On October 28, 1886 President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty, which had arrived in New York harbor on June 19 th of the previous year. In his speech he said, "We will not forget that Liberty has here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected."
Liberty holds a torch aloft in one hand and clutches a book with her other. She was a gift from the people of France. Interestingly the base upon which the famous lady stands was a gift from the people of the United States. The cornerstone of that base was laid on August 5, 1884 nearly two years before the dedication on Bedloe's Island. The base cost almost as much as the statue itself.
The two gifts give a collected message to all ages. The message? Somebody else can give you liberty, but you have got to establish its base for yourself. True liberty, to be maintained, cannot be just a free ride. It cost everyone.
As we approach Independence Day it behooves us to remember we are dealing with the very core of the meaning of our liberty, the right to free elections and right of opportunity. Now if liberty means nothing to you, don't vote and become a person concerned only with your entitlements in life. If liberty means something to you then vote and become a more responsible and useful citizen. Remember no constitution, no court, no law can save liberty when it dies in the hearts and minds of the people.
When you do vote to protect your liberty and enjoy your freedom to pursue happiness, remember our Miss Liberty. She reminds you that what you are doing in the booth and life are gifts from our past. The base reminds you it must be build from the base up. Therefore let me ask that you not vote by Party affiliation or for only what’s in it for you.
Oh, vote party affiliation to a degree if you so choose on state and national offices. But in local matters, which is the foundation of these United States vote for the most qualified person for the position in question. There are just to many vital issues at the local level that effect us all immediately. We need qualified people more than ever in this fast changing world around us. There doesn't seem to be enough of them to give us clear choices, so vote for qualifications not affiliation at the local level. It will be a better base upon which liberty can face the next century.
In the same vein live your life as a citizen as if you earned it and not you are owed it. The base of any successful country is respect of the citizenry. That is how liberty is built to last.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
June 24th Column
Old Story: A man was having severe problems with periodic dizzy spells. He saw doctor after doctor with no real progress. The periodic dizzy spells continued to haunt him. He became a nervous wreck and as expected his health began to deteriorate. He soon lost hope, made out his will, and began making arrangements for his own funeral. After picking out a casket he went to very fine clothing store to buy an outfit to “be laid out in.” He picked out shoes, socks, coat, pants, and finally he asked for a size 15 silk shirt. The clerk informed him, “Sir you need a size 16 ½, not a 15.” The man son , “No, I have always wore a size 15.” This went on for a few minutes with each insisting he was correct. Finally the clerk blurted, “If you wear a size 15 you will have severe problems with periodic dizzy spells.
Doing what I have always done doesn’t guarantee it is the right thing for me. Being open to learning new information about God’s creation is not a bad thing.
Not long ago a fundamentalist preacher told me that an educated minister was the tool of Satan. He felt it was sufficient to “just know” the Bible. His words took me back to a Bible Study early in my life. In that study, my preacher said, “Adam and Eve were the first humans.” I asked, “Then who are the people in the land of Nod? Where did Cain’s wife come from?”
My preacher responded, “There are mysteries we should not question.”
I thought, “Baloney!”
Ever since then I have discovered the more I learn about this planet, the universe, human history, and the history of the church, the more I learn about how wonderful God really is for us. Knowledge did not corrupt.
If I had accepted what my old preacher said, would my religious life be wrought with severe spiritual dizziness? Would I be like many others and drift away from the Church or just church hop?
I am glad I searched for answers to my questions in life. For instance, I have discovered through further study of Scripture that the word for the Spirit that breathed life into Adam and Eve was the same Spirit that fell on Jesus at his baptism and on the people at Pentecost, when the church was born. In other words they could have been the first humans to receive the Holy Spirit. That would make them the first Spiritual human beings. That information doesn’t make me dizzy in light of all the new knowledge in the world beyond the land of Nod.
Science and theology have identical goals - find out more about Creation and the Creator. Science seek the first cause, which we label God. Science is primarily interested in how and religions are primarily interested in why. Both seek God, so how can we be in conflict? People with severe dizziness believe they are in conflict, because that’s what they have always been told. This all makes me dizzy. But ignorance always chokes off the real truth about God.
Doing what I have always done doesn’t guarantee it is the right thing for me. Being open to learning new information about God’s creation is not a bad thing.
Not long ago a fundamentalist preacher told me that an educated minister was the tool of Satan. He felt it was sufficient to “just know” the Bible. His words took me back to a Bible Study early in my life. In that study, my preacher said, “Adam and Eve were the first humans.” I asked, “Then who are the people in the land of Nod? Where did Cain’s wife come from?”
My preacher responded, “There are mysteries we should not question.”
I thought, “Baloney!”
Ever since then I have discovered the more I learn about this planet, the universe, human history, and the history of the church, the more I learn about how wonderful God really is for us. Knowledge did not corrupt.
If I had accepted what my old preacher said, would my religious life be wrought with severe spiritual dizziness? Would I be like many others and drift away from the Church or just church hop?
I am glad I searched for answers to my questions in life. For instance, I have discovered through further study of Scripture that the word for the Spirit that breathed life into Adam and Eve was the same Spirit that fell on Jesus at his baptism and on the people at Pentecost, when the church was born. In other words they could have been the first humans to receive the Holy Spirit. That would make them the first Spiritual human beings. That information doesn’t make me dizzy in light of all the new knowledge in the world beyond the land of Nod.
Science and theology have identical goals - find out more about Creation and the Creator. Science seek the first cause, which we label God. Science is primarily interested in how and religions are primarily interested in why. Both seek God, so how can we be in conflict? People with severe dizziness believe they are in conflict, because that’s what they have always been told. This all makes me dizzy. But ignorance always chokes off the real truth about God.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
A Reunion of recycled Napoleon Politics
Napoleon Bonapart, the self-made Emperor of France, was in exile on the island of Elba in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of France. But on February 26, 1815 he escaped his water prison and begin reclaiming his throne. A hundred days later at the Battle of Waterloo, his ambition was soundly defeated. His ambition was destroyed along with the untold number of lives lost on the battlefields of France. He was sent to the island of St. Helena to begin a new and permanent exile.
Citizens of every nation seem to have difficulty admitting their mistakes in choosing leaders. The focus of drive and the passion for power die very hard. As surely as when Napoleon's army were reforming for their final futile fight, we can see today that same futile gathering of the citizens around hopeless leadership.
There is a book somewhere that says, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity." Looking to the same people over and over again to lead this nation into the new century on a bright note is insane. Maybe we can avoid a national Waterloo and seek leadership from a new pool of talent instead of the old worn out pool of self serving ambitious leaders.
How will we recognize that new pool? They will be practical and speak in terms we all understand. They will approach the public with truth and proven courses of action. They will not promote actions inconsistent with their own historical approach to problems. They will say what we already know, but don't know how to get hold of the reigns of power.
For instance, there are some stances and attributes, I expect to find in those who can properly lead us into the next century. My leader will advocate radical election reform. He or she will ask us to hold state primary elections across this nation on the same day. Lobby groups and Political Action Committees would be forbidden to donate monies to any candidate. In fact political donations would no longer be tax exempt.
Old fashion soap box campaigns would return in a modern version via newspaper, television and other electronic media. Politicians would have to be succinct and consistent in their stances during campaign season. The public would be spared the hug amounts of monies raised and spent on futile causes as well as the hours of boring forked tongued speeches. Three or four television debates or seminars, a series of newspaper articles, an ongoing word of mouth and electronic media campaign, and personal selected visits over say a six week period would do the job.
My leader doesn't have to sell him or her self through a long siege of publicity battles. No, my leader has a past that demonstrates things he or she has done. Campaign rhetoric will focus on how that past will lead us into a brighter future. My leader has a profession other than politician. My leader is a citizen statesman. My leader would rather work at leading this nation during a four year term, than spend three fourths of it campaigning.
Perhaps term limits should be accompanied with a rule that prevents a person from running for a new office, before they resign from the old one. My leader would not have been in the political arena for twenty years or so and tell me he or she is for change. especially if their historical performance says other wise.
Sad as it may seem, our primary campaigns look like a reunion of recycled Napoleons of politics. They have spent enough monies campaigning to balance our budget. They have not shown a record of change and yet they promise change. Yet we will elect one of them and call for a scalp, when change for the good doesn't come about. We just keep doing it over and over again. It is a crazy way to correct a problem. A problem that will design our future to be a national Waterloo if we don't stop here and now. Please if you have the ability and focus to lead us unselfishly come forward now.
Citizens of every nation seem to have difficulty admitting their mistakes in choosing leaders. The focus of drive and the passion for power die very hard. As surely as when Napoleon's army were reforming for their final futile fight, we can see today that same futile gathering of the citizens around hopeless leadership.
There is a book somewhere that says, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity." Looking to the same people over and over again to lead this nation into the new century on a bright note is insane. Maybe we can avoid a national Waterloo and seek leadership from a new pool of talent instead of the old worn out pool of self serving ambitious leaders.
How will we recognize that new pool? They will be practical and speak in terms we all understand. They will approach the public with truth and proven courses of action. They will not promote actions inconsistent with their own historical approach to problems. They will say what we already know, but don't know how to get hold of the reigns of power.
For instance, there are some stances and attributes, I expect to find in those who can properly lead us into the next century. My leader will advocate radical election reform. He or she will ask us to hold state primary elections across this nation on the same day. Lobby groups and Political Action Committees would be forbidden to donate monies to any candidate. In fact political donations would no longer be tax exempt.
Old fashion soap box campaigns would return in a modern version via newspaper, television and other electronic media. Politicians would have to be succinct and consistent in their stances during campaign season. The public would be spared the hug amounts of monies raised and spent on futile causes as well as the hours of boring forked tongued speeches. Three or four television debates or seminars, a series of newspaper articles, an ongoing word of mouth and electronic media campaign, and personal selected visits over say a six week period would do the job.
My leader doesn't have to sell him or her self through a long siege of publicity battles. No, my leader has a past that demonstrates things he or she has done. Campaign rhetoric will focus on how that past will lead us into a brighter future. My leader has a profession other than politician. My leader is a citizen statesman. My leader would rather work at leading this nation during a four year term, than spend three fourths of it campaigning.
Perhaps term limits should be accompanied with a rule that prevents a person from running for a new office, before they resign from the old one. My leader would not have been in the political arena for twenty years or so and tell me he or she is for change. especially if their historical performance says other wise.
Sad as it may seem, our primary campaigns look like a reunion of recycled Napoleons of politics. They have spent enough monies campaigning to balance our budget. They have not shown a record of change and yet they promise change. Yet we will elect one of them and call for a scalp, when change for the good doesn't come about. We just keep doing it over and over again. It is a crazy way to correct a problem. A problem that will design our future to be a national Waterloo if we don't stop here and now. Please if you have the ability and focus to lead us unselfishly come forward now.
Friday, June 17, 2011
What has happened to our leadership in this world?
The other day several of us were discussing, "What has happened to our leadership in this world? At the city level, the county level, the state level, the national level and the worldwide level we seem to have lost our great ethical statesman like leaders. Everyday we read and hear about their childish and unsophisticated behavior and ideas."
On the eve of celebrating our national independency and freedom, I thought it might be appropriate to present a possible answer to our question, "What has happened to our leadership in this world?"
I believe it is time for new major party, at least in our area. I believe that party should be the L.A.P. Party of America. L.A.P. stands for Leadership Arise Please!
The L.A.P. Party of America believes that the art of leadership is an endangered species. President John F. Kennedy’s story about a royal leader in the French Revolutionary War, best describes the political leadership today. The old French leader said, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." Take a poll and go lead them where they seem to want to go, not where they need to go for their own safety and welfare.
Leadership is the ability, duty or act of leading; the art of directing and guiding others; the ship that leads the way. We elect officials to represent us and lead the way. Ours is a Republic not a democracy. Where democracy is expressed by the privilege for every person to vote and pursue their own dreams. Our system demands leadership to operate effectively for us to survive over the years.
In the movie "American President" there is an example of poor leadership. In the middle of a wonderful love story is a frightening reality. The politicians portrayed depended solely upon public opinion polls to plan and make decisions. No thought was given to what was the right direction for the country, but where does this country want to go.
I for one do not want to be lead by the mood of the public. God knows there is ample proof that the public is quite fickle and nearly blind. I yearn for the leadership Ralph Waldo Emerson advocated in "The Conduct of Life: Power" written in 1860. He wrote, "There are men, who, by their sympathetic attractions carry nations with them and lead the activity of the human race."
In the heat of battle no soldier likes to hear from his leader, "Well boys, what would you like to do?" Instead he wants to hear those words carved on the statue at Fort Benning, Georgia, the home of the Infantry, "Follow Me!" The leaders of the L.A.P. Party of America will lead in this tradition. Why can't the leaders of the established parties do the same.
Mr. and Ms. Politician would you please get out in front and carry us courageously into the future? Please examine the facts; survey the situation; determine what must be done and lead us in that direction. Be our ship that leads the way.
If we come kicking and screaming that's okay. Children never like to take medicine that will cure their ills. They only protest to put off the inevitable. If the parent has the child's best interest at heart they will over come the protest and guide the child into doing what must be done for the health of the child.
The politicians from my L.A.P. Party will not be afraid to step up boldly and lead the way. If you judge a leader by his or her followers, you will see people with confidence about tomorrow in this nation. Why? Our leaders are taking action based on what they were elected for and not what will be needed to get reelected. They are to busy leading to run for office and their followers know the difference. Reexamine your leaders as leaders. Could they belong to the L.A.P. (Leadership Arise Please) Party?
On the eve of celebrating our national independency and freedom, I thought it might be appropriate to present a possible answer to our question, "What has happened to our leadership in this world?"
I believe it is time for new major party, at least in our area. I believe that party should be the L.A.P. Party of America. L.A.P. stands for Leadership Arise Please!
The L.A.P. Party of America believes that the art of leadership is an endangered species. President John F. Kennedy’s story about a royal leader in the French Revolutionary War, best describes the political leadership today. The old French leader said, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." Take a poll and go lead them where they seem to want to go, not where they need to go for their own safety and welfare.
Leadership is the ability, duty or act of leading; the art of directing and guiding others; the ship that leads the way. We elect officials to represent us and lead the way. Ours is a Republic not a democracy. Where democracy is expressed by the privilege for every person to vote and pursue their own dreams. Our system demands leadership to operate effectively for us to survive over the years.
In the movie "American President" there is an example of poor leadership. In the middle of a wonderful love story is a frightening reality. The politicians portrayed depended solely upon public opinion polls to plan and make decisions. No thought was given to what was the right direction for the country, but where does this country want to go.
I for one do not want to be lead by the mood of the public. God knows there is ample proof that the public is quite fickle and nearly blind. I yearn for the leadership Ralph Waldo Emerson advocated in "The Conduct of Life: Power" written in 1860. He wrote, "There are men, who, by their sympathetic attractions carry nations with them and lead the activity of the human race."
In the heat of battle no soldier likes to hear from his leader, "Well boys, what would you like to do?" Instead he wants to hear those words carved on the statue at Fort Benning, Georgia, the home of the Infantry, "Follow Me!" The leaders of the L.A.P. Party of America will lead in this tradition. Why can't the leaders of the established parties do the same.
Mr. and Ms. Politician would you please get out in front and carry us courageously into the future? Please examine the facts; survey the situation; determine what must be done and lead us in that direction. Be our ship that leads the way.
If we come kicking and screaming that's okay. Children never like to take medicine that will cure their ills. They only protest to put off the inevitable. If the parent has the child's best interest at heart they will over come the protest and guide the child into doing what must be done for the health of the child.
The politicians from my L.A.P. Party will not be afraid to step up boldly and lead the way. If you judge a leader by his or her followers, you will see people with confidence about tomorrow in this nation. Why? Our leaders are taking action based on what they were elected for and not what will be needed to get reelected. They are to busy leading to run for office and their followers know the difference. Reexamine your leaders as leaders. Could they belong to the L.A.P. (Leadership Arise Please) Party?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Orthodox: Hmmmm..am I a Christian?
A brick layer will use a plumb line to insure a wall is straight. If it isn’t straight it is called out-of-plumb. The word orthodox means plumb line, or a means for measuring accuracy or correctness. In the religious spectra, each particular religious group has their own accepted definition of orthodox. The major faiths of the world have a general orthodox to measure its membership. Within each, the subgroups (denominations or factions) add to this general plumb line to clarify even more what their particular subgroup views as orthodox. And within their group, there are further, sub groups, and so forth and so on.
A heretic is basically someone, who is disloyal to a particular set of accept rules or facts for a particular group. They are unorthodox, which means they are out of plumb and the group will label them unorthodox, disloyal or heretic. Historically heretic has been used to describe those members or followers, who are really way out-of-plumb. If, a person must exist within that group, then being labeled a heretic is close to being destroyed. In fact, on May 30, 1431 Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a heretic, according to the church authorities. That is the Roman Catholic Church, which is a subgroup within the Christian faith.
Over the last few years, I have come to realize, I might be a heretic. How is that possible? When I first joined the church I was baptized and professed that Jesus Christ was my Lord. I then agreed that Jesus was God and the only way to eternal life. I taught that no one can get to "heaven" with out accepting Jesus as their savior. I also, believed that the book I called the Holy Bible was word for word from God. And the list went on and on.
Over the last fifty years since I became a Christian in 1953, I have prayed to God and studied everything I could that would teach me more about God. Along the way, whenever I learned something that was out-of-plumb with what I was led to believe, I would research it and accept or reject it. I never felt accepting it made me out-of-plumb or unorthodox. Why? Because if my research was done in a sound manner, then my conclusion was still within the orthodox view (in my mind).
The other day I was asked if I am still a Christian. I said, "Yes, I believe I have, even though I have evolved in my understanding about certain things." The person, who asked the question pushed me farther, "Come on Dad, you know what I mean. According to "the Church" are you still a Christian?"
Whew, see what happens when you educate your children. They ask pointed questions of you.
I had to answer and it went something like this: "It depends upon which definition you use to define Orthodox belief. I have learned over the years there are thousands, maybe millions of ways of defining Christian, even if you just take the old standard general definitions. Why? Because so much of what people believe is orthodox came about in some weird and mysterious ways."
At this point I was asked to clarify or give an example.
I chose to use the Council of Nicene in the fourth century. "At that council and the subsequent ones, the Roman Church defined the New Testament over the protest of many people. Then to reveal Jesus as divine they developed the definition of the Trinity. Prior to this dramatic move, Christians were spiritual people, whose only real plumb line was the life of love modeled in the way of Christ."
Like the earlier people, I am still searching for the truth about God and praying that Jesus can lead me to it. At the same time I believe.....
Over the last few years, I have come to realize, I might be a heretic. How is that possible? When I first joined the church I was baptized and professed that Jesus Christ was my Lord. I then agreed that Jesus was God and the only way to eternal life. I taught that no one can get to "heaven" with out accepting Jesus as their savior. I also, believed that the book I called the Holy Bible was word for word from God. And the list went on and on.
Over the last fifty years since I became a Christian in 1953, I have prayed to God and studied everything I could that would teach me more about God. Along the way, whenever I learned something that was out-of-plumb with what I was led to believe, I would research it and accept or reject it. I never felt accepting it made me out-of-plumb or unorthodox. Why? Because if my research was done in a sound manner, then my conclusion was still within the orthodox view (in my mind).
The other day I was asked if I am still a Christian. I said, "Yes, I believe I have, even though I have evolved in my understanding about certain things." The person, who asked the question pushed me farther, "Come on Dad, you know what I mean. According to "the Church" are you still a Christian?"
Whew, see what happens when you educate your children. They ask pointed questions of you.
I had to answer and it went something like this: "It depends upon which definition you use to define Orthodox belief. I have learned over the years there are thousands, maybe millions of ways of defining Christian, even if you just take the old standard general definitions. Why? Because so much of what people believe is orthodox came about in some weird and mysterious ways."
At this point I was asked to clarify or give an example.
I chose to use the Council of Nicene in the fourth century. "At that council and the subsequent ones, the Roman Church defined the New Testament over the protest of many people. Then to reveal Jesus as divine they developed the definition of the Trinity. Prior to this dramatic move, Christians were spiritual people, whose only real plumb line was the life of love modeled in the way of Christ."
Like the earlier people, I am still searching for the truth about God and praying that Jesus can lead me to it. At the same time I believe.....
Monday, June 6, 2011
My Last Post ignited some heated responses... here is what I have to say about it.
It seems as if I upset a few people by stating that no one has ever seen God. The responses were proofs of evidences of God, not an actually face to face meeting. Even Scripture states that part of faith "is conviction of things unseen." These "I know what is correct" comments caused me think of something I wrote a few years ago. Here goes:
One of the neatest sounds in all of God's creation is the "Heavenly Chuckle." This is the chuckle, we hear when God says, "Relax, you're taking yourselves way to seriously!"
Theology is the study of what others have to say about God. Biblical theology is about what other people have said about the Bible. Since no one has ever seen God (if you have please come forward with your evidence and give us all your confidence, because until then faith will have to do for us poor souls who have not seen God) and no one fully agrees with anyone on the Bible in its entirety, all theology is a matter of opinion.
We understand that the basic foundation of God’s teaching and the Bible is a request for us to love one another. Love here being the desire to accept one another with respect.
If we have this mutual respect we can laugh "at and with" each other. Heavenly Chuckles are to be shared with one another.
Recently a religious magazine included something along these lines, that gave me and I believe God a chuckle and I want to share it with you. I am positive I heard the "Heavenly Chuckle." Here it is, as close as I can remember.
"HOW TO RESPOND IN A CRISIS..."At an ecumenical gathering, someone rushed in and shouted, "The building is on fire!"
Methodist gathered around and prayed
Baptist cried, "Where's the water?"
Christian Scientist agreed there was no fire
Fundamentalist cried, "It's the vengeance of God!"
Lutherans nailed a notice on the door declaring the fire was not justified
Quakers quietly praised God for the blessings the fire would bring
Jews posted symbols above the door hoping the fire would pass over
Congregationalist shouted, "Everyone for themselves!"
Church of Christ went to a corner and kept the news all to themselves
Episcopalians formed a procession and marched out in grand style
Catholics sold tickets for a wiener roast
Buddhist looked forward to the experience
Moslems said, "Whatever will be, will be."
Presbyterians elected a chairperson, who was to appoint a committee to look into the matter.
Yes, we all have different understandings and view points about God, but we still are beholden to a Creator (I still call God) for all things. Perhaps the last laugh is on us. Maybe we are here only for fellowship with God and best of all for God's amusement. I can almost hear God chuckle at our serious reactions to such a notion. of the subject. Ain't God neat? elected a chairperson, who was to appoint a committee to look into the matter. said, "Whatever will be, will be." looked forward to the experience; sold tickets for a wiener roast; formed a procession and marched out in grand style; went to a corner and kept the news all to themselves; shouted, "Everyone for themselves!"; posted symbols above the door hoping the fire would pass over; quietly praised God for the blessings the fire would bring; nailed a notice on the door declaring the fire was not justified; cried, "It's the vengeance of God!"; agreed there was no fire; cried, "Where's the water?"; gathered around and prayed;
One of the neatest sounds in all of God's creation is the "Heavenly Chuckle." This is the chuckle, we hear when God says, "Relax, you're taking yourselves way to seriously!"
Theology is the study of what others have to say about God. Biblical theology is about what other people have said about the Bible. Since no one has ever seen God (if you have please come forward with your evidence and give us all your confidence, because until then faith will have to do for us poor souls who have not seen God) and no one fully agrees with anyone on the Bible in its entirety, all theology is a matter of opinion.
We understand that the basic foundation of God’s teaching and the Bible is a request for us to love one another. Love here being the desire to accept one another with respect.
If we have this mutual respect we can laugh "at and with" each other. Heavenly Chuckles are to be shared with one another.
Recently a religious magazine included something along these lines, that gave me and I believe God a chuckle and I want to share it with you. I am positive I heard the "Heavenly Chuckle." Here it is, as close as I can remember.
"HOW TO RESPOND IN A CRISIS..."At an ecumenical gathering, someone rushed in and shouted, "The building is on fire!"
Methodist gathered around and prayed
Baptist cried, "Where's the water?"
Christian Scientist agreed there was no fire
Fundamentalist cried, "It's the vengeance of God!"
Lutherans nailed a notice on the door declaring the fire was not justified
Quakers quietly praised God for the blessings the fire would bring
Jews posted symbols above the door hoping the fire would pass over
Congregationalist shouted, "Everyone for themselves!"
Church of Christ went to a corner and kept the news all to themselves
Episcopalians formed a procession and marched out in grand style
Catholics sold tickets for a wiener roast
Buddhist looked forward to the experience
Moslems said, "Whatever will be, will be."
Presbyterians elected a chairperson, who was to appoint a committee to look into the matter.
Yes, we all have different understandings and view points about God, but we still are beholden to a Creator (I still call God) for all things. Perhaps the last laugh is on us. Maybe we are here only for fellowship with God and best of all for God's amusement. I can almost hear God chuckle at our serious reactions to such a notion. of the subject. Ain't God neat? elected a chairperson, who was to appoint a committee to look into the matter. said, "Whatever will be, will be." looked forward to the experience; sold tickets for a wiener roast; formed a procession and marched out in grand style; went to a corner and kept the news all to themselves; shouted, "Everyone for themselves!"; posted symbols above the door hoping the fire would pass over; quietly praised God for the blessings the fire would bring; nailed a notice on the door declaring the fire was not justified; cried, "It's the vengeance of God!"; agreed there was no fire; cried, "Where's the water?"; gathered around and prayed;
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Are You Hard Shell?
The church at Rome consisted of Jews and Gentiles. This was important to Paul, who believed one of the greatest arguments for Christianity was its ability to bring people together. No matter their segments of society that would normally divide them, they were be as one in the church. Paul insisted that "in Christ" societal, cultural, economic, religious, and sexual barriers were broken down. This resulted in a preliminary view of heaven and a practical way of bringing peace on earth.
The real evidence of this is the assembly of local believers. Regardless of their life's situation, they all come together in mutual love of Christ (The Messiah with or without name), which is their common denominator. That is the theory. The reality is the walls have a nasty habit of putting themselves up again. Paul uses two important points of his day as examples - food and holy days. The examples could have been Jew verses Gentile, male verses female, forms of baptism, means of salvation, race, sexuality, music, etc., and etc.
Paul reminds us that one person's faith is another person's poison. He then writes us how wrong that is in the kingdom of God. We are to be governed by love in all that we do as the church. This is the decisive factor in Godly living. But in my exuberance of my own faith, how do I approve of what you do if it is something I abhor in my faith? How do I present and maintain God's love toward you? For the church in Christ advocates that we love all the world. How do I do that? If I am hard shell in my faith, I cannot do it, no matter how good my intentions.
Paul's solution falls naturally into three stages:
1. We must first resolve in our own minds that our approach to the situation is correct (the claims of conscience are sovereign). Vague suspicions are no substitute for a clear understanding of the issue. Know what you believe and why. "Just cause" is not good enough. And phrases like, "My Bible says" are indications of a closed mind, for we all read the same text. In and out of the church setting, do you stand firmly on your convictions?
2. This calls for individual restraint. We are to refrain from judging and being quick to judge those who differ from us. They are not answerable to us and we are not answerable to them for what we have chosen to believe. Paul says, in retrospect, each of us is responsible to God for our views and actions. It is also God who will give insight into the truth to those who seek it in earnest. The New Testament is adamant about this point and it is one of its most frequent points of instructions to the church. We have no right to sit in judgement of one another. That is the right of God.
3. This is a more positive point. The strong are not to place temptation in the way of the weak. If the elders and other leaders of the church are condemning of others, the newer members of the faith may follow suit. At the same time we must allow the newer members freedom to express their stages of faith as they grow in their faith. To condemn them is paramount to stunting or even stopping their growth. Let them be, whomever God has called them to be. That is the fullest expression of God's love known to the church. It reminds us that, "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
Hard Shell? If you insist everyone believes as you do since you know all the truth; you believe you and your group are God's appointed standard bearers; and you refuse to give people leeway in learning about God from their perspective,
Not Hard Shell? You recognize everyone as valid and the object of God's love; you keep your nose out of other people's business and let them answer to God themselves; and you seek to nurture through example God's love to other human beings regardless of their life's situation.
Hard Shell or Soft Shell? I don't think their is a choice, but then that's only my opinion and I'll have to answer to God for it my own self.
The real evidence of this is the assembly of local believers. Regardless of their life's situation, they all come together in mutual love of Christ (The Messiah with or without name), which is their common denominator. That is the theory. The reality is the walls have a nasty habit of putting themselves up again. Paul uses two important points of his day as examples - food and holy days. The examples could have been Jew verses Gentile, male verses female, forms of baptism, means of salvation, race, sexuality, music, etc., and etc.
Paul reminds us that one person's faith is another person's poison. He then writes us how wrong that is in the kingdom of God. We are to be governed by love in all that we do as the church. This is the decisive factor in Godly living. But in my exuberance of my own faith, how do I approve of what you do if it is something I abhor in my faith? How do I present and maintain God's love toward you? For the church in Christ advocates that we love all the world. How do I do that? If I am hard shell in my faith, I cannot do it, no matter how good my intentions.
Paul's solution falls naturally into three stages:
1. We must first resolve in our own minds that our approach to the situation is correct (the claims of conscience are sovereign). Vague suspicions are no substitute for a clear understanding of the issue. Know what you believe and why. "Just cause" is not good enough. And phrases like, "My Bible says" are indications of a closed mind, for we all read the same text. In and out of the church setting, do you stand firmly on your convictions?
2. This calls for individual restraint. We are to refrain from judging and being quick to judge those who differ from us. They are not answerable to us and we are not answerable to them for what we have chosen to believe. Paul says, in retrospect, each of us is responsible to God for our views and actions. It is also God who will give insight into the truth to those who seek it in earnest. The New Testament is adamant about this point and it is one of its most frequent points of instructions to the church. We have no right to sit in judgement of one another. That is the right of God.
3. This is a more positive point. The strong are not to place temptation in the way of the weak. If the elders and other leaders of the church are condemning of others, the newer members of the faith may follow suit. At the same time we must allow the newer members freedom to express their stages of faith as they grow in their faith. To condemn them is paramount to stunting or even stopping their growth. Let them be, whomever God has called them to be. That is the fullest expression of God's love known to the church. It reminds us that, "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
Hard Shell? If you insist everyone believes as you do since you know all the truth; you believe you and your group are God's appointed standard bearers; and you refuse to give people leeway in learning about God from their perspective,
Not Hard Shell? You recognize everyone as valid and the object of God's love; you keep your nose out of other people's business and let them answer to God themselves; and you seek to nurture through example God's love to other human beings regardless of their life's situation.
Hard Shell or Soft Shell? I don't think their is a choice, but then that's only my opinion and I'll have to answer to God for it my own self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)