6/3/14

From Jim McGuiggan... "YOU COMIN'?"


"YOU COMIN'?"

Jesus is to blame. The Christ of the cross is to blame. If it weren't for him I might be able to find some peace but he and his cross disturb me and won't let me be content with what I see when I look within and around me. If your loved one is quadriplegic you know that in many ways he or she isn't physically able to help you care for them and in some sense you adjust to the situation—you expect nothing and in that respect you aren't disappointed. If you truly believe there's nothing better to be hoped for in this world I suppose you might rage in your hopelessness or eat, drink (or starve) and die tomorrow; but if hope were dead would there not be some kind of resignation, a reluctant, numbed acceptance of things as they are? Maybe, but would that not be better than vainly hoping? Is that not what the old Greek story means to say in the story of Pandora's "box"—when she opened the forbidden box everything in it escaped except...hope. And it became the source of torment to all because they could never be content with things as they are.

In an early essay Bertrand Russell said that because we know the truth of human existence—that it's a pointless accident—we must face it and build a future on "unyielding despair." Well, it's into this world, with all its pain, loss, disappointment, loneliness, cruelty, entrenched evils and invincible selfishness that Jesus came, making claims and promising much.

In the first century he offended the Romans and their view of power and empire. He offended the Greeks and their view of God and wisdom. He offended the Jews and their view of God's faithfulness and their place in his purposes. And he continues to scandalize us all to this day. Don't you know I'm talking about the real Christ and not the one we hear about in so much preaching. Or the real one we don't hear about in so much preaching. The one who's hidden under ceaseless explanations of what this or that verse means, who's hidden behind the patter of the wise who handle all the "difficult questions" people ask, the one who's buried under the same unending calls for us all to be morally better—as if we hadn't heard this call ten-thousand times. Christless moralizing with the usual Bible verses thrown in to prove we're different from the secularists who preach the same Christless moralizing—and who now and then use Bible verses.

There are people who care nothing for him—and never did—they're not affected by him. The crass hedonists who think life's a one way ticket so, to the degree that they can manage it, they party the nights away. Maybe towards the end they think of "fire insurance" (though even that's not of great concern now). The world can't be made better—certainly not in their lifetimes—so why worry about it? Get what you can as quick as you can, throw a handful of coins in the direction of the world's needy during a big public musical concert and get back to the usual partying.

They ignore the churches with their inner squabbles. [That might be a smart thing!] Or, they listen for a while to their squabbles and discover how pathetic they are in the face of the world's great needs and wrongs—before they go back to the partying. Not a bad philosophy that; a happy life and an endless sleep at the end.

The Jesus of the cross disturbs those who hear him. Here are three general areas. There's the state of the world and the church and our own personal situations.

If you hear him, Jesus is too stubbornly real and we can't get away from him. Not that we're trying to, you understand. We neither try to nor want to get away from him but being in his presence and listening to his kingly promises that are written in blood can make us impatient with the chaotic, oppressive, confused, rebellious and cruel world. Why hasn't his sovereignty transformed the world already? As sad-spoken Matthew Arnold said, in the beginning, the tide of faith was fully in and covered the earth like a garment. But now, he said,—it would appear—all we hear is the faint sound of its "melancholy long withdrawing roar" as it retreats and leaves bare the naked shingled shores of the world. Sometimes we sorely want the present King of Kings to show himself more powerfully—more powerfully, that is, in the more common understanding of power. We'd like him to obliterate all the oppressive structures of the world—structures that we have neither the desire to destroy nor the strength to do it, supposing we had the desire. And why would we desire it, aren't we the ones that build them? The state of the world seems to "prove" that the Christian's claim that Jesus is Lord of Lords is sheer nonsense.

And when we look at the church as a whole and consider how pathetic and weak it is, how self-serving, as it fine-tunes its theology and gorges on rich truth and wants more to gorge on while a world of Lazaruses starves. Not content to draw lines of fellowship in places where the heart of the gospel is attacked, many church leaders insist on keeping us all in separate pens based on the flimsiest differences and they call it "defending the faith." We pay our ministers to "stand for the truth" if they're willing to stand for the truth that we pay them to stand for. In a world of tortured and tormented, sick and oppressed, humiliated, blind and despairing fellow-humans in their thousands of millions and our latest inner-church crusade is what? IS WHAT?

It's much easier to believe the too-rich-to-be-fully-grasped doctrines of the person and work of Jesus Christ in and as whom God revealed himself than it is to believe in the church as it church-shops its way from one assembly to another. And as we shop our first question is not, "What is your gospel here?" it's, "What programs do you have to suit me here?" "What are my rights here?" "Does this church know we're living in the 21st century?" At one end of the spectrum we have these primetime hucksters that ceaselessly beg for money to fund their programs (or other hidden things) and on the other there are churches that are offended if there's talk about sharing our wealth. Time and money is spent on leadership agendas that usually have to do with "making our church grow." Then there's the "preaching" [?]. 

And then there's the personal, bitter disappointment with oneself. There are times when you think you see real progress and then like a bolt of lightning and a thunderclap events expose your heart—it's seems as shrivelled as ever it was even after years of longing for better. Just when you think you've experienced significant growth you're brought face to face with outrageous meanness or corruption or bitterness that pours out of you. Those who know nothing of such experiences often find themselves with a smug smile of self-congratulation at their moral maturity and consistency. When our eyes focus on all this and more Jesus seems more and more distant and beyond us. And in our worst moments, Pack it in—walk away, comes to mind. Then you understand what Dorothy Sayers was getting at when she wrote:

I am battered and broken and weary and out of heart,
I will not listen to talk of heroic things,
But be content to play some simple part,
Freed from preposterous, wild imaginings...
Men were not made to walk as priests and kings.
Thou liest, Christ, Thou liest; take it hence,
That mirror of strange glories; I am I;
What wouldst Thou make of me? O cruel pretense,
Drive me not mad so with the mockery
Of that most lovely, unattainable lie!

And for a while—a day, a week, a month, a year—you sulk and snarl and prowl. Then you see him! He's always been there; you just didn't notice during that wretched period. You see him looking at you with those big eyes of his, calm and compelling, and as he moves away he looks back and motions with his head, "You comin'?" and…

Why can't he leave us alone? Why can't we who have met him leave him alone?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min. ... Sticky Business

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2250

Sticky Business

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Advances in the science of biomimetics increasingly are reported in major scientific journals around the world. Scientists have attempted to mimic various designs or processes in the biological world for centuries, and 21st-century scientists show no signs of slowing down. In fact, it appears that now, more than ever, scientists are looking to nature for inspirations for their inventions. In June 2007, the journal New Scientist announced a new self-healing glue inspired by human bones (see Butt, 2007). In July 2007, MIT’s Technology Review reported the flight of a robotic fly at Harvard University, and how the government hopes eventually to use such “flies” in surveillance missions (see Ross, 2007; cf. Lyons, 2007). Nature, an international, weekly science journal, recently highlighted another impressive, life-inspired product—a biomimetic adhesive called “geckel,” that can adhere to both dry and wet surfaces (Haeshin, et al., 2007, 448[7151]:338-341).
The term “geckel” is derived from the names of the two creatures that inspired the new versatile adhesive: geckos and mussels. (Gecko + mussel = geckel.) Scientists closely examined the gecko’s “foot pads composed of specialized keratinous foot-hairs,” which “allow the gecko to cling onto vertical and even inverted surfaces” (Haeshin, et al., p. 338). By developing “nanotubes” that mimic “the bundles of fibers that make up the hairs on gecko feet” (Bullis, 2007), scientists have produced small tape samples that can be reused dozens of time. One obstacle to “gecko tape,” however, is water. Re-usable tape that mimics “gecko adhesion is greatly diminished upon full immersion” (Haeshin, et al., p. 338). Thus, scientists turned to the mussel.
Mussels have the ability to adhere to wet or fully immersed surfaces. Northwestern University biomedical-engineering professor Phillip Messersmith observed: “Mussels can stick to anything.... They adhere to a piece of wood, which is organic. They also adhere to the skin of whales” (as quoted in Patel-Predd, 2007). Their astounding stick-to-itiveness comes from a secretion of “specialized adhesive proteins” (Haeshin, et al., p. 338). After years of study, scientists have been able to manufacture a polymer that imitates the adhesive proteins of mussels.
Now, by combining what they have learned from gecko and mussel adhesion, researchers have developed a new adhesive, complete with nanotubes and a sticky protein polymer. Geckel is sticky, reusable, and can attach both to dry and wet surfaces. Scientists foresee it being used in many things, including medical tape and electronic equipment.
Sadly, many of the same scientists who spent thousands of hours studying the marvelous qualities of geckos and mussels believe these animals just evolved over millions of years. They believe that a big bang, plus spontaneous generation, plus time, plus chance equals awe-inspiring animals that hold the key to the invention of many impressive products. Researchers are designing new products based on living creatures that supposedly were not designed. Does this make any sense? None at all. The fact is, design demands a designer. Geckos and mussels, which scientists still cannot fully imitate, were designed by an intelligent Being—“The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28, ASV). “O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all...living things both small and great” (Psalm 104:24-25).

REFERENCES

Bullis, Kevin (2007), “Climbing Walls with Carbon Nanotubes,” Technology Review, June 25, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/18966/.
Butt, Kyle (2007), “Nature Sticks to Design,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3413.
Haeshin, Lee, Bruce Lee, and Phillip Messersmith (2007), “A Reversible Wet/Dry Adhesive Inspired by Mussels and Geckos,” Nature, 448[7151]:338-341, July 19.
Lyons, Eric (2007), “Who Makes the World’s Best Fliers?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3436.
Patel-Predd, Prachi (2007), “Nanoglue Sticks Underwater,” Technology Review, July 18, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/19061/.
Ross, Rachel (2007), “Robotic Insect Takes Off for the First Time,” Technology Review, July 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19068/.

From Mark Copeland... Herod's Harassment Of The Church (Acts 12:1-25)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

              Herod's Harassment Of The Church (12:1-25)

INTRODUCTION

1. We have seen that with Saul's conversion the persecution against the
   church diminished...
   a. The churches in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee had peace - Ac 9:31
   b. The gospel had spread as far as Antioch in Syria - Ac 11:19-21

2. But then a new persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem...
   a. Initiated by Herod Agrippa I - Ac 12:1
   b. His grandfather was Herod the Great, who massacred the babies - Mt 2:16
   c. His uncle was Herod Antipas, who beheaded John, and tried Jesus
      - Mt 14:1-14; Lk 23:8-12  
   d. His son was Herod Agrippa II, who tried the apostle Paul - Ac 25:13-26:32

[Thus it was Herod Agrippa I who harassed the church in Jerusalem at
this time.  How God and the church responded to his harassment is
instructive, so let's begin with how...]

I. HEROD KILLS JAMES

   A. JAMES, BROTHER OF JOHN...
      1. Son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' first disciples - Mk 1:19-20
      2. Together with John his brother were called "Sons of Thunder"
         - Mk 3:17
      3. Part of the inner circle of Jesus' closest disciples - cf. Mk 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33

   B. THE FIRST APOSTLE TO DIE...
      1. Not counting Judas Iscariot, who died before the church began
      2. Jesus foretold James would suffer (the cup and baptism of
         suffering) - Mk 10:35-40
      3. And so Herod killed James with the sword (i.e., beheaded him) 
         - Ac 12:2
      4. Note:  James the apostle was not replaced after his death, nor
         is there any indication in the Scriptures that other apostles 
         were replaced when they died (excluding Judas Iscariot)

[Herod's harassment against the church by killing James pleased the
unbelieving Jews (Ac 12:3).  The most liked by the Jews of any of the
Herods (cf. Josephus), to further incur their favor...]

II. HEROD IMPRISONS PETER

   A. IMPRISONED BY A KING...
      1. Herod arrested Peter during the Days of Unleavened Bread, his 
         trial delayed - Ac 12:3-4
      2. Peter was therefore imprisoned, guarded by four squads of
         soldiers - Ac 12:4

   B. RELEASED BY AN ANGEL...
      1. In the meantime, the church responded with constant (fervent) 
         prayer - Ac 12:5
      2. Peter was bound by chains between two soldiers, with guards
         before the door - Ac 12:6
      3. An angel appeared, freed Peter, and led him out of the prison 
         - Ac 12:7-10
      4. Peter realized it was real, not a vision, that the Lord
         delivered him - Ac 12:11
      5. He goes to the house of Mary, mother of John Mark, where many
         were praying - Ac 12:12
      6. His arrival led to denial, then astonishment, but Peter 
         explained it all - Ac 12:13-17
      7. He gave instructions to inform James (the Lord's brother) and 
         then left - Ac 12:17   

[For some reason, the Lord saw fit to allow James to die while Peter
lived.  Peter would later die for Christ as well (as would most of the
apostles).  As for Herod, God was not done with him yet...]  

III. HEROD STRUCK BY AN ANGEL

   A. EXALTED BY MAN...
      1. Angered by Peter's escape, Herod executes the guards - Ac 12:18-19 
      2. Leaving Judea, Herod goes to Caesarea (seat of the Roman
         government) - Ac 12:19
      3. The people of Tyre and Sidon appeal to him via their friend
         Blastus, his aide - Ac 12:20
      4. Giving an oration, the people praise Herod as having the voice
         of a god - Ac 12:21-22

   B. HUMBLED BY GOD...
      1. Failing to give glory to God, Herod is immediately struck by an
         angel - Ac 12:23
      2. Luke (a physician) tells us he was eaten by worms and died - Ac 12:23
      3. Josephus says that a severe pain arose in his belly and became
         so violent that he was carried into his palace where he died 
         five days later
      4. Dr. A. Rendle Short, who was professor of surgery at Bristol
         University and wrote a book entitled The Bible and Modern 
         Medicine, stated that a great many people in Asia 'harbor 
         intestinal worms', which can form a tight ball and cause 'acute
         intestinal obstruction'. This may have been the cause of Herod's
         death. - Stott, J. R. W. (1994). The message of Acts: The 
         Spirit, the church & the world. The Bible Speaks Today.
         Leicester, England; Downers  Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

CONCLUSION

1. With the death of Herod and the end of his harassment against the
   church...
   a. "...the word of God grew and multiplied" - Ac 12:24
   b. Paul and Silas would later be able to complete their ministry and
      return to Antioch with John Mark - Ac 12:25

2. From this account of "Herod's Harassment Of The Church" we learn...
   a. How the church is to react against persecution:  pray! - e.g., Ac 12:5,12; cf. Ac 4:23-31
   b. How God is able to humble governmental authorities who resist Him
      - cf. Rev 17:14

Whether it be through Divine intervention or Divine providence, Jesus as
King of kings and Lord of lords is in ultimate control (cf. Ro 13:1-4).  

As His disciples we must trust Him, even if in His wisdom it means that
some might be martyrs while others go free...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... At the "core" of...


Two days ago, I watched the Disney movie "John Carter" again, so it came as no surprise when I saw this volcanic picture that I thought of the Edgar Rice Burrough's book "At Earth's core". Written just about 100 years ago, it still had an attraction for me and I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  I can't remember all the details, but 500 miles below the surface, our hero encounters intelligent flying reptiles in a prehistoric land called Pellicular. Wow, I surprised even myself on this one, because I read it a couple of years ago.  Memory is such a fleeting thing, but it is of utmost importance.  What we remember can literally make the difference between heaven and hell.  Consider this passage from the Psalms...

Psalm 119
Psa 119:9  b Beth. How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word.
Psa 119:10  With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments.
Psa 119:11  Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.
Psa 119:12  Blessed are You, O LORD; Teach me Your statutes.
Psa 119:13  With my lips I have told of All the ordinances of Your mouth.
Psa 119:14  I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, As much as in all riches.
Psa 119:15  I will meditate on Your precepts And regard Your ways.
Psa 119:16  I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word.

Purity is something we all have to strive for.  The best way I have found to help in this effort is to read your Bible and remember it. Admittedly, the remembering part is a bit more difficult than it used to be, but then, that is mitigated by decades of experiences. You or I may never achieve a "hero" status, but we can do, what we can do. So, do that and leave the rest up to God. He is the real HERO anyway!!!

6/2/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Confession of sin

Confession of sin

I recently responded to the issue of confessing sin. Click here. One of us sinned greatly against a spouse and the question was should she tell him. I expressed the opinion that the woman (who is genuinely repentant and free from a reoccurrence) might consider it best not to tell him, depending on her intimate knowledge of her entire situation. The ideal situation would be that the sin never occurred but since it did it would be ideal if they could share the burden and enter more deeply into their relationship with Christ and one another despite it and even through it—learning from it and being shaped by it.

I think it irresponsible to advise someone we don't know to confess to another that we don't know something so serious while knowing absolutely nothing about the entire setting and the numerous people who would be affected.

Some thought that my remarks didn't take adultery seriously enough. Let me assure you that that was not my intention at all.

Some seemed to think that if she didn't confess to her husband she was living in violation of God's law. (Their speech was ambiguous and when pressed they wavered a bit.) Some thought that if she didn't confess to her husband that she was "living in pretence". Some said if she didn't confess to her husband that she was "hiding her sin". Some thought that if she didn't confess to him that she was "violating the nature of the marriage covenant, part of which is to promote openness". Some thought that she should confess to him or she'd "live in ever-deepening misery". Some thought that confession was part of repentance so that if she truly repented it would necessarily involve confession. Some thought that the scriptures plainly require that she confess so further discussion is unnecessary (compare James 5:16). And so forth.

Let's get something clear from the start: any behaviour, from a "mild flirtation" to full blown sexual intercourse (and all stages in between) is out of order. Any relationship that involves any of this is in that respect unhealthy and sinful.

I accept that there can be good-natured and innocent speech/activity that shouldn't be so categorised but making judgements in this area can be very tricky. Still, as one American judge famously and rightly remarked in another context, we may not be able to define "harmful" but we know it when we're doing it.

And yet, sometimes we're doing more than we know and what may be harmless in one setting and on any given day may be harmful in another and on another day. Laughingly and openly flirt with someone who's life is grand and no harm ensues. Do it with someone who is under life's whip and we might begin something tragic and sinful. Flirt and you may be able to dismiss it as nothing—certainly there was no sinister intent—while the vulnerable snatches at it and a slide begins.

When I was younger I was a drinker. I had a nephew I loved dearly—Billy. He and his family moved to Australia and many years later I met up with them on one of my trips there. Billy was a hard-drinker and a street-fighter. Poor thing, his life was pretty much a shambles. I think I asked him how it all got started and he said something I can't forget, "D'you know who gave me my first drink?" I told him no and he said, "You!" I got free from the booze and he never did. For good or ill, we do more than we know.

There's a difference between an habitual offender and a one-time offender. An habitual offender could easily be a desperate struggler against what it is he/she is offending in, so he/she isn't to be dismissed as heartless or uncaring. Nevertheless, if we know they're working havoc they must be stopped (where that's possible and to whatever degree that's possible)—the innocent need protection. Of course, in the area we're discussing, when evil occurs neither party is innocent (but there are family and friends and dependants that often suffer). Our help of and advice to an habitual offender will and should differ in many respects from how we will work with a one-time offender. Those that don't know this shouldn't offer advice in any shape or form.

There's "pretending" and pretending. There's "hiding" and hiding. Here's "John" and "Joan". They've been married twenty-two years, are devoted to each other and have raised three great kids. Sustained financial troubles, fear of unemployment, a period of domestic tension and a "fling" that last several months and is the cause of terrible guilt feelings. John is genuinely grieved, ends the nonsense and purposes no more of it. While the affair was ongoing his guilt led him to act toward her with more sensitivity and since he was now done with the wickedness his care for her is even more sensitive and deep than his pre-affair devotion. For multiple reasons, best known to him, he chooses for the present at least not to tell Joan about his sin.

It would be true to say that he's hiding his sin from her! But to say he's "hiding his sin" is a phrase that suggests hypocrisy and something sinister—it is almost the equivalent to saying he is not repentant over it; but John is deeply repentant over it. He's certainly "hiding" his sin from her in the sense that he has chosen not to disclose it—that's what hiding it means; but so much depends on why he chooses to hide it. If because he knows and loves her and fears that it would needlessly injure her if he told her, he hides it, it has nothing to do with impenitence. Others might think he is making a poor judgment call but what they cannot know and shouldn't claim to know is that he's "hiding" his sin for some sinister reason.

Suppose he carries his secret for many months or longer, are we to say that he is living a life of pretence during that time? We need to be careful with our words! In what way would his life be a life of pretending? Is he pretending that he loves his wife? Is he pretending that in a healthy but very marked way he is catering to her needs as a woman and a wife and a mother and friend? If we knew that John was a lying and hypocritical rascal who felt no remorse or guilt, who stayed with Joan only because there were advantages he would lose if he walked off—if we knew that that was the case then we'd say he lives a life of pretence. But it would be sheer nonsense to say that because he has chosen for the present at least not to reveal his sin to his wife that his life is mere pretence.

Is he "pretending" that he has always been sexually faithful to Joan if he doesn't tell her of his sin? Here again, we need to be careful how we speak especially since we are dealing with actual cases—some we may know about and some we aren't aware of! Should we take the view that because Joan—without ever asking—believes he has been with no one else that John is pretending if he doesn't tell her? Is all silence pretence? Honesty and openness are virtues to be prized and pursued but are they to be worshiped? Do the virtues of compassion and considerateness ever come into play? Is withholding information always lying? And is refusing to tell always hypocrisy no matter what the reasons are for remaining silent?

What if Joan asks him one day? What if she never does? Yes, but what if she asks him one day? If she did, that would change the whole setting of the discussion we're having and so doesn't add anything useful to it! What if she asks him some day? Then he will need to find a way in truth to deal with her question! But that has nothing to do with the present discussion!

If he doesn't confess will he not live in ever-deepening misery? That's very possible but such situations are much more complex than the question might imply. There are those who fear so greatly that the confession of their sin would destroy innocent lives that the only thing that keeps their head above water is their not telling. It's too easy for those of us whose lives are filled with peace and joy to come to conclusions for others whose lives are anything but peaceful. In light of the full acceptance we enjoy with our families and friends we think that if we were to behave abominably we could confess it without life going to pieces. Maybe that's true; but if it's true it's because we know our situation and would act on that sure knowledge. It may even be presumptuous to think that what we know about ourselves is true of those about whom we know nothing and that the good advice we would give ourselves would be good advice for those who are complete strangers to us!

Again, there are some of us whose deep misery is the recurring fear that our shame and wickedness might become known. The depth of the shame is what keeps us silent so our not telling it to others is less misery than the misery we'd experience if others were to know. This kind of silence can easily be self-serving since our comfort can become the primary or even the sole motivation for our silence. If we know our silence is bought at the unquestionable expense of others we are not doing right in keeping silent. (Imagine, for example, my doing wrong and someone else getting the blame while I, knowing it and saying nothing, allow them to suffer.)

It might still be true that a wife will live in prolonged misery if she doesn't tell her husband. This would be an additional tragedy and not an unusual fruit of our sinfulness but at least it would mean that she takes her sin seriously. So, is that it, we're to encourage her to suffocate in her misery? Indeed not, we might well urge her to find a wise and God-centred counsellor before whom she could unburden her heart while she waits for the time when she believes she can tell her husband.

With my hand on my heart I say that I believe the sinner's peace of mind matters! But the sinner's peace of mind must not be made the primary thing that matters! Some of us live with guilt and the pain that comes from secret sin and we accept that under present circumstances that is part of the price of sin. It isn't for nothing that a proverb says the way of the sinner is hard. [Read of Arthur Dimmesdale in Hawthorne's, The Scarlet Letter.] If some poor guilty soul is bearing a burden that can't be removed except by placing horrendous burdens on others who are innocent he/she will have to weigh the options and ask for God's sustaining grace.

James 5:16 says we are to confess our sins to one another. Well, there's no arguing with James; but it isn't enough to quote James and move on as if by quoting him we've understood him. If I commit adultery with another man's wife I've sinned against him (and many others). Does James 5:16 require me to tell that husband? I've sinned against him as surely as I've sinned against my wife (and others) so does he have the right to know and should I make amends to him by confession? Does it matter if my co-sinner assures me with tears that my confession will "destroy him" and the children? If my co-sinner assures me that their marital union is more than a little shaky at present and that her sin and mine would be the last straw and if she urged me to remain silent until she and her husband were well over the fragile phase they were going through due to illness of the children, financial pressures or employment difficulties—this should be given very serious consideration when working with James 5:16.

When James says "to one another" does he confine it only to husbands and wives confessing to each other? Does he confine it only to those we've immediately sinned against? Should we confess our sins congregationally (even if they are known only to one or two people)? An eldership I know of forbade a man to explicitly confess before the assembly that he had committed adultery with a sister in that church. Would James have been upset with those shepherds? If we think the shepherds were wise can they be wise if they have skated around James 5:16? The man wanted to confess, they forbade him, did that violate James 5:16? Why do you think they might have forbade him?

Who, exactly, is "one another"? And what are the circumstances James envisages? Are we sure that that section of James is speaking of what we might call "general confession"? Read it and see what you think.

I may take this up again.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website,theabidingword.com.



by Kyle Butt, M.A. ... Taking Cues from Nature’s Designer

apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1878


Taking Cues from Nature’s Designer

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

The field of biomimicry (copying biological systems) is beginning to see an influx in funds and research as scientists across the globe recognize its potential. In a recent article titled “Scientists Taking Cues From Nature,” Associated Press writer, Greg Bluestein, noted that many scientists are beginning to look to biomimicry to help them solve perplexing technological problems, such as helping bipedal robots to walk more fluidly and less robotically.
In the course of the article, Bluestein interviewed Marc Weissburg, the co-director of the new Georgia Tech’s Center for Biologically Inspired Design. In his comments, Weissburg suggested that evolution is responsible for the amazing abilities we find in the natural world. He stated: “If you think of organisms as products, all the bad ones have been recalled. Those that have survived evolved over millions of years” (Bluestein, 2006).
Weissburg also commented on the superior abilities that biological systems maintain compared to many of the ones humans have made. He said: “It really captures the imagination to show how much better organisms are at doing things. The natural world doesn’t waste energy, accumulate a large amount of toxins or produce more materials than it uses” (Bluestein, 2006).
But is seems that Weissburg, like many of his evolutionary colleagues, has missed the implication that follows from his line of work. If brilliant scientists spend decades of their lives attempting to identify and mimic superior design found in the natural world, then a conscious intellect—the Designer of nature—must maintain a superior intellect than the scientists who are attempting to mimic His systems.
Ironically, the very last sentence of Bluestein’s article is a quote from Weissburg saying: “Every organism is designed to solve a problem.” How can a person make such a statement and miss the fact that if every organism is “designed,” then that design demands a Designer? Weissburg is exactly right, every organism was designed to solve a problem. One of the main purposes for the intricate, complex organisms Weissburg and his fellow scientists are studying is to prove to such men that a superior Intellect does exist. All those who fail to make the proper connection between the magnificent world of nature and the Designer’s hand in the process will ultimately be “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

REFERENCE

Bluestein, Greg (2006), “Scientists Taking Cues From Nature,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_hi_te/nurturing_nature;_ylt= AtCpSxfCdFaFLwCMytY1XoGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-.

From Mark Copeland... Lessons From Antioch (Acts 11:19-30)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                   Lessons From Antioch (11:19-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. A wonderful example in New Testament times was the church in Antioch
   of Syria...
   b. Begun by disciples who had been in Jerusalem - Ac 11:19-21
   c. Where disciples of Christ were first called "Christians" - Ac 11:26

2. The church in Antioch of Syria would later...
   a. Serve as Paul's starting point for his three missionary journeys 
      - Ac 13:1-3
   b. Send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to resolve the issue of
      circumcision - Ac 15:1-2

[In our text for this lesson (Ac 11:19-30), we can glean from the church
in Antioch of Syria several things that are worthy of emulation.  Let's
start with...]

I. HOW TO START A CHURCH

   A. CHURCHES CAN BEGIN IN VARIOUS WAYS...
      1. Paul started many churches through his missionary journeys -
         e.g., Ac 14:21
      2. Others start when a person or family moves to an area where 
         there is no church
      3. Sadly, today many churches begin as a result of division

   B. CHURCHES START BEST WHEN CHRISTIANS "SWARM"...
      1. Like bees swarming from one hive to begin another
      2. The church in Antioch began when disciples came from Jerusalem
         - Ac 11:19-20
      3. Today, "church plantings" most often succeed when several
         families begin a new work

[What is often needed to for more churches are not just more preachers,
but more families willing to be the nucleus of a new work, whether
locally or abroad.  From the church at Antioch, we can also learn...]

II. HOW TO BE A STRONG CHURCH

   A. MANY CHURCHES HAVE MEMBERS WHO PROFESS FAITH...
      1. They may love to assemble and express their faith in praise
      2. They may even confess their faith to friends and neighbors
      3. But sometimes their faith is not accompanied with true 
         repentance

   B. ANTIOCH WAS COMPOSED OF PENITENT BELIEVERS...
      1. They "believed and turned to the Lord" - Ac 11:21 
      2. They turned from sin, and turned to the Lord (an indication of 
         true repentance)
      3. More than mere confessors, they were true converts - e.g., 2Co 7:10-11

[A church made up of penitent believers who became such through "godly
sorrow" will be a strong, vibrant church.  From the church at Antioch,
we can learn...]

III. HOW TO BE A GROWING CHURCH

   A. BY PREACHING THE LORD JESUS...
      1. They were "preaching the Lord Jesus" - Ac 11:20
      2. Today, some preach the "church", almost to the exclusion of
         preaching "Christ"!
         a. Consider much of the evangelistic tools we sometimes use:
            1) Which stress "undenominational Christianity"
            2) Or focus on the "NT pattern for the church"
         b. What can be the result of such preaching?
            1) People may be converted to the idea of the church, rather
               than to the Lord Jesus!
            2) Extent of faithfulness may be limited to church related 
               activities (e.g., attendance)
      3. We need to be sure that we preach the Lord Jesus!
         a. In other words, proclaiming that Jesus is Lord - cf. Mt 28:18; Ac 2:36; 10:36
         b. The result of preaching Jesus as Lord?
            1) They will be faithful disciples in all things that Jesus
               taught - Mt 28:19-20
            2) People will then be converted to Christ, as well as to
               His church!

   B. WITH THE HAND OF THE LORD...
      1. At Antioch, "the hand of the Lord was with them" - Ac 11:21
      2. Without Divine help, we can never have the right kind of growth
         a. It is God who opens doors of opportunity - Col 4:3
         b. It is God who gives the increase - 1Co 3:5-7
      3. With God's help, we should expect growth
         a. That is the nature of the kingdom - Mt 13:31-33
         b. Where there is little or no growth, something is amiss!

   C. WITH THE AID OF TEACHERS...
      1. Like Barnabas, who encouraged them by word and example - Ac 11:22-24
      2. Like Saul, who together with Barnabas taught a great many
         people - Ac 11:25-26

[Preach Jesus as Lord, pray for God's helping hand, utilize those able
to teach, and a church will grow!  Finally, we learn from the church at
Antioch, when faced with an impending crisis...]

IV. HOW TO BE A GENEROUS CHURCH

   A. ACCORDING TO ABILITY...
      1. The prophet Agabus foretold of a famine to come upon the world
         - Ac 11:27-28
      2. The disciples gave according to their ability - Ac 11:29
      3. Which is all that God asks of any congregation - 1Co 16:2; 2Co 8:12-14

   B. WITH DETERMINATION... 
      1. To send relief to the brethren in Judea - Ac 11:29
      2. To send via trusted messengers (Barnabas and Saul) - Ac 11:30;
         cf. 1Co 16:3

CONCLUSION

1. The church at Antioch was where disciples of Christ were first called
   Christians - Ac 11:26; cf. Ac 26:28; 1Pe 4:16

2. For reasons we have considered, they are certainly worthy of our
   imitation! - cf. Php 3:17

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012