wasn't interested. I heard someone else say, "This book will change your life." I'd heard that before. But the way it was said had me thinking, "What's the big deal?" I was then shown the cover and noticed Eugene Peterson's quote. "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!" I knew I had no choice but to read it and weigh in with my humble opinion. So here goes:
Mackenzie Phillips takes his children on a camping trip. His young girl is abducted and murdered. For good reason, Phillips grieves and experiences A Great Sadness. He steps over the line when he accuses God of being responsible for the tragedy.
Phillips receives a letter from God inviting him back to the scene of the crime. He returns to interact with God through something of a time/location warp. Through the three personalities of God and wisdom, Phillips begins to understand God and His love for mankind. He's then given the choice of whether to stay and continue to learn from God or return to his "other life" and continue the healing process with his family. He chooses to return knowing that decision will bring different challenges.
First, the good things:
1. This book really makes the reader think about theological concepts. Every reader that follows the plot will be challenged to think about his/her beliefs. God can use any media (including a fictional book) to call mankind to Himself.
2. I appreciate the way Young describes the interaction between God and the primary character. The outflowing of God (and His love) throughout Mack's time at the shack flowed easily throughout.
3. Young's "setting the scene" in the first few chapters was difficult to traverse. After the plotline begins to share the story, this became much easier. All in all, I found the work to be enjoyable.
Some issues:
1. Although I appreciated Young challenging the common view of God (an old man with a flowing beard), there were times I felt God's humanity was stressed more than God's divinity. I realize Jesus was fully human. But He was also fully God.
2. Young's view of God is about love, acceptance, and forgiveness. However, because of the importance of seeing God's love, justice and man's responsibility takes a back seat to Young's attributes of God.
3. When Mack is allowed to observe his earthly father and attempt to reconcile, it's almost as if Young moves a little bit New Age(y).
Again, I really appreciated the book as a whole. Would I give it as much praise as Peterson? Uh...no. Is it worth the read? I think so. Almost anything that raises questions about God and our relationship with God should be considered. Is there a genre for Young in the future? Let's wait and see his next project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
