Reformedville

Get out of your pew and into the real world!

• Home
• JB

The ramifications of the change of focal points April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

One of the least focused on changes that occurred in the reformation was change of the focal point of our worship from the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) to the Word/Sermon (thought). Rather than taking a position of argumentation I wish rather to take one of observation on the subject and see if we can draw any conclusions and if in drawing any conclusions if any changes may be warranted. At the very least, reexamining how we worship our Lord and any changes that have been made in the past and the cause /effect if any, does deserve our observation.

Post reformation there was a philosophical shift after the death of Renee Descartes . Descartes held epistemology, the question of the relationship between mind and world, was the starting point of philosophy. He also drew a radical ontological distinction between body as extended and mind as pure thought, Descartes, in search of certitude, some assert that he had paradoxically created intellectual chaos.

In modernity, a new model was adopted of man, that he was primarily and essentially a creature of thought who happens to inhabit a body. He is regrettably bound by that body while he is inhabiting it. So in this new view of man, what would your primary focus be? In intellect. In thought . So who cares, what does that have to do with anything anyway John? , you ask.

In the church it resulted in the focal point of worship changing from the Eucharist to the Sermon as the main means of grace. The Sermon ministers to the mind and mans intellect and since the mind is in fact the man, worship becomes teaching and the very nature of the worship itself becomes cognitive and rationalistic by nature. Now in all fairness we fully realize that the reformation was coming out of a period where the congregants were biblically illiterate and there was a need to teach people the Word of God. However, we must ask ourselves, should this have been a short term corrective, rather than a long term directive?

Now what does it matter you ask? Well we have gone from changing what the focal point (center) of worship is, to removing the Eucharist altogether and act like we run the risk of making a means of grace, too common! How dare we call something holy common! God’s means of grace, common?

Let me put this in perspective. How common would it be for you to eat and drink once a week? If one ate and drank once a week, they would be what? Weak. How about if they ate and drank once a month? They would be what? Dead.

God teaches us throughout Scripture of our dependence in living the Christian life, is a dependence on Him. Outside Him our righteous is as filthy rags. Now being the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace that we are prescribed and directed to partake of, but yet claim we do not want it to be too common; why is it that the means of grace we replaced it with, the ministry to the mind, is never regarded as common. In fact, the idea of ever having anything on a Sunday morning worship besides a sermon, or which displaces the sermon, is regarded as pure error ! It is never decried as too common, but is elevated to holy, regardless of whether it is even faithful to the Word itself.

We have come to the point in our worship that our intellect is what we come to feed and our preachers wisdom is what we come to feed on. Then again, since pastors are employees, in large part, their primary job is to make us feel good or to give us five, seven and ten point sermons (as long as the are within the time constraint to make it to the restaurant in time) on how to live more moral lives, be a better citizen, or be more prosperous (though that normally involves a separate seminar fee).

We now have gospel engineers who have all the mechanics of the theological system down tight and right, and have equipped the saints; yet the saints sit in the drivers seat of the gospel bus as dazed as confused as the drivers ed student the first time behind the wheel merging into 65 mph traffic on the freeway, or a deer in the headlights. The mind has been fed and the intellect has been satisfied. But where is the fuel to drive the gospel bus in the streets, the fire to spark the ignition to get out of the pew and out to the lost with the message of a Christ who has come to redeem us and paid the price for our sins if we would heed His call? Where is the desire to commune with the saints, to build up the body, and disciple new believers? In fact, where are the new believers ?

I believe that we may be able to draw a cause effect relationship in between the shift in our focal point in worship to being the mind and not only displacing, but in many cases purely removing the Eucharist from our worship altogether.

In reflection, how serious of an error if at all do you believe this is? Do you see a down playing on the need for Christ and the need to follow the apostolic direction of preaching Christ and Him crucified related in any way to mans ability to achieve salvation through his intellect or knowledge about God?

Do you see a relationship between the lethargy of the body of Christ and the lack of catholicity and the removal of the Eucharist as the focal point of our worship?

I don’t ask that you agree or disagree with any of these points, I ask you consider the points. I don’t want to argue descriptive practices or get into a catholic –protestant-reformed –baptist debate . I do want to look at whether we have error in changing the focal point of worship and if in fact there has been a genuine effect on the church itself for doing such. I posit there has been.

Arguing the past is fruitless, examining and gleaning lessons from the past is profitable. There is an undercurrent of change going on in the younger generation in the church. This is not a generation tied up in descriptives. This is a generation interested in geopolitical examination, socio economic examination of church history as well as the religious positions of the time and they rightly grab a correlative of how these factors all affected the outcome of things, rather than a myopic view of an event.

The pre-modern understanding of the person was that he was an affective, embodied creature–rational, yes! But primarily rational ? NO. In worship, we ministered to the whole man, the focal point was Christ and Him crucified and partaking of the Lord Supper’s was something we yearned to do, like the man who hasn’t been nourished all week long is what? He is weak. He hungers and thirsts for the Lord, as a deer panteth after water. He tastes the Lord and sees that He is good.

Again, in fairness, I believe the Word is necessary in the worship of God, but no more necessary than Christ’s supper and Christ being the focal point of our worship. How oft we forget the cross, or relegate it to a charm bracelet or a necklace, yet don’t long to bring our weaknesses to the foot of it, and to sup with Him.

Going into the 21^st century perhaps we should realize that what the preacher said in Ecclesiastes is true, there is nothing new under the sun. Let’s consider giving the Lord the focal point in worship once again and allow Him to minister to us, so we will be empowered to do His will in His Kingdom by His grace.

Soli Deo Gloria

spittites and non-spittites April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

spittites and non-spittites; muddites and non-muddites; touchites and non-touchites

I have long held that from the study of the New Testament, that the church has differed on methodologies and focuses from the onset of the NT church. The examples Luke records in Acts really tend to support this. However, we do see the emphasis on Christian unity by Paul himself; one who disagreed with several on practice. He always cut to the core of the message , Christ and Him crucified.

ECDPilgrim taught recently on Ephesians 4 and brought up the Muddite controversy, as an example of how people become tied up in the methodology and lose the message. Alwaysseeking has a current post looking at descriptions and prescriptions in the New Testament and the differences and applications we can take from them.

I used a couple examples in response and the Muddite controversy came to mind, so I googled it and found a interesting sermon on John 9 , a passage I have used quite frequently to point to the operation of salvation, and also where the muddite controversy arises from. I will excerpt from Brian Stoffregen’s notes on this passage below.

As a sign that he is the light, Jesus gives sight to a man born blind (9:1-41)

 Setting (9:1-5). Miraculous healing (9:6-7) Interrogations of the blind man (9:8-34)                   Jesus leads the blind man to that spiritual sight which is faith (9:35-41)

The miracle itself is reported in only two verses. The majority of this text centers on the interrogations.As with most texts of John, there can be a literal level — the healing of a blind man; and a figurative level — blindness = not understanding or being open to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Certainly a figurative meaning is meant at the end of v. 39: “those seeing might become blind.” I’m not sure that I would care much for a God who would literally cause sighted people to become blind. But those who think they “know-it-all” are often not open to learn or experience something new. (Note how often the Pharisees “know” what is right vs. the “I don’t know,” from the blind man and others.)

It has been suggested that the origins of denominations occurred when the healed blind men met each other. At first they were all excited about the miracle of sight that Jesus had given them, but as they talked about how Jesus had healed them, they began to discover some significant differences. For some, the healing came with simply a touch from Jesus (Mt 9:29; 20:34). Another proudly boasted that he had enough faith so that Jesus didn’t have to touch him to perform the miracle (Mk 10:52). Another meekly exclaimed that Jesus not only touched him twice, but also “spit on his eyes” in order for him to see clearly (Mk 8:23). The final one really felt embarrassed to admit that even though a touch wasn’t part of his healing, Jesus’ “spit” wasn’t enough. Jesus had mixed his saliva with dirt and put the mud on his eyes and then told him to go and wash in some pool of water (Jn 9:6-7). Since each one thought his healing was normal and better than the others, they divided into spittites and non-spittites; muddites and non-muddites; touchites and non-touchites. Denominationalism was born.

If nothing else this little description illustrates the different methods reported about the ways Jesus healed the blind. The healing in John is unique with its use of mud or clay (pelos) made from spittle and the command to wash in the pool of Siloam.

The mixing of spit and dirt occurs only in this story. It probably was deliberate to evoke the ire and blindness of the Pharisees. Kneading was one of the 39 forbidden tasks on the sabbath  In addition, since the man had been blind from birth, what difference would one day make. Couldn’t Jesus have postponed the healing for a few hours? The fact that Jesus and performed such work on the sabbath led the Pharisees to conclude that he could not have come from God (v. 16) and that he was a sinner (v. 24) — at least according to their learned understanding of the Law. God certainly wouldn’t listen to such a sinful, law-breaking person, but others argued that would a sinner be able to do such things (v. 16 — note that in Mt 24:24 & Mk 13:22 false christs and false prophets will perform great signs). The formerly blind man simply counters these arguments with his personal experience, “I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I know: though I was blind, now I see” (v. 25).

What do we do when theology conflicts with experience? The theology of some may believe that God heals the faithful, but their experience may not include divine healing — even after a multitude of prayers. The theology of others may believe that miraculous healings were things of the past (if they ever really happened), but they may experience unexplainable healings for themselves or for others. Perhaps less dramatic,  baptized as infants, who have a life-changing, “born-again” experience with God in their lives, who discount the importance of their sacramental baptism. People’s experiences with the “charismatic movement” brought great challenges to the theology of many mainline congregations. Many of our  members don’t feel the need for weekly communion — they are already filled with the Spirit, but my theology and that of many others, says that they should want to receive God’s grace in this tangible way as often as possible. There needs to be the attempt to explain experiences in good theological language — and theological language should reflect our experiences with almighty God.

The blind man sees, but it will take a little time and effort for him to more fully understand and verbalize what God had done for him. Since I’m on the topic of sacraments, we’ll explore some possible connection with washing in the pool of Siloam and baptism. The man has been blind since birth. We are sinners from birth. epichrio (”spread on” in vv. 6 & 11 — its only NT uses) literally means “to anoint” (chrio) + “on” (epi). (chrio forms the basis for words as “christ,” “chrisms,” “christening,” — it seems to refer to Jesus’ baptism in Ac 4:27 & 10:38; and possibly our baptisms in 2C 1:21 and in 1J 2:20 & 27 where the noun chrisma is used.)

The act of washing for healing is reminiscent of Naaman’s healing in 2K 5:10-14. Elisha tells him to go and wash seven times in the Jordan. The LXX uses louo = “to wash” (often in terms of the entire body) in vv. 10, 12, & 13, and baptizo = “to dip, immerse, wash” in v. 14. The word used in our text is nipto = “to wash” (often in terms of a part of the body, eyes in our text: vv. 7, 11, 11, and feet in John 13: 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14).

John tells us that “Siloam” means “Sent.” (apestalmenos = perf. pass. part. = “the one having been sent”). The significance of this name is two-fold. First of all, throughout this gospel Jesus is referred to as the one whom God has sent (51 times). It is not the mud and the spit or the water the cures the blind man. It is the “One who has been sent” — namely Jesus. Similarly, it is not water that makes baptism important, but the fact that Jesus, himself, is present in, with, and under the water. Secondly, as Jesus was sent as the Word to reveal the Father, so the blind man will seek to reveal Jesus to the Pharisees. Throughout John, a type of mediator is frequently needed for others to come to Jesus: Andrew brings Peter, Philip brings Nathanael, the blind man seeks to bring the Pharisees. Some are successful, others are not.

Words for “sin” occur often in our text: harmatano = “to sin” (9:2, 3; elsewhere in John: 5:14 & 8:11); harmatia = “sin” (9:34, 41); harmatolos = “sinner” (9:16, 24, 25, 31 — all the occurrences in John) In a number of ways, Jesus challenges the common perception of sin. First of all, he challenges the thinking that suffering was the direct result of sin. (a) Based on Ex 20:5 // Dt 5:9 where God promises to punish “children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation” — a birth defect must have been the result of parent’s (or grandparent’s) sin. (b) Based on Ezekiel 18:20: “A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own” — a birth defect must have been the result of sins committed in the womb by the child. These seem to have been the two views present in Jesus’ day. Jesus says that it is neither (v. 3 although 5:14 seems to suggest that sin and suffering are connected). Neither can it be assumed that because the Pharisees are healthy and don’t need glasses, that they are sinless.

Secondly, he challenges the thinking that sinfulness is directly related to obeying the sabbath laws. Jesus does what is expressly forbidden — kneading; yet we know he is not a sinner. Neither can it be assumed that because the Pharisees perfectly obey the sabbath laws (as Paul did) that they are sinless.

Thirdly, he challenges the thinking that neither God nor the righteous (Pharisees) should listen to sinners (v. 34). Certainly God listened to the supposedly sinner Jesus and the Pharisees should have listened to the formerly blind man. Neither can we assume that because the Pharisees (or clergy!) appear to be righteous, that God listens to them more than to sinners or that they speak for God any more than sinners can speak for God.

Like the Pharisees who think they already know/see it all, they are not open to the revelations of God in Jesus nor the teaching that they could have received from the formerly blind man. I had a professor suggest that if we really want to see God at work, we needed to go out and find the sinners. Might it also be true that if we want to hear God speaking, we need to listen to the sinners?

Confessional Protestants tend to be educated believers. Most of what we know is good. We have learned many good things about God and Christ and the church. The Pharisees also thought that their religious learning and actions were the very best possible. “We’ve always kept the sabbath this way.” For them and for us, this good knowledge or good obedience can become a new god. (We never make gods of things we think are bad.) Jesus kneads mud and heals on the sabbath to expose and destroy such false gods as trusting in our obedience of the sabbath laws. By his actions, Jesus says, “I am ruining these laws. I am destroying the false security you place in your obedience. I am replacing it with myself. You can either trust your obedience or me; but not both.” More specifically in vv. 28-29 one has to choose between Moses or Jesus — between trusting obedience to the law or Jesus’ offer of divine grace. Somewhere I read this quote: “Stop acting so good and start being a Christian.” Could that apply to the Pharisees in Jesus’ day? Could it apply to some people today?

 The first disciples had to stop following John the Baptist to be able to follow Jesus. That theme of giving up one belief in order to believe in something better is also part of this text. I think that it is always a part of our lives as we continually grow in the faith — making the movement from faith to faith; from old, inadequate beliefs to new beliefs based on new insights given by God through his Word and experiences.

O’Day (John, NIB) writes: “Sight and blindness are not defined by one’s physical sight, but by one’s openness to the revelation of God in Jesus” [p. 661].In our text there was the interpretation that kneading on the sabbath was forbidden by God. Jesus “breaks” that law to reveal something more important about doing the works of God.

By telling his story over and over again in this text, the blind man doesn’t seem to convert anyone — in fact he seems to have made the Pharisees somewhat angry; but he learns much about his faith through his witness to the doubting questioners. When he first talks to the Pharisees, he says that “a man named Jesus” healed him (v. 11). Later he calls him “a prophet” (v. 17). Finally he realizes that Jesus cannot be a sinner (v. 31) and that he has come from God (v. 33). A theme throughout the Gospel is “where is Jesus from.” The faithful recognized that he has come from God. Then Jesus takes him another step by helping him understand and confess that Jesus is the Son of Man, whom he then worships (vv. 35-38).

Note also that the formerly blind man extends an invitation: “Do you want to become his disciples?” (v. 27), which has a less than polite response. For the sake of the future of the church, I think we are going to have to learn how to extend the invitation to outsiders asking them if they want become Jesus’ disciples — and be willing to face the possible rejection that can come from that invitation.

Maybe we’ve taken the wrong approach to evangelism. We also notice that right after the woman asks for the living water, Jesus tells her to go and invite and bring someone to him. That idea is support by the fact that water that is still, e.g., keeping it for ourselves, is not living water. Living water has to be moving and flowing, e.g., through us to other people.

We need to evangelize, but not just for the sake of those others who need to hear the Gospel, but in order that our own faith may grow and flourish. I have found that this is especially true when I have had to deal with a doubting, questioning audience — usually the group where I least want to share my thoughts and ideas and faith — I discover that I am the one who is probably most changed in the encounter. It forces me to better understand what I believe and how I might more clearly communicate it with others.

A couple other comments about the formerly blind man’s witnessing. He didn’t have to initiate the conversations. There was such an obvious transformation from the “old” to the “new,” that others asked, “What happened to you?” “How did it happen?” “Who did it?” The answers to “what” and “how” didn’t change much, but, as I indicated above, his understanding of the “who” increased greatly and he repeatedly shared his story.

What motivated the miracle was not the man’s blindness, not his needs, not his prayers (he didn’t even ask for the healing,) but the need to make God’s work manifest. God’s work may be manifested in divine healing; but it can also be manifested in living faithfully without healings or with handicapping conditions.

If a healing miracle happens, it is a divine work that comes from Jesus and is received by faith. If a healing miracle doesn’t happen, the strength and courage to live with the chronic condition is a divine work that comes from Jesus and is received by faith. When the time comes for all of us to face death, we can do that with the peace and confidence of the divine work of resurrection to eternal life through Jesus, which is received by faith. In sickness and in health, in living and in dying, we seek to make God’s works manifest in our lives.

 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”  (See 1 Corinthians 1)

Oliver Cromwell really put this in perspective when he said, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

Application question: Can we become so hung up, as the muddites, the spittites and the touchites, that we become caught up in descriptive cold orthodoxy and lose the entire concept behind the teaching? How often do we get wrapped in up in the methods and meditations and lose Christ Himself? Has Christ and His teaching been lost in our religious practices? How often  do we break the unity of the body for some ritualistic practice (description )and lose the lesson (prescription) Christ was giving us?

Do we need a harmonic balancer in the church today? April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

In college I bought a 1969 AMC Rebel SST that had 80,000 miles and it was a great car. One afternoon after class I got in and was warming it up, talking to some friends in the parking lot and it was really running rough, so I popped the hood and the engine was shaking. I used to have the music so loud, I guess I didn’t notice it on the way in ! Anyway,  I had just replaced a fan belt a few days before and the belt was shaking and was fraying again. I noticed the harmonic balancer at the end of the crankshaft looked like it was not rotating evenly.

 Any damage to, or defect in the harmonic balancer to perform its task,  can lead to too much vibration in the engine and that can destroy the crankshaft. In lay speak, you’d blow the engine. So I knew enough to take it to the garage and had the harmonic balancer pulled and replaced. I didnt know it was broken, but I could see the effects of it, the engine showed the effects. The engineer who designed the engine used this as a warning sign that there was a problem that could not be ignored.

In many ways, it appears like todays church could use a harmonic balancer attached to it. Seems like we go from such a wide spectrum , people who are biblical illiterate to those who are biblical engineers who know all about the design but are not to apt at the actual use. From those who want to tell everyone about Jesus and don’t know hardly anything about Him, to those who know alot but don’t know how to actually drive the gospel bus on the street.

Few issues are more likely to ignite a lively debate than a discussion of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Conservative Resurgence which began in 1979 was about the authority of the Bible. Those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God will take its doctrines seriously. Issues like predestination and election, freewill and human responsibility will naturally require our careful study..

However, some issues in the Bible are more obscure. There is often a mystery and tension to what we find when we examine all that the Bible says on some subjects. This is clearly the case when it comes to understanding God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation.

Unfortunately, there is more heat than light in many instances with shrill voices and unhealthy rhetoric — on both sides of the issue — getting too much attention. I believe we need to tone down the rhetoric. We need to seek biblical balance, theological sanity, and ministerial integrity in the midst of this discussion. Let me attempt to set the playing field for this important issue and then make some theological and practical suggestions as we work together for the glory of God and the cause of Christ.

How inclined are we today to concentrate on the operation of God in salvation and spend years studying the process of salvation, and what He does for us, how He died for us and spend endless hours debating the fine details? Is it of value, yes it is.

But how much time do we spend in learning application of this thing called salvation. How much time do we spend  in working in His Kingdom? How much time do we spend in operating out in the world? Are we being light to the world? Are we salt ?

We need to check the harmonic balance in our walk with the Lord. We may end up finding out we have been focused  far too much on what He has done andfar too little on what we should be doing; perhaps we need to break the owners manual back out and see what our responsibilities to the Lord are and restore the harmonic balance before we are of no use to His Kingdom.

We need to recognize that extreme positions on either side of the issue are biblically unbalanced, theologically unhealthy, and practically undesirable. Biblically, we  must affirm the truth of all of God’s Word. Words like called, chosen, election, foreknowledge, and predestination are in Holy Scripture. We should embrace them, examine them, and seek to understand them, always remembering that intelligent and godly people will likely embrace differing interpretations. Words like believe, evangelist, go, preach, receive, and repent are also in the Bible. Biblical balance requires that we embrace and affirm these as well.

Theologically, we dare not be seduced into living in a theological ghetto that may espouse a nice, neat doctrinal system, but that does so at the expense of a wholesome and comprehensive theology. Practically, we must not become manipulative and gimmicky in our presentation of the Gospel, as if the conversion of the lost depends ultimately, or even primarily, on us. Neither should we be lulled into an antipathy toward personal evangelism. Any theology that does not result in a “hot heart” for the souls of lost persons is a theology not worth having. A pastor ~friend calls it “hot orthodoxy”.

Whose name comes to mind when I  mention the initals J.C. ? If it is John Calvin and you normally decribe yourself as a Calvinist, maybe you should realize that you are mandated to be a follower of Jesus Christ first.

“Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility.”

“I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring ….You ask me to reconcile the two. I answer, they do not want any reconcilement; I never tried to reconcile them to myself, because I could never see a discrepancy …. Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both.” ~~Charles Spurgeon ; passionate evangelist and soul winner, “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility.”August 1, 1958

EDIT:  I was just rereading the sermon and to give it even further context I am going to add parts of the final two paragraphs of it:

This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” “But Lord,” some will say, “I was not predestinated.” “What hadst thou to do with that? Thou didst; do according to thine own will when thou didst rebel. Thou wouldest not come unto me, and now I destroy thee for ever. Thou hast broken my law—on thine own head be the guilt.” If a sinner could say at the great day, “Lord, I could not be saved anyhow his torment in hell would be mitigated by that thought: but this shall be the very edge of the sword, and the very burning of the fire”—Ye knew your duty and ye did it not: ye trampled on everything that was holy; ye neglected the Saviour, and how shall ye escape if ye neglect so great salvation?”
Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God’s teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.

 The words of wisdom that flowed from his mouth on that day could only come from a capable pastor/theologian with a shepherd’s heart and a love for the lost. We would do well to heed the counsel today. He was a harmonic balancer of the gospel.

 _______________

The State-Church April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Theology , add a comment

The State-Church A State-Church is any of the following: An incorporated church An incorporated 501c3 church A 501c3 “unincorporated association” church  A corporation sole church (contrary to the myths promulgated by the corporation sole peddlers, a corporation sole is a corporation, and it makes little difference whether or not it is also a 501c3. A corporation sole church is a State-Church). A great many of the church’s problems today are a direct result of the church “taking” and actively pursuing a legal status that makes it inferior to, and a subordinate of, the civil government. The two most significant ways this occurs is by incorporation (state jurisdiction) and the tax-exempt 501c3 status (federal jurisdiction). Scripture simply does not support the notion that the church is an inferior institution to the State. Nor, for that matter, is the church a superior institution to the State. God has ordained both the church and the civil government as His “ministers.” The church is the minister of grace, while the State is the minister of justice. Church and State are two distinct and independent spheres of authority (jurisdictions) ordained by God. However, no church can remain separate and distinct from the civil government when it incorporates and/or accepts 501c3 status. For legal purposes an incorporated 501c3 church has subordinated itself, by contract, to the civil government. For theological purposes, that church has made a covenant with the State, a covenant which Scripture in no way supports. What is the solution to the church’s current messy state of affairs? It must cease operating as an underling of the State. The solution is for the church to legally operate as it once had in America (and we might add, quite successfully so). Rather than operating as “tax-exempt nonprofit religious corporations,” churches once functioned as “free-churches.” Just what exactly is a free-church? A free-church operates independent of, and is in no way subordinate to, the civil government. It is the right of any church to operate free of the corrupting and compromising influence and control of the State; and it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… A free-church is not some radical-fringe concept. Rather, the free-church was one of the most influential, and certainly one of the most common, institutions in early American history. The worldview of those men who fought for America’s independence embraced an uncompromising belief that the church was not an underling, a vassal, or in any way subordinate to any king, parliament, or any other civil government body. The church is the religious institution ordained and established by Jesus Christ Himself, and Christ has never delegated His authority to the civil jurisdiction to rule in the affairs of His church. A free-church is the opposite of a State-Church. The Church Of England is a State-Church system. State-Churches are well known throughout Europe, and there have been State-Churches there for many centuries. Rather than being quick to criticize the Europeans for not attending church, we should ponder whether their contempt for the State-Church system isn’t well deserved.Americans, on the other hand, are generally offended by the notion of the State creating or controlling their churches, or that their churches would be subordinate to the State. However, this is exactly what has occurred in recent years as a direct result of churches incorporating and seeking a 501c3 status — they have become State-Churches. A free-church is a church that is truly separate, independent and autonomous from the State. It is established by a local body of Christian believers, or chartered or “planted” by another church body or denomination, without the permission or sanction of the State. The only “sovereign” of the free-church is the Lord Jesus Christ. A free-church cannot incorporate, it cannot seek a 501c3 status, it cannot become a tax collector for the State (withholding agent), it cannot accept government-issued tax numbers (EIN). The term “free-church” was widely used by the American colonists. It was not a term that they coined, but one which they inherited from their fathers and forebears such as the Scottish Covenanters, and the “non-conformist” English clergy, both of whom fled the persecutions of the Anglican State-Church and it’s “sovereign head” the British monarchy.Even after American independence there continued to be Christians who fled the religious persecution of their State-Church systems for the freedom of religion America offered them. They too often used the term “free-church” to describe the churches they organized. Such an example of this would be the Evangelical Free Church, which was founded by a group of Scandinavians who settled in America in the mid-nineteenth century. Tragically, the Evangelical Free Church In America today has become a “Free Church” in name only. By incorporating and becoming a 501c3 they, some years ago, decided to abandon those principles that their Swedish, Danish and Norwegian forefathers endured great persecution for.Equally tragic is the demise of the so-called “Free-Church of Scotland.” Were they honest it would be renamed the “State-Church of Scotland.” So thoroughly has it become a State-Church that Scottish pastors receive their paychecks from the government (and it happened because the Scottish clergy insisted upon it). He who pays the piper calls the tune. The church must cease operating as an underling, subordinate to the State, or in any way dependent upon the State for “privileges and benefits.” The solution rests in the church organizing and operating as a church — the ecclesia, not as something other than what the Lord Jesus Himself ordained and specified. Jesus spoke of the church as a “body” with Himself as the “head” of His church, and we as various “members of the body.” The church is, therefore, not an “organization” (a “legal entity”) but a living, breathing “organism.” This should not be a difficult biblical doctrine to grasp, particularly for the Pastor. Sadly, however, ever since local churches started organizing as tax-exempt non-profit corporations in the mid-twentieth century, and since the incorporated 501c3 church is now the status quo, many folks have a hard time conceiving of the church operating as just a church. For some odd reason, just being a church isn’t good enough anymore for too many Christians. The thinking today appears to be that we must somehow be smarter than Jesus and His disciples were. They refused to incorporate and that refusal resulted in their persecution (incorporation of all “spontaneous collectivities of persons” became mandatory throughout the Roman Empire by 6 A.D.). We’re told that we live in a far more complex world than the first-century church, and so the church too must inevitably become more complex and just adapt to the complexities of the modern information age. The simplicities of the organizational infrastructure (polity) of the early church are no longer adequate to address the complex world in which we live. Those who hold to such beliefs, whether in word or deed, are in reality, making a public proclamation that Jesus Christ is no longer competent to govern His own church and provide for, and protect it. The courts well-understand that “a church is not an entity recognized in law,” meaning that they have no jurisdiction over the church. However, organizing a church as a church is an especially difficult concept for attorneys to grasp. Few attorneys can comprehend that there are things and issues completely outside the purview and jurisdiction of the civil government, nor do they much care for the idea. After all, it’s hard to get many billable hours out of those churches that understand that the civil government has no jurisdiction over them. A free-church needs an attorney like a fish needs a bicycle. The legal support for the State’s lack of jurisdiction over the church in America is not only the Word of God, but the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… No church in any nation at any point in history can lay claim to the freedoms and liberties that are guaranteed the church in America. The First Amendment is an act of God’s Providence to safeguard His church and maintain its independence from the State. The First Amendment is the highest form of real protection the church has ever known in history.The solution rests in the church abandoning the phony third-rate protections and benefits of the State and returning to those real protections and benefits that are ours in Christ Jesus.

Two category thought April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

The problem with many contemporary Christians is the same as that of the Pharisees and many other Jews of Jesus’ day—we are “two-category thinkers.” We think of the world only in terms of those who are saved and those who are not; those who are going to heaven and those who are going to hell. The Jews thought of the world in terms of two categories: the Jew, who was God’s chosen, the object of God’s blessings; and the Gentile heathen, who was lost and the object of divine wrath. The parable of the soils which Jesus told forces us to think in terms of more than just two categories. It is not enough to have merely escaped hell, and to have our foot wedged in the doorway of heaven. The goal for which we are saved is to persevere, to grow, to reach maturity, and to produce more fruit. To fall short of this goal (even though we may have been saved), is to fail to attain that for which we were called and set apart.

 Jesus  told His disciples that He meant to hide the truth of the kingdom from the masses, while revealing it to His intimate followers. Now, in verses 16-18, Jesus makes it clear that this “hiding” of the truth is only temporary. The truth, Jesus taught, was like a light, and light was not intended to be hidden, but to be brought into the open, where men in darkness could benefit from it. In 17, Jesus went on to say that nothing which was presently hidden was to stay hidden for long, but would be brought out into the open. Jesus was not revealing His secrets to His disciples so that they could keep these things to themselves. Jesus was revealing His secrets to His disciples so that very soon they could broadcast them to the world. The disciples were thus urged to listen well, for as they distributed that which the Lord had entrusted to them they would be given even more. The secrets they were told were to be publicly proclaimed. As the truth was broadcast, more truth would be revealed. Jesus did not envision a gnostic few, who discovered and kept His secrets to themselves, but a dynamic force which would proclaim them abroad.

Why, then, were these truths, these secrets of the kingdom, temporarily concealed from the masses? Why were only the disciples told? I believe that that which was “secret” here was that which pertained to the sufferings and sacrificial death of Christ. The reason why these secrets were not made known to the crowd of Israelites was that many of them were to be the ones who would publicly deny Christ and who would demand His execution, while calling for the release of Barabas. Isaiah’s prophecy was veiled because the nation Israel had too long rejected the prophetic warnings and exhortations of previous prophets. When Isaiah came on the scene his message was veiled because God’s judgment was at hand. Thus, Isaiah’s preaching was to solidify Israel’s state of unbelief.

Something similar is happening in our Lord’s shift to teaching in parables. The nation Israel has not received Jesus as their Messiah. Their leaders have rejected Him and have determined to put Him to death. The people demand miracles and signs. Jesus began to veil His teaching, focusing more on His disciples and revealing more and more to them about His upcoming rejection and sacrificial death. Jesus’ concealing of these mysteries of the kingdom allowed the unbelieving nation to intensify its efforts to rid itself of this kind of Messiah. It signaled a change from speaking of a crown to suffering death on a cross. These mysteries would only be proclaimed and understood after our Lord’s crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.

 Men are unable to grasp God’s truths, apart from divine enablement. Not only the crowds, but the disciples of our Lord as well failed to understand what Jesus was teaching by means of the parables. The disciples were enabled to understand what the parables meant only because Jesus explained their meaning to them at their request (Mark 4:34). Apart from our Lord’s explanations, the disciples would have been just as much in the dark as the crowds. Even when Jesus spoke plainly to the disciples, they did not fully grasp what He was saying (cf. Matt. 16:9,11; Mark 9:30-33).

Divine revelation requires divine interpretation. This is because God’s truths are vastly above our ability to grasp or comprehend:“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, No mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:7-9).

In this context, Paul tells the Corinthian saints that God’s truths are above human comprehension. He goes on to say in the verses that follow that it is through the Holy Spirit that God makes these truths known to men. The Spirit has inspired the human authors, and it is also the Spirit that enables gifted teachers to explain them, and who illuminates individuals to grasp their meaning and application. While the disciples went to Jesus to learn the meaning of His words, we must look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to grasp the meaning of Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10ff.; John 16:12.).use it, or lose it! Our Lord informs us that He does not inform His followers of His secrets only for their information, but for their transformation ( John 17:17; Rom. 12:2). And not only are we to see to it that the Word of God is applied to our own lives, we must also proclaim it to others. Here is fruit-bearing. The Word of God is like the manna of the Old Testament: it is not given for us to store up, but to use. That which is not used rots.

 Problem passages should draw us to Him. Often times people will use difficult texts as their excuse for not studying the Bible, or for not following Christ. The “difficult sayings” of Jesus drew the disciples closer to Him, for He alone knew their meaning. Problem passages should do this for the true Christian. They should cause us to seek His face, to learn from Him through His Spirit. Problems should draw us to Him, not from Him.

The parable of the soils has an evangelistic lesson, as well as a warning. Note that the sower sowed seed on all four kinds of soil. You might say that he sowed indiscriminately. You and I do not know what kind of soil our unsaved fried or neighbor might be. Because of this, we must proclaim the gospel (sow the seed) indiscriminately. We will not know what kind of soil men are for some time. Let us therefore be on guard against pre-judging others and simply proclaim the truth of God’s word to all.For those who have heard the word of God, who have heard the gospel and yet have not responded, there is a clear word of warning here. To disregard the gospel is dangerous, for Satan will not allow the seed to remain for long and the seed may never be sown in our hearts again. If you have heard the message of the gospel, knowing that you are a sinner in need of God’s grace, in need of the forgiveness found only in Christ, and yet have not acted so as to receive it, you are presuming on the grace of God, expecting another opportunity which may never come your way again. Receive Him today!

God’s definition of tyrannical governance April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Government, Theology , add a comment

God’s definition of tyrannical governance

God defined what a tyrannical government was and would look like in the first book of Samuel chapter 8. “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses,(military) and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants (party). He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle ^[b] and donkeys he will take for his own use.  He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.  When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Does any of this sound even vaguely familiar? Notice how God defines a tyrant as one who is extracting ten percent from the people and it is a judgment on the people US 2006 federal income tax tables are listed below:

Single

If taxable income is over–	But not over–	The tax is:
$0	$7,550	10% of the amount over $0
$7,550	$30,650	$755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550
$30,650	$74,200	$4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650
$74,200	$154,800	$15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over 74,200
$154,800	$336,550	$37,675.50 plus 33% of the amount over 154,800
$336,550	no limit	$97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er)

If taxable income is over–	But not over–	The tax is:
$0	$15,100	10% of the amount over $0
$15,100	$61,300	$1,510.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,100
$61,300	$123,700	$8,440.00 plus 25% of the amount over 61,300
$123,700	$188,450	$24,040.00 plus 28% of the amount over 123,700
$188,450	$336,550	$42,170.00 plus 33% of the amount over 188,450
$336,550	no limit	$91,043.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550

. Remember, the 10% was a judgment upon God’s people for their sinfulness. Is America under the thumb of a tyrannical government as described in the bible? And if so can God’s people be held directly responsible for it? Have we failed God in fulfilling the cultural mandate and being salt and light, and now reaping the harvest ?Remember God typically brought judgment for His peoples actions, not the actions of the lost.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.” - ILN 1-3-20

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.” - ILN, 7/16/10

 

“Nevertheless it falls to us to make some attempt to explain this religious philosophy which was, and will be again, the study of the highest intellects and the foundation of the strongest nations, but which our little civilisation has for a while forgotten, just as it has forgotten how to dance and how to dress itself decently. I will try and - explain why I think a religious philosophy necessary and why I think Christianity the best religious philosophy. But before I do so I want you to bear in mind two historical facts. I do not ask you to draw my deduction from them or any deduction from them. I ask you to remember them as mere facts throughout the discussion.

1. Christianity arose and spread in a very cultured and very cynical world -in a very modern world. Lucretius was as much a materialist as Haeckel, and a much more persuasive writer. The Roman world had read <God and My Neighbour>, and in a weary sort of way thought it quite true. It is worth noting that religions almost always do arise out of these sceptical civilisations. A recent book on the PreMohammedan literature of Arabia describes a life entirely polished and luxurious. It was so with Buddha, born in the purple of an ancient civilisation. It was so with Puritanism in England and the Catholic Revival in France and Italy, both of which were born out of the rationalism of the Renaissance. It is so to-day; it is always so. Go to the two most modern and free-thinking centres, Paris and America, and you will find them full of devils and angels, of old mysteries and new prophets. Rationalism is fighting for its life against the young and vigorous superstitions.

He was Man.

Lastly, there is a word to be said about the Fall. It can only be a word, and it is this. Without the doctrine of the Fall all idea of progress is unmeaning. Mr. Blatchford says that there was not a Fall but a gradual rise. But the very word “rise” implies that you know toward what you are rising. Unless there is a standard you cannot tell whether you are rising or falling. But the main point is that the Fall like every other large path of Christianity is embodied in the common language talked on the top of an omnibus. Anybody might say, “Very few men are really Manly.” Nobody would say, “Very few whales are really whaley.”

If you wanted to dissuade a man from drinking his tenth whisky you would slap him on the back and say, “Be a man.” No one who wished to dissuade a crocodile from eating his tenth explorer would slap it on the back and say, “Be a crocodile.” For we have no notion of a perfect crocodile; no allegory of a whale expelled from his whaley Eden. If a whale came up to us and said: “I am a new kind of whale; I have abandoned whalebone,” we should not trouble. But if a man came up to us (as many will soon come up to us) to say, “I am a new kind of man. I am the super-man. I have abandoned mercy and justice”; we should answer, “Doubtless you are new, but you are not nearer to the perfect man, for he has been already in the mind of God. We have fallen with Adam and we shall rise with Christ; but we would rather fall with Satan than rise with you.”   G.K. Chesterton

____________

“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true - then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”

•  
  •  
    •  
      •  
        •  
          •  
            G.K. Chesterton
            Daily News December 12, 1903

What is our responsibility? April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Theology , add a comment

What is our responsibility? Jesus Christ tells us: ‘You are the salt of the earth, you are the light of the world’. All who are blessed are called to a responsibility. Christian discipleship, membership in the kingdom of God, is a great responsibility. In the Old Testament, the prophets reminded Israel again and again that it is not a light thing to be God’s chosen people.

You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received God’s mercy but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)In the Old Testament, it is the entire people of Israel who are addressed as a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Peter echoes this. The whole Christian congregation is the royal priesthood with a ministry and mission to proclaim the wonderful deeds of God.How often do we forget the actual life and ministry of  Jesus Christ Himself .  He took things of this world and man very seriously, and left us with instructions on how to live.   Jesus tells the disciples of their responsibility in society, in the world. The focus of God’s action is the world — not simply the Church or Christians. ‘Let your light shine before people that they may see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven.’ It is about our deeds in the world.

Christians are not other worldly. We are not to spend our time thinking of how to escape from the world. Nor are we to be preoccupied with churchly matters. The Church is not the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is about this world, and about our life and witness in the world. It is about politics, about economics and about culture.  How are we to fulfil our responsibility in the society in which we live? Jesus said: You are the salt of the earth; you are the light of the world.

One of the serious problems in the world today is religious communalism, that is, people’s preoccupation with the interests of their own religious group. The conflicts between Roman Catholics and Protestants, between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, between Protestants and Protestants, between Jews and Muslims, between Muslims and Hindus, and between Shia and Sunni Muslims are facts of life today. We are called to be the light for the world. Jesus Christ is the real light which enlightens everyone.

It is God who lights the lamp of Israel. Moreover, Jerusalem cannot hide its light. The prophet Isaiah summons Israel thus:

Arise, shine, your light has come,
and the glory of the Lord rests upon you …
nations will come to your light
and kings to the brightness of your dawn. (Isaiah 60:1,3)Speaking of the Messianic age, Isaiah says: The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light;
those who dwell in a land of deep darkness,
on them the light has shined. (Isaiah 9:2)This prophecy was fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus said: ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’. (John 8:12) Again he said: ‘While I am in the world, I am the light of the world’.Jesus Christ is the true light of all the world. He has lighted a light in the life of each one of his followers. Christian disciples are called to rise and shine. St. Paul exhorts the Christians in Philippi ‘to be blameless and innocent in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as light in the world’.

Christians are to be torch bearers in a dark world. One should not try to hide the light which God has lit in our lives. Rather we should shine so that others may see our good deeds and praise God; Shining does not mean self-propaganda, self-publicity, self-glorification, but bearing fruit in our life, bringing life and light to others. It is about our deeds in society — in politics, in culture and in social life.

Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Jesus Camp –from a different perspective April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Media, Theology , 1 comment so far

Rev. Steve did an excellent review on Jesus Camp last week prompting me to finally go rent the video. I had seen trailers and had gleaned a prejudice from those.  In the end, on a religious note, the major disagreement I had with the religious practices would be the same disagreements that I have with Pentecostalism, even though I am a continuationist.   The  impression left by the  talk show host was jaded as he used terms like indoctrination to describe how religious children are taught, but failed to acknowledge that all education is in fact itself indoctrination. Although, he confesses to be a Christ follower, there is a apparent disconnect with his worldview and his profession, which comes through in his critiques. There is also a disconnect from reality that all educators readily acknowledge the time to shape a child’s thought is in their early years. The disingenuous part I felt was that state education and the mores of the state are to be preferred to the ones instilled by parents of their particular faith, and in fact brought some very clear question about the underlying tones of his feeling of freedom in both education and religion, terming them as dangerous. But overall, I felt the movie was fair, and while I would never send my child to that particular Jesus camp, one must readily acknowledge that any training we give our children is indoctrination  to form a worldview. Most all people feel their worldview is to be preferred over others and that other ones are in fact defective in one manner or another. This is true of religious, secular and political beliefs. I also felt there were some false implications: praying to Bush, when clearly they were praying for the cardboard Bush, characterizing the interpretive dance and costumes as preparing for war. Christians are to prepare their children for spiritual warfare and it was obvious that this was a visualization of the spiritual warfare, quite different from Islamic schools. I felt the movie was important in another aspect, an aspect I plan on devoting more space to than the movie itself. You can find much better film critics than myself.  After nearly a week of pondering what it really was that bothered me about Jesus camp I finally realize just why this movie is so important for Christians to see and notice the bigger picture. Sometimes contrast is best so lets shift to the other side of the world and examine Messianic leadership. Iranian President Mahmoud’s Ahmadinejad’s mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.  Most have been distracted from this ( and his vision while delivering a speech at the UN that a light from heaven had shone down on him  and affirmed his mission,) because of his Holocaust denial and wanting to wipe
Israel off the map. They are much better news items, but the former gives the reasoning for the latter mindset, something America has blatant failed over and over to do, understand the mindset of the
Middle East and how they think and what motivates them. How can we ignore Ahmadinejad’s “vision” at the U.N. is strangely reminiscent and alarmingly similar to statements he has made about his personal role in ushering in the return of the Shiite Muslim messiah. He sees his main mission as to “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance.” According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world. Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West. All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role
Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There’s a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments. “People are anxious to know when and how will He rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation,” says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran’s religious center of Qom. “The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific,” he adds. “There is a saying: ‘When the students are ready, the teacher will come.’”  A top priority of Ahmadinejad is “to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region],” says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society. Now before you say this guy is a nutcase, lets take a look at something else. What is messianic nationalism? It is an ideology rooted in the belief that your country or race is uniquely an elect nation chosen by God to impose its way of life on the rest of the world by coercive economic means, and even by military force, if it deems necessary. Nations who pursue other ways of economic development than yours can be regarded as enemies, not only of the yours, but of God.  The ideology that the
United States is an elect nation divinely chosen to be a model and mentor to other countries has long been entertained by dominant American culture.
Iran’s view is not really much different nationalistic religion in the United States where people envision George W. Bush as God’s divinely appointed man to bring democracy and Christianity to the world, imposing peace wherever they resist our lifestyle and values.   During the Cold War the struggle against communism was typically couched as a “war against evil.” The conflict between two strategies of economic development, capitalism and communism, was defined as if it were a war against demonic powers in which capitalist countries were the agents of divine goodness. This language has returned with new force in its “war against terrorism.” The language of holy war, “crusade” and the apocalyptic conflict between good and evil, God and Satan, are freely used in its war rhetoric, directed first against the Taliban in Afghanistan and then against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. These wars were depicted as if they were episodes in an apocalyptic drama of good against evil, angels of light against the forces of darkness, God’s chosen people against God’s enemies. This language of apocalyptic warfare assumes an U.S. mission to the rest of the nations of the world. America in general, and President Bush in particular, are depicted as messianic agents chosen by God to combat evil and to establish good; namely American power and its economic, cultural and political “way of life” over the rest of the world.On September 12, 2006  President Bush said that he senses a “Third Awakening” of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation’s struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as “a confrontation between good and evil.” Now let me be clear, I have no problem with a President acknowledging a Third Awakening if in fact one is here. Some argue that in fact it may be a fourth great awakening.  It is the second part of the statement of roping in the faithful to support his actions as implied that we are “the good” so by default to confront or challenge his views, makes you “the evil”.  Christianity and Islam both share the same positive view of the martydom.  In terms of their basic worldview, and with regard to the underlying dynamics that give their ideas such emotional force, the militant Islamists and militant Christian could be eerily mirror images of each other. They oppose each other only with respect to one question: who will triumph, and who will rule. Who is good and who is evil is the rallying cry inspiring the people to support them.  More than one leader in history has used the faithful for his own purposes and agenda of the nation and a struggle for power, not an ideological or religious conflict in the deepest sense . Notice Bush claims that Islam is good, those who pervert it, bad.  We can make the same claim about Christianity and Christians, those who are perverting it or using it for their own purposes are evil, manipulating the faithful for their own purposes.I am obviously not saying that there is no difference between the militant Christians and militant Islamists. The differences are innumerable and vast. I have great respect for the founding principles of this nation. But those founding principles do not represent what this country is today — nor are they embodied by those who lead our nation at present. I have great concern in a country that has a war on everything, including its own people. We have become a police state in many ways, with the largest prison population in the world.Things of national import cloaked in religious language, so if you oppose it, you are not in God’s will, plan or are against. Religion has become more nationalistic with the United States confused with the kingdom of God. In other words, George W. Bush is God’s elect messiah put in the White House at this time of final crisis in the conflict between God and Satan to lead God’s forces of good against the forces of evil. To defeat U.S. America’s enemies and put in place the American “free market” system equals defeating evil and establishing the Reign of God over the earth. Although the Pentagon distanced itself from Boykin’s language, they did nothing to counteract it. This language creeps continually into official White House declarations of their identity and role.  It is a false theology that evil can be conquered by external coercion, ultimately by military force. It must be clear that such coercive means, whether within or between nations, cannot be construed theologically as “overcoming evil.” Evil can only be overcome by conversion, which takes place in the hearts of persons This change is a mystery of divine grace that calls us and transforms us. What did Jesus say to Pilate? “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” John 18:36. This is a clear statement as to what the kingdom of
Christ is not. It is not a political and materialistic kingdom with certain geographical territory and which needs to be upheld by the power of human arms and war. Jesus acknowledges by using the present tense “is” that He has a kingdom, but it is a heavenly, spiritual kingdom.
It seems that many nationalistic Christians today are making the same error as the Jews, expecting the Messiah to set up a material, earthly kingdom. It was with that in mind that the Pharisees came to inquire of Jesus. “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20, 21. Jesus here clearly teaches that His kingdom is not of such a nature that it may be seen outwardly, but is spiritual in its nature.
It already existed, as is evident from His use of the present tense, but it is within men’s hearts and does not consist in material things. Here Jesus specifically sought to correct the misconception of these inquirers that the Messianic kingdom was a literal one. How strange that men today contradict His plain statement by affirming that His kingdom is materialistic in its nature! Paul also taught likewise against the idea of a material kingdom. “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Rom. 14:17.  Admission to it was by means of the new birth. “. . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5. Evidently a spiritual birth cannot induct one into a literal kingdom. During Jesus’ day men did enter the kingdom. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Matt. 23:13. These words would be meaningless if applied to a future earthly kingdom. The teachings of the parables of Jesus to which the kingdom of heaven is likened are incongruous with the idea of an earthly kingdom. \ I believe this is the most egregious error of the Rev. Becky Fischer and her teachings at the now defunct Jesus Camp, however, her belief and worldview is shared by a large percentage of the evangelical church in America today. I would encourage you to see this movie.

spinning “controversial programming”’ April 17, 2007

Posted by reformedville in : Ethnicity, Media , add a comment

 I was rereading the original  MSNBC report on why Don Imus was going to be suspended/fired and something just seemed contradictory , but I was unable to put my finger on it. I read it a few more times and the light goes on what is wrong with the pix.

 

“MSNBC’s action came after a growing list of sponsors — including American Express Co., Sprint Nextel Corp., Staples Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., and General Motors Corp. — said they were pulling ads from Imus’ show for the indefinite future.”

 

 ’American Express stated that it doesn’t advertise on “controversial programming”’

 

Who are they trying to BS here ? When did Amex all of a sudden become this squeaky clean company that had nothing to do with controversy ? The you read the quote again, it doesn’t advertise on controversial programming.  To wit, the spin.

 

Remember this headline?

 

Time Warner Rejects ‘Censorship’ of Rap Music. From: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News  | Date: June 1, 1995  | Author: Lowry, Tom  | More results for: time warner and rap music

Jun. 2–Time Warner’s music division is meeting the conservative-led attacks on its rap artists head-on. “We welcome constructive dialogue with anyone about the issues facing the entertainment industry,” said Warner Music Group Chairman Michael Fuchs yesterday. “If results are what we are after, it will require constructive discussion, rather than a broadside attack on a single corporation.

“It is certainly not an easy matter to decide who the ultimate arbiter of creative content should be. We prefer to err on the side of freedom of expression.”

So just what type of freedom of expression do they mean?

 

“These devils make me sick; I love to fill them full of holes; kill them all in the daytime, broad motherfucking daylight; 12 o’clock, grab the Glock; why wait for night” “Sweatin Bullets”; Brand Nubian, Everything Is Everything, 1994, Elektra Entertainment, Warner Communications, Time Warner, USA.

 

“Buck the devil; boom. . . . shoot you with my .22; I got plenty of crew; I take out white boys. . . . we got big toys with the one-mile scope, taking whitey’s throat”“Buck tha Devil”; Da Lench Mob, Guerrillas in tha Mist, 1992, Eastwest Records America, Elektra, Atlantic, Time Warner, USA.

 

these are just a few examples from http://www.amren.com/rap/rap1.htm

_____

 Just in case you were not aware of the connection between Time Warner and Amex- Simply check Time Warner holdings and what do you find? 

 

American Express Publishing Corporation (partial ownership/management)

Travel & Leisure

Food & Wine

Your Company

Departures

SkyGuide

 

It seems American Expresses idea of controversial programming depends on whether said controversy is a Time Warner venture. One merely needs to go to their Music Divison-WMG

 

www.atlanticrecords.com   www.badboyonline.com  www.lavarecords.com and www.roadrunnerrecords.com

Now in all fairness, one may be able to say, but Amex cant help what  WMG does, it just wants to avoid controversy. Well again, that is situational. To wit:

 

1. Class Action Information

The Law Offices of Jon E. Drucker has filed a class action lawsuit with Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C (the “Action”) against American Express Financial Advisors in federal District Court in Arizona. The Action alleges that American Express Financial Advisors commits fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in the sale of financial plans to clients. More specifically, the Action alleges that American Express Financial Advisors conceals its actual and direct conflicts of interest with clients in order to sell them — what clients thus believe are — “objective” financial plans. These “plans,” however, for which clients pay anywhere between $200 and $1200, are anything but objective. Rather, American Express Financial Advisors uses the guise of trusted advisor and fiduciary — and the appearance of an “objective” plan — to “advise” the purchase of inappropriate and overpriced proprietary financial products, principally IDS Variable Universal Life (VUL) insurance and annuities, and AXP mutual funds or other mutual funds with whom American Express have undisclosed “sweetheart” deals. Those products, not surprisingly, are the ones that garner the highest profits for American Express and the highest sales commissions for its so-called “American Express financial advisor.” The Action seeks the rescission of all financial plan contracts and the return of all fees clients paid for those plans, along with remedial action. Clients covered by the Action are those who were sold financial plans after November 8, 1997.Having defeated American Express Financial Advisors’ Motion to Dismiss the Action, Plaintiffs are now proceeding with discovery, and anticipate a hearing on class certification in the Summer of 2005. If you have any questions about the Action, please inquire via email to the Law Offices of Jon E. Drucker, at JDrucker@lawyers.com. This case had been settled. You can read more at Financial Fee Settlement.

2. Class Action Information

Progressive Law Group LLC is investigating AMEX wage and hour practices, including its failure to pay overtime wages (to salaried or non-salaried employees) and to provide work breaks. If you have additional information in this regard, please email progressivelaw@rcn.com.

NEW! 3. Class Action Information

Scott Cole & Associates, a California class-action employment law firm, is currently investigating Ameriprise Financial Inc., for the benefit of their Financial Advisors. Our information suggests that Ameriprise may not be compensating their Advisors according to California and Federal Law. Commission deductions (Federal), lack of overtime compensation (Federal), non-repayment of job related expenses (CA) and possible misclassification of Advisors as “Franchisees” or “Independent Contractors” to avoid payment of unemployment and other taxes(Federal), as well as many job related expenses (CA), may be issues. Please contact Lakenda Wallace at 510/891-9800 or via email at lwallace@scalaw.com. Any information you give will be kept strictly confidential.

4. Class Action Information

A former financial advisor with American Express accuses American Express Financial Advisors of various wrong doings with respect to her employment with AEFA. This former advisor who was once in the top 5% of American Express Financial Advisors, who along with thousands of others, was coerced into signing a franchise agreement in 1999 or face possible loss of employment. As a result of a dispute, this advisor alleges that AEFA breached the franchise agreement and maliciously terminated her employment. Moreover, she alleges that the keys to her privately-leased and personally-paid for offices were taken; her personally hired and paid-for staff was banned and their keys were taken; other advisors (doubling as compliance officers) took their personally-owned computers and removed the hard drive or demand they have it burned to eliminate “trade secrets”.If you’re a former advisor of American Express and you were forced from AEFA or you left and felt you were unjustly treated, call Wanda Sears toll free at (888) 658-3637 or email her at email address to discuss a possible class action law suit.

5. Class Action Information

On June 9th, 2004, a class action against American Express Financial Advisors (soon to be Ameriprise) was filed in U.S. Federal District Court in Arizona. On August 24th, 2004, the judge in the case granted AEFAs motion to change venue so on April 22nd, 2005 the case was moved to the U.S. Federal District Court in Minnesota.The class action alleges that American Express Financial Advisors has overcharged clients with respect to the 12b-1 fees. For example, in the AXP New Dimensions Fund the fees have actually increased faster than the growth in assets. Moreover, the suit alleges that the overcharging of 12b-1 fees benefits American Express Financial Advisors at the expense of the clients. The suit states the 12b-1 fees are used to market the AXP funds to new clients through media ads and promotional literature so by excessive 12b-1 fees the client pays for the privilege of helping AEFA grow their customer base. You can view the suit entitled Gallus vs. American Express Financial Advisors by clicking here.

6. Class Action Information

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a plaintiffs’ class action law firm that is investigating allegations on behalf of California cardholders that American Express (”AMEX”) routinely overcharges credit cardholders for their foreign purchases. Californians that have used your AMEX card for purchases abroad, should click here to contact us.

7. Class Action Information

On March 4, 2004, Milberg Weiss filed a complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws by American Express Company and certain of its officers and/or directors. The class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of clients of American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. who purchased American Express Funds between March 10, 1999 and February 9,2004, (the “Class Period” ).If you were a client of American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. and purchased American Express mutual funds between March 10, 1999 and February 9,2004 you may qualify to serve as a lead plaintiff in this action. should click here to contact us. This case had been settled. You can read more at Financial Fee Settlement.

8. Class Action Information

Our lawsuits accusing Time Inc. and American Express of charging people for unwanted subscriptions, and using threatening letters to collect money for unordered magazines, have brought us hundreds of complaints from people who have had the same things happen to them. Some of our clients were hit with credit card charges from Sports Illustrated or Entertainment Weekly after they bought tickets from Ticketmaster. Other clients got letters threatening debt collection and negative credit reports over magazines they never wanted, like eCompany Now. Still others got magazine solicitations that looked like bills. We have gotten complaints about many publishers and magazines in addition to those owned by AOL Time Warner. If you feel you were a victim, contact the law offices of James Hoyer.

9. Class Action Information

We had over 100,000 American Express Membership Reward Points accrued that became frozen because of the dispute. We value these points to be worth over $3000.When we called recently and pressed the matter again we talked to four different agents in Membership Rewards and the AMEX Collections department. We were instructed to send $172.85 to a Chicago address and the Award points would be released. We sent the payment with a letter detailing our understanding that AMEX would reinstate our points after cashing our check. To our surprise, AMEX cashed the check and did not reinstate our points. We are extremely upset and will be filing a civil suit if the matter is not resolved very soon. Anyone want to join a class action suit? Contact: Paul and Joyce Lagno 1201 E. Cooke Rd Columbus, Ohio 43224 614-262-2874 W:614-841-9577

10. Class Action Information

Ten class action suits pertaining to securities fraud i). Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. today announced that a securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired American Express Company (NYSE:AXP) securities between July 18, 1999 and July 17, 2001, inclusive (the “Class Period”).The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against defendants American Express Company, Kenneth I. Chenault, Harvey Golub, David R. Hubers and James M. Cracchiolo. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company’s securities. For more information on this class action suit visit Charles J. Piven. Click here to view the 9 other suits

 

It certainly appears that American Express is very much a controversial company, with controversial partners, with controversial practices, but they just don’t like to advertise it.

search

• Recent Posts

  • Road to Denver ad
  • Naive and inexperienced
  • The skeltons are rattling in UC’s closet
  • Fact checking time
  • Provoking Thoughts today

• Categories

  • Church/State
  • Clergy Killers
  • Criminal Justice
  • culture
  • Ethnicity
  • Germany
  • Government
  • Immigration
  • Media
  • Spiritual Abuse
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized

• Blogroll

  • Cornerstone Web Design
  • Mezzanineview
  • No Fish
  • Partially Biased Observations
  • Sky Cow Books Blog
  • Uprisingyouth
  • Xanga

• Theology

  • Christ.com
  • No Fish
  • No Fish Left Behind
  • Pilgrim
  • Xanga

• Archives