Monthly Archives: January 2006

• 2 Comments

•

It's official...I cannot write a one-page paper. At least I don't have any sense of "completion".

The assignment: Did the Buddha establish a new religion? Why or why not? The papers (10 in a semester) are to be no more than one page and are not graded - you either turn them in and get full credit or you don't.

Here is mine:

The answer is no…and yes. The Buddha did not…and did…institute a new religion. It all depends on what definition of “religion” you use. Even Buddhists say that Buddhism can be either a religion or a philosophy: “We believe that for those who observe and follow the ceremonies of Buddhism, then it is a religion. For those who observe and follow the morality of Buddhism, then it is a philosophy of life”. http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com/buddhist.htm#FAQ00001

The first definition of “religion” is: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe” (http://dictionary.com). Using this definition, the Buddha did not institute a new religion since the Buddha did not teach about a supernatural power. Buddhism is about ceremony and morality, not about worshipping the Creator. The end of life brings “nirvana” (“extinction” – the soteriological goal of Buddhism; the final cessation of rebirth into suffering existence.”; http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Glossary.htm), not eternity in the presence of the Creator.

The other main definitions of “religion” are: “A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader” and “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” Using these definitions, the Buddha did institute a new religion, since he was a spiritual leader who taught beliefs, values and practices with zeal and conscientious devotion. However, since these beliefs and values can be applied to most world religions, it is hard to promote Buddhism as “the way”.

In short, depending on what definitions you prefer and how you use Buddhist teachings, Buddhism can be a philosophy, a religion or both.

• 4 Comments

•

Yes, I know that McLaren and Driscoll are on "Out of Ur" but that's not what I'm writing about.

I firmly believe that homosexualty actions are wrong - sin. Of course, so are a lot of other things that are right out in the open at church. How homosexuals should be treated should very much depend on whether or not they are in the church (professing Christians).

Wherever they are at, whatever they are doing, our motive should be love.

But on to the real topic.
...and my struggle with gentleness...I'm going to be writing a letter to the editor and need to focus on gentleness and respect. My first letter "went away" when somebody rebooted the computer before I saved it and I think God's hand was in that.

I got my February copy of "The Banner" and read a couple of things that kind of mystified me.

The First Christian Reformed Church in Toronto, Ontario announced three years ago that it would allow its members living in committed gay and lesbian relationships to be nominated as elders and deacons.

In December 2005, after being on the brink of being disaffiliated, "The Council of First Christian Reformed Church, Toronto...resolved[s] to acknowledge the CRC guidelines with respect to homosexuality and agrees to tailor its ministry accordingly."

So far so good. Next up: First CRC plans ask the synod to revisit the CRC's position on homosexuality. So, they're going to go through the normal channels to get gays and lesbians into the formal leadership of their church. (Here's where I start to lose the "gentleness" thing.

I'm not mystified by this; I'm glad that the denomination's structure brought enough pressure to bring the church into line. The structure did its job.

What mystifies me is another article on "General and Special Revelation in Conversation" by Dr. Donald Oppewal at Calvin College (words from the article in blue. Special revelation is the Bible and general revelation is:
- an embodiment of the divine thought in the phenomona of nature;
- the general composition of the human mind and
- the facts of experience or history.

Oppewal maintains that special revelation alone is inadequate; the two sources are interdependent and...that general revelation promotes a proper understanding of special revelation."

(This is where I really start to lose my gentleness - not with sinners, but with the denomination)

Oppewal's final paragraph reads: "The Spirit moves most surely among us when Christians read the "facts of experience or history" as well as when we read the Bible. Christian thinkers in the vaeious disciplines, including theology, can give us counsel as we try to walk together toward that day when we shall all see more clearly the will of God for our communal lives, both in church and in society."

(Here's where I have to work to stay focused on gentleness)

Apply that final paragraph to Oppewal's final point.

"It remains to be seen how the question of homosexuality as a lifestyle comports with a Christian view of sexuality. But we can hope that the church will examine the evidence from general revelation just as seriously as it does the evidence from special revelation.

"Without also considering the evidence from biology concerning how sexuality is shaped, and without turning to the actual sociological evidence about same-sex relations, we'll end up doing only half our homework as Reformed Christians."

What Oppewal appears to be saying is that we have to look at God's Word through the lens of "sociological evidence" - not the other way around.

My desire is (with gentleness and respect) state clearly that we should be looking at the world through God's lens - not looking at God's Word through the lens of the world.

•

Let's see...

Thanks to all the readers that stopped by!

Now for "life's tidbits"

I have to get a new copy of "Paedofaith" - I gave mine to my pastor. He tells me that there are compelling reasons to invite small children who have been baptized into covenant families to the table of God.

Our professor was out sick today - so no test (way cool). This means I can watch the show that I shouldn't watch, but like anyway...CSI.

A package arrived - a memory card reader from my dear friend. The camera and card will arrive tomorrow!

My February copy of "The Banner" arrived today. Page 36: "General and Special Revelation in Conversation."

My son can play "Happy Birthday" on his new Manolin. This is significant because my dad turned 71 yesterday and Tom played for him.

My other class has a writing assignment: "Do you believe that the Bhudda started a new religion? Why or why not?" These writing assignments (weekly) are going to be hard for me - because there is a one-page limit. Double spaced.

I'm a couple of days behind on my Bible reading. My sleep cycle gets messed up very easily and it got messed up a couple of days ago. I'm not as far behind as my sidebar says - I just haven't updated my sidebar.

Right now, I'm heading to my room - with a writing tablet (philosophy assignment and grocery list), my "Banner" and a beer.

Last - I tried a new beer - "Bar Harbor Blueberry Ale" - not my favorite; I'll stick to my "Young's Double Chocolate Stout" or Guiness Extra Stout.

😉 Ellen

• 6 Comments

•

The meeting went very well. There are still some concerns on my part, but I'm content with the general direction the church is headed.

I asked if I were the only one who had brought forward concerns - the answer is no, there were a lot of concerns brought up in small groups that Sunday and they were addressed in church the week that we were out of town.

I asked the pastor if he had looked at the Firehouse Family Ministries website and he told me that he didn't even know they had a website. I explained what I had found and gave him a printout of my post from here. Ok...

He also told me that our church did not know, when the work team headed for New Orleans, who they would be helping. The context of the work team was that they were working through another evangelical disater relief organization. The "hookup" with Firehouse was not planned ahead of time.

He could somewhat anticipate my questions because of all the concerns brought up by others.

No, we are not "going all Pentecostal"
No, we are not going "word faith"
No, we are not going "Five fold ministry"

Parts of the service were not expected - the Shelton's had come to give a "thank you" message.

Yes, the pastors are, at their core, very reformed (I ate dinner at the "all church supper" with Pastor Brian with a couple who is new to the church - they decided that there were things in Roman Catholic teaching that are not in the Bible so they left that religion - and we talked about "election" for about 45 minutes)

We went over what I discovered by just poking around and he agrees with what I found, other than his take on "language barriers" - sometimes the words that we use "sound like" what other people are using, but we don't mean the same thing. Yeah. Then don't use the words that have been co-opted by heretics.

There are big plans for our church and they are definitely talking about a singles ministry! Brian asked me what I thought would be the best route to take - a ministry that targets specific needs, or a general social group? I told him, why not both? with our small group system in place, a single person could have their social needs met, while addressing specific needs in a small group setting that targets their circumstance.

Anyway, there were a couple of other things (minor) that we talked about and I left feeling pretty good about the whole thing.

😉

•

I'm going to post a "Carnival Reminder" and then for the next few days (at least) my time blogging will be devoted (unless something really major comes up) to the events at my church.

My heart is hurting and I don't know what is going to happen. I meet with one of my pastors tomorrow afternoon and I don't expect that I will be effectual. I do know that God's will will be done.

There will be a new post on MzEllenWrites (a writing assignment for my Tuesday night class), but other than that, this blog will be devoted to Sunshine news.

thanks all - I covet your prayers and support.

• 2 Comments

•

What do you all think of this quote?

“People of prayer like Daniel are those that are pursuing intimacy with God – Intimacy that is possible through Jesus Christ and only through a yielding to the Holy Spirit. What comes out of this intimacy is a trust in the authorities that God puts in our lives. Sometimes these authorities act and talk in ways that don't represent us, yet to trust God is to submit to their leadership.

If you rebel against this prayer thought…ask God about it, he put the authorities in place.”

• 2 Comments

•

I'll be meeting with my pastor (and his wife) on Wednesday at 5:00 (eastern). I'd sure appreciate prayers. This pastor's wife is the one that the "prophet" "imparted" the gift of prophecy to.

- that my personality would disappear and that anything that is not of God remain unsaid.
- that only God's Word would be used
- that only God would be glorified
- that I would remain unflustered and calm so that God can work in me and through me.

I'm working on "talking points" and a paper to leave with him.

Please feel free to tell a bit of the story and pass the word. I don't feel worried or concerned - but I am working on being prepped.

thanks...

• 2 Comments

•

I’ve been pondering the final message of the book “Paedofaith” by Rich Lusk.

Two songs come to mind: “Faith of Our Fathers” and “Jesus Loves Me” (see the bottom of the post).

In an Arminian church, a parent “knows” that their children are “born saved” – because of the “age of accountability” – and at some point they lose that coverage and are as lost as the pagan’s kids next door. Parents are in the position of raising children to be young Christians, while simultaneously trying to get them to become young Christians. Do we disciple them or convert them?

Now, with a better sense of what a “covenant family” should be, I realize that the promises of God, like His promise to Abraham, are for our children. It is right and proper for us to baptize our babies into the family of God.

But the implications of this are “interesting” if you follow the trail.

Do I believe that baptism is what saves us? No.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism says:

Q. 94. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[193] doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.[194]

Here are the questions:

What benefits of the covenant of grace does baptism allow our children to partake of?
Do we baptize our babies to welcome them into the covenant and then keep them in some sort of stasis until they are able to understand the rest?

Are our babies in the covenant or out of the covenant? Are they part of the covenant, or are they anathema?
There are two spiritual “places”. You are either anathema or you are in the covenant of God. If our children are in the covenant, do we allow them the benefits? If they are not in the covenant, on what basis can we baptize them?

How do we provide spiritual nourishment to those in the covenant?

Q. 96. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth;[197] and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.[198]

If we do not give our children this spiritual nourishment, are we sending the message that they’re part of the family, but they can’t eat at the table with us?
We (on one hand) baptize babies through the parents’ covenantal faith – but that same faith doesn’t cover the nourishment. Would we adopt a child but not let him or her eat with us?

If we believe the Bible when it says that we must have the faith of a child, how can we then say that children don’t have enough faith to eat at the same table as we do?
When I bought “Paedofaith”, I didn’t realize that it would open yet another can of worms for me. And this can of worms has been around in the Christian Reformed Church.

The final question is "Are we bringing our children fully into the covenant, or into a “halfway house” where they are “sort of in, but not all the way”?

“FAITH OF OUR FATHERS”
Frederick W. Faber

Faith of our fathers, living still,In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;O how our hearts beat high with joyWhenever we hear that glorious Word!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!We will be true to thee till death.

“JESUS LOVES ME”
Words by Anna B. WarnerMusic by Wm. B. Bradbury

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.