Labels: politics

Labels: theology

Last week Ron posted a topic entitled A Misconception about Heaven in which he raised an issue about Heaven. In this post he mentioned a word found in John 14:2. It is the Greek word μοναί (monai) which we translate as "dwelling places." So John 14:2 reads, "In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places..." (NRSV)

But is you look further on down through the chapter you'll notice the same Greek word appears again. In verse 23 we see the word μονήν (monane) which is translated as "dwelling place." So John 14:23 reads, "Jesus answered him, ‘Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our dwelling place with them.'" (NRSV)

Both μοναί and μονήν come from μονή (monay). As we have already already mentioned, μονή means "dwelling place" or "abode." Consider for a moment the implications of this language. Jesus has been speaking over and over again of mutual abiding between not only himself and the Father (v. 10), but also between him and his disciples (v. 20). The truth of the resurrection and the bestowal of the Spirit is that those who love Jesus and keep (or guard) his commands experience the very life of God from the inside out. They participate in the divine community of the Holy Trinity!

On another note, in verse 2 Jesus is speaking of how the Father opens up within Himself for believers to abide -- "In my Father's house there are many dwelling places..." This is an astonishing reality, that God desires to corporately draw mankind into Himself. But as if this is not enough, Jesus expands on the concept in verse 23 when he says, "...we will come...and make our dwelling place with them." Jesus flips the idea around so that we may see the two-way street of grace. Not only does God desire to draw all of His believers into Himself, but He desires that all of Himself dwell within each individual believer -- we (corporately) in Him (individually), and Him (corporately -- F, S, and H.S.) in us (individually). Thus we have a corporate and individual aspect of Christian experience. How marvelous!

Labels: politics

Labels: politics

It in an oversimplification, but it may be said generally that, while Western theological systems often follow a Trinitarian pattern reflected in the Apostles Creed, the focus is often more on the work of the persons than on their perichoretic unity and the nature of the hypostatic union of the God-Man. This becomes most apparent in the second article, where Western theology tends to regard Christology as an essential means to the end of soteriology. Thus, there is an emphasis on the cross and the resurrection as the apex of human redemption. In Eastern patristic and Byzantine theology, however, the accent falls on the incarnation itself. Jesus Christ the God-Man is not only who he is in order to be a Savior; he is Savior precisely in being who he is.

Labels: politics

If all you heard was bad news, you'd feel bad, right? Then I think it's a wonder any of us feels good at all.

I mean, tell me the last time you heard anything good about the economy.

Home prices are high, so it's a bubble. Gas prices are high, so it's a recession.

We can't win, I think, because many in the media don't want us to win.

I know that sounds extreme. But consider this: Tell me when you've ever heard good news reported for being, well, good news?

No, the day after a strong jobs report , The New York Times was bemoaning it would most likely keep interest rates ratcheting upward.

I'm not saying that isn't true. But would it kill us in the media to turn it around? That interest rates are going higher, precisely because the economy's going higher?

Would it kill us to report that while gas prices are at a record this week of $2.29 a gallon... they'd have to get up to more than 3 bucks to match the inflation-adjusted Carter years? And would it kill us to add that folks in Europe pay up to three times our level right now?

Would it kill us to note in our "deficits-are-ruining-America" stories, that deficits are actually declining? Maybe a hundred billion less than thought? And that tax revenues are up, precisely because tax rates are down?

Would it kill us to admit that's because more people are working and more people are paying taxes, so the pie just got bigger? No, we curse the pie and dish out the crap. How's that for flaky?

In economic news, that's not being fair and balanced.

Now, I'm not saying, don't report the bad stuff. Just don't make it seem like that's the only stuff.

So, here's what I say to some of my colleagues in the press: If you want to be the miserable wretches you are, feel free. Just leave us out of it.

Like I said, you're free to be the jaded, warped, twisted, negative, disingenuous, smarmy bastards you are. And we're just as free to ignore you.

Because all the news that's fit to print shouldn't be all the news that's fit to tint.

Labels: politics

During the campaign, President Bush said he will appoint judges who will strictly interpret the constitution... thinking anything else is either amnesia or ignorance... elections have consequences... whomever he nominates deserves an up or down vote and no filibuster... and an up or down vote is what we will have...

First off, who are we kidding here? There isn't going to be any "up or down" vote. The Senate liberals are going to filibuster any nomination Bush puts forward until the cows come home. Secondly, since when has McCain become a good guy again? He's been on the other side of the aisle for so long now I forgot he was a Republican. Looks like somebody has his eye set on the presidential bid for '08...

Mark my words, this S.C. nomination is going to be war. There will be no up or down vote -- I guarantee it.

Rush Limbaugh's comment on the issue yesterday (7/11/2005) - Read -- Listen (Requires Windows Media Player)

Labels: politics

Labels: politics

Rush Limbaugh answered a question concerning abortion on his show Friday. It is an interesting angle on the issue that I have not thought about before. Read the transcript of this comment here or listen to the sound bite here.

What do you think about the issue of whether or not children should be considered their parent's "property"?

Labels: politics

Blair To Blame?
George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament who's been accused of taking money from Saddam Hussein's regime, says British Prime Minister Tony Blair is to blame for Thursday's attacks in London, insisting Londoners have now "paid the price" for his decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Galloway says, "The loss of innocent lives ... is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years. ... We argued ... that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically ... the government ignor[ed] such warnings."

Labels: politics

USATODAY.com - United Church of Christ backs gay marriage

What should determine a denomination's decisions on social issues? Should it be something concrete or should denominations be more fluid with the times and culture? In comparison, we as American citizens point to the Constitution as a "concrete" statute to live by, but even that has been attacked in recent years as old and irrelevant to our current society. In the case with the American Constitution, legal advisers, lawyers, and judges want to subjectively interpret the intent of the law. I call this Neo-Constitutionalism. The reason I give the label, Neo-Constitutionalism, is because the statute no longer is the measuring rod for which the citizens are to live by, rather the people are the measuring rod by which to interpret the law.

In the same way we find many churches and denominations practicing Neo-Constitutionalism. In the article above, Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ has practiced Neo-Christianity. He is not basing the decisions of the United Church of Christ on anything objective, concrete, or foundational. How is it that he can refer to his denomination as a Christian denomination and not follow the plain teachings of Jesus Christ? The Rev. Brett Becker of the St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas (a representative of the conservative churches) said, "If we had put it to a vote of the people in the pews, it would have failed overwhelmingly," he said. "This is truly Independence Day for the UCC — we have declared ourselves independent from the teachings of Jesus and the clear teachings of Scripture." At the same time the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, of Cleveland said that "the decision emphasizes that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are 'spiritual people who love and are loved by God.'" Like those well educated lawyers who practice Neo-Constitutionalism and take part of the law and redefine it to fit a specific agenda, so to are some denominational leaders and some pastors practicing Neo-Christianity. Now we have from Rev. Voelkel a redefinition of God's love. (For more thoughts on the philosophy and theology of this subject I would refer you to three other articles: "Holy or Love?", "Parents Raising Children; Bible Principles of Family Training", and "Was Esau Sexually Immoral?")

Should we practice what I have called Neo-Christianity (Neo-Constitutionalism) for the sake of cultural relevancy? Should an objective statute dictate how people live, or should people dictate how a statute reads?

Check out the UCC's controversial commercial here. (Requires Windows Media Player)

Take the survey yourself here.

Do you remember the religious fervor in America after 9/11? Do you remember how packed our sanctuaries were those first Sundays after that horrific day? Christianity Today has an article today asking the question of whether or not this will be England's equivalent to our own 9/11.

I thought I would seize the opportunity this article provided me to ask a question: Where are all those now who filled our sanctuaries following September 11, 2001? It was the search for hope and answers, mingled with fear, that drove people to our churches. But why did they leave? Did they not find what they were looking for? Did they walk out of our church doors those first Sunday mornings with the same sense of desperation and uncertainty with which they came in?

Maybe this is a tragic commentary on the insufficiency of our American churches to meet the needs of hurting people. Perhaps we placed too much of our concern in issues of polity, arguments over worship styles, or sacramental differences. Perhaps we, as we busied ourselves to meet our own needs on those Sunday mornings, allowed the lost and dying to slip in and out of our church doors undetected and unredeemed. When will the church allow the Holy Spirit to impart to her the very mind of Christ? This same mind was not only always oriented around the mind of His Father's, but was always transfixed upon the hurts and needs of real people. This same Jesus, in His moment of deep despair over the loss of His beloved cousin, did not even stop ministering to people so that he could properly grieve. This same Jesus, motivated by His love for God and man, allowed Himself to be betrayed to His own death. The humility and sacrifice and fundamental orientation around God and man of Jesus Christ should be what characterizes His people.

Have we missed this somehow?

Or maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

Parents Raising ChildrenBible Principles of Family Training

I tentatively watched the drama being played in front of me two weeks ago between two parents and their child. The child was finished eating and wanted to go and play. The father made a stern command, "You are not allowed to play until everyone is done eating." The child began to get upset and whine a little. We continued to eat. After a few minutes there was a sound of a toy in the livingroom. The child had slipped away and gone to play anyway. The parent made another stern warning, then had to get up from the table and physically place the four year old child on a chair with another warning not to get up. The grandparents were also at the table eating. The child softly made her way to the grandmother who softly held the child. In a matter of minutes the child was off doing what she wanted to do. I know this sounds to most people like a simple case of "a four year just being a four year old", but to my wife and I this is blantant disregard (disobedience) for the child's father. My concern runs even deeper. I may be too philosophical, but as I look around at the children in America, who are not finding repercussions for their actions, I am wondering what our future will look like. If a child does not grow up understanding that to disobey one's parent is a sin, then how will they ever understand that disobeying God the Father is certain death! Maybe this is the reason that so few preachers preach about God's holiness and absoluteness. It is comforting to always preach and teach and live in the realm of God the Father's love. A child who is not disciplined very quickly learns there are no consequences for his/her actions and they will eventually get what they want. Children raised in such an environment, will have a hard time learning that God expects complete obedience. These children may have a disregard for the Old Testament. Why would they believe in a God who demands obedience, when they can justify sin, or do what they want anyway. In the New Testament Jesus says, "If you love me, you will keep my commands" (John 14:15) and again in I John 2:3 we find the assurance of salvation through obedience to God.

We as parents are the earthly representation of the heavenly Father figure. It is important to demand complete obedience with love. The writer of Hebrews is writing to a people who have become weary in their relationship with Jesus Christ. They are persecuted and simply worn out. The preacher is trying to encourage them about this life and move their focus on eternal things. The preacher of Hebrews writes, "It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:7-11).

Like most of us, I sometimes get to reading the Scriptures so fast that I miss key evidences and clues to deeper meaning. When reading the Scriptures we ought to be like Crime Scene Investigators, who carefully comb over the evidence to determine exactly what the author was saying in his context and then to find out how it applies to us today. Recently, while reading Hebrews 12, I found a key piece of evidence that I have never taken to the lab to look at closer. In verse 16, Esau is referred to as "sexually immoral". I stopped and thought about the story of Esau. I couldn't think of a reference when he was accused of being sexually immoral. Where did this come from? What evidence is there for the author (preacher- since the book reads like a sermon, see A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, Hebrews by Gareth L. Cockerill) to call Esau sexually immoral?

The word that is used in Hebrews 12:16 to describe Esau is the Greek word pornos. This is the word from which we get our English word pornography. To study the life of Esau further, one needs to delve into the Genesis account of the story. We find the story of Esau in chapters 26-27. In the Genesis account, we find nothing that is an outright description of Esau as sexually immoral. It is important at this point to go back and look at the context of the Hebrews passage.

In the Hebrews passage, the preacher is trying to encourage his audience to stay on guard for their faith. They are becoming tired and worn down in their Christian walk. The first word of verse 14 is the strength of the following three verses. The first word is "strive" or "pursue" which is not a subjective understanding of the word but an objective one. This means that peace and holiness have already been given to them since they have been saved from sin. The word "strive" also strengthens the first word of verse 15 "see". Here again in the Greek it is more obvious that the word means more than "see", but it means "continually watch over one another". The reason to watch over one another is so that the community doesn't lose its identity. What identifies a Christian community? "Holiness" is the characteristic of a Christian community! The next three things to watch for are progressive: Continually watch that no one forfeits God's grace, that no 'root of bitterness' springs up, and that no one is sexually immoral or unholy. This is where Esau is contrasted to the audience, in that, we ought to be "holy". The epitome of unholiness is Esau. Why?

There are two beliefs as to why Esau is called pornos. The first is the belief that several times in the Old Testament the metaphor of adultery is used for idolatry. Pagan worship often included some type of sexual immorality. Others say that Esau is called sexually immoral because he married two Hittite women (26:34) which brought bitterness to the family. I believe that it is a combination of the two and that they both point to Esau as an "apostate". He is even called a proto-apostate. Like the metaphor used of adultery for idolatry, Esau gave up his first love. He was impulsive and motivated by selfishness, self-interest, self-will, materialism, and physical appetite. He became a bitter root in his family and they were forever broken as a unit. When he was deceived by Jacob, his brother, over their father Isaac's blessing, he never repented of his sin of selling his birthright. He only wanted the blessing. Esau lived in the present and not in the future. The message here is "Don't give up the eternal for the immediate".

Why do you think that Esau was called "sexually immoral" in Hebrews 12:16? Let's dialogue.

Labels: theology

Moreover, the evangelical emphasis on personal salvation needs to be balanced by the Orthodox vision of corporate communion in Christ. The individualistic, experience-centered worship of many evangelicals needs to be augmented by a more focused emphasis on the Trinitarian God Himself. Even in the area of Christian spirituality, the monastic tradition of the Orthodox Church has much to say to modern evangelicals about the primacy of love, with humility and prayer as its servants. In short, evangelicals are in need of developing a theology of tradition, and this theology must be more reflective of the fullness of biblical and Christian history.

Labels: theology

Labels: politics

Q: What’s wrong with the word “races”?

A: At the time of Thomas Jefferson, 200 years ago, when people used the term “races,” they’d think of the Irish race or English race and so on. But Charles Darwin changed all that when he published his book The Origin of the Species. The title actually included the words “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Darwin was a racist. He believed that different groups of people evolved at different times, and so some societies were more like apes than others. Sadly, this fueled racist attitudes toward different people groups. Because of this, the word “races” today still conjures up evolutionary ideas. Many people think of Darwinian evolution when they hear that word.

Based on the Bible, and understanding the split-up of people due to the Tower of Babel event, we should use the term “people groups” instead. After all, there is only one race of people, all descendants of one man—Adam.

Labels: theology

Labels: politics