4/12/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Too much Romance?


Too much Romance?

A reader recently complained that I had been going on and on about romantic love as if it were the finest expression of love there is. There’s probably some justice in the complaint—I may have been going on about it too much and I may have left the impression that love when it takes the romantic form has taken its finest form. I think it would be silly to say something like that for some exhibitions of parental love and friendship can’t be measured much less beaten by comparison.

I read something recently about young people “leaving the church” that has me reflecting on the matter. I’m neither knowledgeable nor wise enough to know all of the reasons why they do or even to fully understand a single reason why some do but I can make educated guesses as well as the next person. I’m satisfied that one of the reasons young people (and older) leave the church is that we religious people have made it clear that only religious activity (thought or action) is true living and the rest is “secular,” to be tolerated as necessity but it's not “real” living.

Going to Bible class is one true expression of real life but going to a birthday party is…is…just doing what people do; preaching a sermon is “sacred” and typing out letters for your boss at work is “secular” and loving brothers and sisters in Christ is true love while love of your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend is…is…something else.

In short, I think many of us religious people sever creation from life with God, if our actions or relationships aren’t immediately related to “churchy” things or a “churchy” setting they aren’t really of interest to God. He puts up with it but he has no real interest in it.

I think this is religious drivel!

I would insist that everything we are and do is of interest to God; that what we read, what we watch on TV or in the movies, who we relate to and how we relate to them, what we do with our money and time and energy—all that and everything else is of interest to God. I’d insist that romantic love which is a central concern of multiplied millions is of concern to God and is a part of real living. Christians will insist that God gives them the power to make money and that their income is to be viewed in light of God. These are gifts of God and we’re to respond to them in that way; they are among the means and methods by which we honour God and bless his world.

A man who will not provide for his family, Paul assures us, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) so when someone is digging ditches or running a little company we’re not to suggest that they’re merely “marking time” until they go to worship and Bible study or engage in evangelistic outreach at which time they’ll involve themselves in “the work of the Lord.” The bulk of our lives are lived outside the assemblies we attend and the bulk of our service to God has no connection with our corporate/congregational activities.

I think this ill-conceived division of life into sacred and secular diminishes our capacity to live wholeheartedly and we give people the impression that human loves are somehow second rate. When ministers of the Word speak to construction or office workers or parents fulfilling parental responsibilities and urge them to do more to get involved in “the work of the Lord” they usually have “churchy” activities in mind and this diminishes all else as “perhaps necessary but…”

So if we offer “churchy” things as real life and everything else hardly worth bothering with we rob people of satisfaction as well as inspiration. I’m sure I’ve done a lot of that in my earlier years and I’d like now to be able to redress the balance. The love of a boy for a girl, a man for a woman, a husband for a wife, a wife for a husband, a parent for a child, a child for a parent, a friend for a friend—all these and more spring from one centre, a human heart. They vary in ways—of course!—but there is a basic commonality in all of them; there is commitment generated by various elements and a commitment that is to show itself appropriately depending on the relationship. They’re all love taking one form or another, springing from varying elements but where they’re entered and experienced by someone who cares to honour God, they’re “Christianized” and none of them is to be despised or thought superior.

It makes no sense to say a parent’s love for a child is superior to a boy’s love for a girl. In some ways it’s comparing apples and oranges. The father’s love for his boy is not “romantic” and the boy’s love for the girl is not parental. The relationship (under God) will determine the appropriate responses. Instead of sniffing at young “romance” maybe we should grant it more attention, encourage joy in it and help young people to offer it back to God as the gift that it is.

Certainly there are things we call “romance” that are a wicked spectacle and those that are shallow and self-serving—of course! The same is true of friendship and parenthood. We must accept that there is a spectrum on which these things occur. Young children shouldn’t be hurried into “romance” and children of thirteen and fourteen shouldn’t be encouraged to have boy/girlfriends. There must be some common-sense at work in all our reflection and counsel—that's as it should be!

But none of that has anything to do with living with a religious “bah humbug” mentality toward the romantic lives of people, young and old.

Finally for now, this “love thing” may be reduced by atheists to nothing other than chemical reactions and the “love word” can be used by the sheerly sensual as a cover for sexual greed or domineering parents when they try to live their lives again through their children. Nevertheless, love’s presence in the world—love at its struggling best—defies the cruelty and lust and selfishness of the world. In light of all the bad it can be easy for many to think the entire planet is wrong—wrong through and through, that there is nothing in it of worth or merit. Then comes love; the love of a parent for a child, a girl for a boy, a grown man for a woman who is everything to him, the love of a stranger for another stranger and all of the sudden we see a light in the darkness. God is at work in the world after all and he makes himself present not only in "churchy" stuff.

Charlie Chaplin, the famous comedian, wrote a song called, This is My Song. It has always struck me as a tremendous argument for the presence of God in the world. I “Christianize” it, of course and like many others before me I would say that you can look at the cross and think, “How can there be a good God over the world when there’s such an instrument of torture in it?” Then we look at Jesus who is on the cross and can ask, “How can there not be a good God over the world when there’s one like him in it?” One Jesus Christ offsets the world’s absolute gloom. If he has been/is in it then we can't simply write WRONG across the entire human enterprise. Something else (Someone else) is at work!

Chaplin’s lyrics don’t work very well in the early part of the song so I’ve substituted others that I think carry Chaplin’s aim better than his. The young woman who made a hit of the song many years ago, Petula Clark, thought the words were too insipid and sweet and at first refused to record it and Harry Secombe who made a hit of it again, some weeks later, had some words altered. I’d send you to either one of them on YouTube but neither have the lyrics I think the song deserves though they sing it well. [Why don't I simply give you lyrics and skip my own croaking of the song? Because Chaplin's melody has tremendous power and the changed lyrics help but here's Secombe's great rendering of the song. Click]

One of Chaplin’s lines addressed to love says: “The world cannot be wrong if in this world there’s you.” I believe that! GK Chesterton marvellously tells us that when we see a young man and woman in love, committed to one another in honour, we’re seeing another Adam and Eve. Begin your reflection from there.

Click here is you wish to hear the re-worded earlier stanzas.

From Eric Lyons, M.Min. ... What is Bigger and More Incomprehensible than the God of Christians?

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2052

What is Bigger and More Incomprehensible than the God of Christians?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In a recent TIME magazine article, wherein senior staff writer David Van Biema interviewed renowned atheist Richard Dawkins and theist Francis Collins, Dawkins made a comment about the existence of God that revealed a serious flaw in his case against Creation and Christianity. Although he believes the idea of “a supernatural intelligent designer” is “refutable,” he speculated, saying, “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed” (quoted in Van Biema, 2006, 168[20]:55). Thus, every “God” ever conceptualized by mankind is simply too small and too comprehensible for Dawkins.
It certainly is the case that gods of various religious groups of the past and present have lacked size and intelligence. The gods of ancient Egypt were exposed as counterfeit when the God of Israel demonstrated His superiority over them. He brought 10 plagues on Egypt, executing judgment “against all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4), that (among other things) man might “know that Jehovah is greater than all gods” (Exodus 18:11, ASV). In Elijah’s day, Jehovah God revealed His supremacy over Baal on Mount Carmel when He sent fire down from heaven, totally consuming Elijah’s sacrifice (1 Kings 18:20-38), while the sacrifices of Baal’s prophets lay quiescent. Then, “[w]hen all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, ‘The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God’” (1 Kings 18:39). Furthermore, the millions of Hindu gods of the past and present also lack sufficient magnitude and intelligence. They are lifeless, powerless, man-made idols that both atheists and theists rightly refuse to acknowledge.
To conclude, however, that no one from any religion has ever proposed a God that is of adequate size and mystery is simply untrue. What about the God of the Bible? Considering that approximately two billion people on Earth claim to believe in this God (see “Major Religions...,” 2005), Dawkins no doubt had the God of Christians in mind when he said, “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.” What (or Who) could be larger, mightier, and more incomprehensible than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God that Christians worship and serve?
The God of the Bible is omnipresent. The psalmist proclaimed: “Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the dawn, if I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Thy hand will lead me, and Thy right hand will lay hold of me (139:7-10, NASB). Try as he might, no one can hide from God (Jeremiah 23:23-24). He is everywhere. His eyes “are in every place” (Proverbs 15:3). “There is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13, emp. added).
God not only is omnipresent, He also knows everything. Numerous passages of Scripture clearly teach that God is omniscient. The psalmist declared that God “knows the secrets of the heart” (44:21) and that “His understanding is infinite” (147:5). Of Jehovah, the psalmist also wrote:
O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether (139:1-4).
God is greater than our heart, and knows all things” (1 John 3:20, emp. added). Not only does He know the past and the present, but the future as well (Acts 15:18; cf. Isaiah 46:10). There is nothing outside of the awareness of God. What’s more, at the end of time, He “will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14, emp. added).
Perhaps the most awesome attribute of Jehovah is His unlimited power. He is “God Almighty” (Genesis 17:1). Nothing is too hard for Him (Genesis 18:14). As Job confessed to God, “I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You” (42:2, emp. added). By simply speaking, God can create that which is visible from that which is invisible (Hebrews 11:3; cf. Genesis 1), and can turn the physical into the celestial (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). He can turn water into wine simply by desiring it to happen (John 2:1-10). He can miraculously heal a paralytic by merely willing it to “be done” (Matthew 8:13). He can raise a man from the dead simply by commanding him to “come forth” (John 11:43). The God of Christians is omnipotent.
What more does Dawkins need from a god? By definition, the God of the Bible could not be any bigger, more powerful, or more intelligent than He already is. Jehovah is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. In addition, He is eternal (cf. Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 102:27; Revelation 1:8). He is from “everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2). What could be “bigger” and “more incomprehensible” for finite humans to grasp?
Nothing is bigger than God. Nothing is more powerful than God. And no one can rationally fathom a being more intelligent than God. As far as being “a whole lot more incomprehensible,” the psalmist addressed God’s unfathomable intelligence, confessing that “[s]uch knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (139:6, emp. added). God said: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways.... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Centuries later Paul praised the “depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God,” exclaiming “[h]ow unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33, emp. added). Indeed, there are “the secret things” that “belong to the Lord our God,” which we will never know this side of eternity, and perhaps not even on the other side (Deuteronomy 29:29). Thankfully, the one true and living God did reveal a substantial amount of information about Himself through nature, and much more through the Scriptures (Romans 1:20; Deuteronomy 29:29), that we might “have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).
The God that the prominent, militant atheist Richard Dawkins said would exist, “if there is a God,” actually does exist. Sadly, Dawkins and millions of others simply have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28, ASV), for which “they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

REFERENCES

“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.
Van Biema, David (2006), “God vs. Science,” TIME, 168[20]:48-55, November 13.

From Mark Copeland... Let Not Many Of You Become Teachers (James 3:1-12)

                         "THE EPISTLE OF JAMES"

                Let Not Many Of You Become Teachers (3:1-12)
                                 
INTRODUCTION

1. In our study of "The Epistle Of James", we now come to the third
   chapter...

2. In verses 1-12, we find:
   a. A WARNING against too many becoming teachers - 1-2
   b. A DISCOURSE on the untamable tongue - 3-12

3. In a time where "verbal abuse" is often epidemic, and where "self-
   proclaimed teachers" engage in all sorts of heated religious
   discussions, there is much we can learn from this passage

[First, let's notice...]

I. THE "WARNING" (1-2)

   A. "LET NOT MANY OF YOU BECOME TEACHERS"
      1. Note carefully:
         a. James does not say, "Let not many of you BE teachers"
         b. But rather, "Let not many of you BECOME teachers"
      2. This passage is not just a rebuke of those who try to BE
         teachers before they are ready, but a warning that many should
         not even BECOME teachers in the future!
      3. It is a mistake to believe that EVERYONE should become a
         teacher at some point in their service to Christ!
         a. Paul illustrated time and again that the body of Christ has
            many members, and not all members do not have the same
            function!
            1) To the saints at Rome - Ro 12:3-8
            2) To the church at Corinth - 1Co 12:12-31 (note esp.
               verse 29, where Paul with a rhetorical question implies
               that not all are to be teachers)
         b. Peter likewise taught that God's grace toward is "manifold"
            (multi-faceted) and that we should exercise our respective
            abilities accordingly - 1Pe 4:10-11
      4. In view of what Paul, Peter, and James wrote, we should be
         careful before we apply He 5:12-14 to mean that EVERYONE
         should one day be teachers (the author of Hebrews may have
         been writing to a select audience, whom he knew ought to have
         been teachers)

   B. WHY MANY SHOULD NOT BECOME TEACHERS...
      1. Teachers shall receive "a stricter judgment"
         a. There is a grave responsibility involved in teaching others
         b. We can lead people to TRUTH - but we just as easily lead
            them to ERROR!
         c. Just as with elders (He 13:17), those who teach will be
            held accountable if they mislead others!
      2. Because we all "stumble in many things"
         a. Everyone has faults, and with many people the improper use
            of the tongue is a major one
         b. But it takes spiritual maturity ("a perfect man") not to
            stumble in word!

[So James cautions against many people trying to become teachers.  This
should not discourage any from trying to find out if teaching is a gift
that they might have if nurtured along, but one should proceed with
humility and caution.

In verse 2 James briefly mentions the power of the tongue over the
body.  He elaborates on this theme as we now consider...]

II. THE "DISCOURSE" ON THE UNTAMABLE TONGUE (3-12)

   A. THE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE BIT AND RUDDER (3-4)
      1. Both illustrations are used to demonstrate that a small member
         (like the tongue) can control the body
         a. A bit controls a horse
         b. A rudder controls the ship
      2. So our tongue controls the body...
         a. If you speak a lie, it won't be long before you find yourself
            living a lie
         b. If you speak suggestively in an immoral manner, it won't be
            long before you begin acting immorally!
      3. The power of the tongue to direct is easily applied to the
         dangers of teaching...
         a. The teacher's speech can easily set the mood of the class
            or congregation
         b. He can easily direct the congregation in an uplifting way,
            or just as easily direct the congregation in a discouraging
            way
      4. Should not this power to direct via the tongue humble those 
         who teach, and caution the spiritually immature?

   B. THE ILLUSTRATION OF A LITTLE FIRE (5-6)
      1. A small fire can easily cause great destruction (remember the
         Great Chicago Fire?)
      2. So it is with the tongue!
         a. A loose tongue can ruin one's reputation
         b. It can also destroy churches, families, friendships
      3. In describing an uncontrolled tongue, James uses very vivid
         terms to make his point:  The tongue is...
         a. A fire
         b. A world of iniquity
         c. So set among our bodies that it defiles the whole body
         d. That which sets on fire the course of nature
         e. That which is itself set on fire by hell!
      4. Should not this power to destroy and defile both ourselves and
         others caution us in becoming teachers?

   C. THE DIFFICULTY OF TAMING THE TONGUE (7-12)
      1. Despite being able to tame wild animals, man is unable to tame
         the tongue!
         a. It is an unruly evil!
         b. It is full of deadly poison!
      2. I understand James to be somewhat hyperbolic here for the sake
         of emphasis...
         a. It is true that no MAN (by himself) can tame the tongue
         b. But with GOD'S help, we can tame it (as David prayed in
            Ps 141:3)
         c. And with GOD'S help, we MUST tame it - cf. Ep 4:29; Col 4:6
      3. As a further example of how difficult it is to tame the tongue,
         James uses a very common (and relevant) problem
         a. I.e., blessing God and cursing men
         b. Something we are very likely to do, especially on Sundays
            1) We spend time in worship, blessing God
            2) But in driving home, we might curse men (other drivers
               who pull out in front of us)
         c. Racists and bigots are often guilty of "blessing God and
            cursing men"!
      4. But with the illustrations of a spring, a fig tree and a 
         grapevine, James shows the inconsistency of this!
         a. What comes forth is a true indication of what is inside
         b. Just as Jesus taught in Mk 7:20-23
         c. Despite all the praises we offer God, it is the curses
            against man that reveals the true person inside!

CONCLUSION

1. Again, these examples of the misuse of the tongue should humble and
   caution all those who would become teachers

2. But they should also serve as a warning for us all, whether we teach
   or not, that we need to seek God's help in controlling the tongue!

May David's prayer be our own:

    Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be
    acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

                                                 (Psalms 19:14)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... False?

Loafers??? Talk about putting your foot in your mouth!!!  As a preview to a sandwich, this looks good to me, but as shoes that BECOME A SANDWICH- NOT SO MUCH!!!!  Well, what do we have here? Bread masquerading as foot-ware. Phony, false, misleading, fraudulent, deceiving, devious and the list could go on and on and on.  Its a good thing that does happen in "Christianity", isn't it???  Well, in fact it does.  When people superimpose their own ideas on what the Bible teaches, or something other than what the Bible teaches they are false teaches, they err.  The Scriptures call them false prophets and I like what Jesus has to say about them...

Matthew, Chapter 7
 15  “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.   16  By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?   17  Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.   18  A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.   19  Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.

I have never met a person who wanted to follow a false prophet, so why does it happen?  More importantly, how do you identify one? Jesus tells us in the above passage.  The fruit (results) of what they teach will identify them. If the results of their teaching has a different outcome that the Scriptural examples -BEWARE!!! Sometimes people can really talk a good game and so you really have to listen and analyse what is being said between the lines.  A quick way I tell truth from error is this: Does what is being taught harmonize with what the entire Bible teaches as a whole or the book which it comes from and the surrounding text? This requires work, so don't be a loafer- listen, learn, be discerning and most of all see what the outcome of the teaching is. As far as those loafers in the picture go- I wouldn't wear them- BUT, I would put some meatballs and sauce in them and have some lunch.