Monthly Archives: April 2014

•

Next in the "More than 100 things every religious liberal should know"

The “Four Vedas” are sort of like the holy books of Hinduism…only more like an “order of worship” or “common book of prayer.”  Like Christianity, Hinduism has sects (denominations, as a parallel) and like Christianity, the Vedas are considered by different sects has having different levels of authority.

The Sanskrit word “veda” means “knowledge” or “to know” – like our Bible, the Vedas contain the knowledge needed to follow that religion.  Each “Veda” contains a different type of knowledge.

“Rigveda” – “praise or verse” + “knowledge.”  Some of the verses have been recited in worship since they were written, and are still being used today, making it one of the longest running religious texts in history (although not the oldest.)  Unlike Christianity, these Hindu texts are dedicated to various deities, each reflecting the beliefs of what that god has done and how Hindus honor that particular god.

“Yajurveda” – “sacrificial formula” + “knowledge.”  These writings are the “liturgy” or mantras used during sacrificial rituals.

“Samaveda”– “melody” + “knowledge” are the hymns that are sung.  Half (75) are from the Rigveda, the other half are specifically to be sung by priests in rituals were the juice of the soma plant (along with other ingredients) is offered to various deities.

The last Veda, Atharvaveda, is a combination of writings.  Spells and magic, hymns and poetry, rules and regulations.  This work includes healing (physical and spiritual, including diseases via demon possession,) writings on the nature of the universe and humanity, "household codes" (rules for running a smooth home,) marriage and funeral rituals, and more.  This seems to be the "how then shall we live" book of Hinduism.

I'm learning that all religions have a few things in common, yet all are different, and they cannot all be "true."

C.S.Lewis said (paraphrased) - all truth is God's truth.  We should be able to see what is right with other religions, and reject what is wrong with them, in order to embrace our own.

•
★★★★★★

I finished "Fierce Women" (by Kimberly Wagner) this past week and was really encouraged to learn from my own past behavior (in my first marriage.)  When a marriage breaks down, there is rarely an "innocent" party - even if it's a bad reaction to a bad situation.

Women (welcome to the human race) have an insecurity (as most human beings) and feel a need to be in control.

Written from a Complementarian viewpoint, Wagner writes from the painful spot of a woman who has been there, done that - and who, as a couple, brought their marriage from a painful union, to a joyful communion.

Teaching that women have a different role in a marriage than their husbands have, the point of the book is to help women recognize that role, how to step out of trying to fill their husband's shoes, and how to gracefully and joyfully submit to the will of God in marriage.

Whether or not you realize it, you are in a battle, and God has placed strengths within you to be used in powerful ways. When you enter the marriage relationship, you are entering the sacred metaphor God designed to explain Himself to a watching world. Marriage is the great mystery, the glorious platform God created to display His love relationship with His bride. This is why marriage is a flashpoint for Satan’s attacks; he seeks to destroy the beauty and effectiveness of God’s model. In light of this, we must strive for the Great Story to be lived out in our marriages.

I hope as you read, you will take moments to pause, ponder, and pray. May you encounter the Lord of Battles within these pages and receive insight and instruction for serving Him as a soft warrior—the Fierce Woman who is empowered by the Spirit and softened by His grace.(1)

Wagner uses examples from her own life, as well as examples from women that she knows or has known, to show how women can use their strength to either help or hurt their marriages.

Being a Complementarian does not exclude a woman to having a pastoral tone to other women, and Wagner excels.  Her "I've done this, don't follow me down that path" plea a wonderful tone to a world of women who are at once frustrated with the state of their marriage, and frustrated with the way they are dealing with it.

With these women as her audience, Wagner is uniquely qualified because she HAS been there.

My "book review template" asks at this point: What does the book promise? What is the problem the book promises to solve?

In the author's words:

I hope as you read, you will take moments to pause, ponder, and pray. May you encounter the Lord of Battles within these pages and receive insight and instruction for serving Him as a soft warrior—the Fierce Woman who is empowered by the Spirit and softened by His grace.(2)
.

And yes, the book delivers.

As a woman who will be entering a marriage covenant in a few months, with Christ at the center, and Complementarianism as the framework, "Fierce Women" is a playbook of how to relate to your husband in a way that is fitting for a woman who loves Christ.

What does "respect" look like?  Submission?  Do I need to be a "doormat?"

This matters because Satan wants nothing more than to strike at the soul of marriage.  If marriage reflects Christ and His bride, turning those roles upside down in a marriage leaves us with a distorted view of Christ and His church.  How should the church submit to Christ - wives should be able to reflect that.

I really like this book.  I printed out a couple of things and put them in my planner.  If you have a power struggle in your marriage and want to be part of the solution, read this book.

If you want to be a Biblically submissive wife, read this book.

If you want to build your husband up, instead of tearing him down, read this book.

I've read a lot of books on how to be a submissive wife.  This book is, at the end of the day, not how to make yourself more submissive, but how to build your husband up, to better help him to be the husband God wants him to be.

~~~

(1)Wagner, Kimberly (2012-08-24). Fierce Women: The Power of a Soft Warrior (True Woman) (pp. 10-12). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

(2)Wagner, Kimberly (2012-08-24). Fierce Women: The Power of a Soft Warrior (True Woman) (p. 12). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

• 1 Comment

•

It's been a couple of weeks (TWO trips to California - one northern, one southern)

From Good Friday - Ordinary Pastor -

How would you like to be a liberal “preacher” tomorrow? Some of these guys will moralize, emotionalize, sensationalize, or trivialize the work of Christ. They gloss over the wrath, sacrifice, blood, sin and guilt. Instead the focus is on us and the hopefulness of humanity.

~~~

Well, here's one of my own!  I highlighted this in my Kindle book, "Fierce Women."

“It was as if they were not making marriage, but being made by it, and, while it held them, time and their lives flowed over them, like swift water over stones, rubbing them together, grinding off their edges, making them fit together, fit to be together, in the only way that fragments can be rejoined.” —WENDELL BARRY1

~~~

This is timely for me, from Resurgence

7 Prayers for Jesus' Church -

Jesus has been building his church, is building his church, and will continue to build his church (Matt. 16:18) until he returns in glory to redeem his bride. And absolutely nothing and no one can get in his way.

~~~

Why I Will Keep Talking About Biblical Womanhood -

2 excellent takeways:

Because as long as the culture feeds us an image of women that is contrary to God’s word, I will keep talking about biblical womanhood.

and

Because at the end of the day it’s not about biblical womanhood at all. It is about the authority of God’s word. Do we believe it to be true? Do we believe God has really spoken and we can take him at his word? Or do we need a new interpretation or a new vision for a new day?

~~~

Friday I linked to a blog post by Karen Campbell on "Patriarchy on Trial" - which included

At one time I can remember reading articles from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that were edifying; now their website is a scary place if you are a woman.

Scary.

I read Manhood Marred: Is Male Supremacy Biblical?

Unfortunately, all too many Christian men act or behave in a male chauvinistic fashion. Some would even go so far as to say that the bible speaks to the supremacy of the male gender. This, of course, requires scriptural ignorance or an intentional twisting of biblical manhood from a position of self-sacrificial authority into a mechanism for the diminishing of women and the magnification of men. Frankly, the Lord has not instituted a gender bias. Using scripture to justify a sense of male supremacy is exploiting or confusing position for power.

Is that so scary?

~~~

Long, but useful - Al Mohler's "God and the Gay Christian?"It's a PDF, and it's easier for you all just to read it.~~~Rethinking Spiritual Growth -

For me, the elusiveness of measuring spiritual growth occurs because the focus has always been on the individual Christian in the individual church. It’s a bedrock principle that what we’re measuring is how a lone Christian in a lone Church grows.

But I wonder if we’re getting this all wrong from the first step.

~~~

 

•

Ponderings courtesy of C. Michael Patton.

Double Imputation means that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

imputed: To pass into one's account.  I can think I have $10,000 in my account, but until it's imputed to my account, it's in my imagination.

If the doctrine of "Double Imputation" meant that my sin is imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to me, I'd be good.

But "Double Imputation" means that Christ's righteousness is imputed to me...and so is the sin of Adam.

I am not only guilty of my sin...I'm "accounted guilty" for eating the fruit in the garden.

I know a person who looks at a certain doctrine and "just can't believe that." and I'm in the same boat here.  I try to "get it" and just can't.

I'm going to cite Patten's article, and respond with my thoughts...

Most particularly, the doctrine of imputation is being questioned. This is quit understandable.

It's important to MY thoughts that I make the distinction that it's not "imputation" - it's "DOUBLE imputation I struggle with.

Perhaps John Calvin defines Original Sin most concisely as “The deprivation of a nature formerly good and pure.” More specifically, from a Reformed Evangelical perspective, it refers to the fall of humanity from its original state of innocence and purity to a state of corruption and guilt (distinguished later). It is the cause of man’s translation from a state of unbroken communion before God to one of spiritual death and condemnation.

I'm in full agreement.  Because of Adam, sin entered into the world and we are all sinners - in our own right.  We are sinners, and it's because of our nature that we inherited from Adam.

We inherit the nature, not the sin.

Patten refers to Romans 5:18 and says

Romans 5:18 states that the transgression of Adam resulted in our condemnation. So then, we are not only destined to die physically because of Adam’s sin, but we are also condemned to eternal death.

But he doesn't quote it, or verse 19.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessleads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

The "for" at the beginning is there for a reason.

Because of Adam's sin we were MADE SINNERS - it doesn't say we were made guilty of Adam's sin.

At the end of the day, I just don't see it.

We inherit the nature, not the sin.  Maybe someday I'll be able to buy into the doctrine.  But not this day.

•

Karen Campbell linked to one of my posts twice (same article, two different places.)

 

What I find interesting is that Campbell freely states that

The first point I want to make today is that I see the most common views of men and women within the body of Christ in more recent times as being on a continuum.

So...putting thoughts, beliefs, actions on a continuum is an okay thing.

But when Grudem does it...(the article I posted by Grudem came as a result of people asking what he believes women can do in the church.)

Grudem puts positions on a...continuum...and describes where he believes the line is.

Campbell describes that as:

That discussion has shifted to listing all the things women cannot do outside of working in the nursery and putting on potlucks.

Obviously that statement "overlooks" the many, many articles at CBMW that discuss many, many other things.

It also creates a double standard:

When Campbell puts things on a continuum and describes where the line should be:  good

When Grudem puts things on a continuum and describes where the line should be:  bad.

"one set of rules for them...another for everybody else."

•

“When we think of Christ dying on the cross we are shown the lengths to which God’s love goes in order to win us back to himself. We would almost think that God loved us more than he loves his Son! We cannot measure such love by any other standard. He is saying to us: I love you this much.

The cross is the heart of the gospel. It makes the gospel good news: Christ died for us. He has stood in our place before God’s judgment seat. He has borne our sins. God has done something on the cross which we could never do for ourselves. But God does something to us as well as for us through the cross. He persuades us that he loves us.”

~Sinclair Ferguson

•

Palm Sunday...

By tradition, churches celebrate this day by having the children parade up the aisles of the church carrying palm branches, symbolizing the palms that the people laid before the donkey that Jesus rode into Jerusalem, on that day that began His last week on earth.

Also, by tradition, churches dry those branches, and burn them to ashes and save them all year, so that on "Ash Wednesday" the pastor/priest/man of the cloth can use them to trace the sign of the cross on the foreheads or hands of worshippers.

I've never done that - worn the sign of the cross, in ashes, on my forehead for the world to see. It's not that I'm shy about wearing a cross, either around my neck, or on my shoulder as a tattoo.

I don't know why.

The churches I've attended have been far out of the way from where I've worked, so it would have seemed easy to write off getting there before my early work time. Too inconvenient.

For a time, resisting "tradition" or the church calendar in such things felt too "traditional" or even "Catholic" so shying away for that reason could have been justified.

But at the end, I could have stopped at a church nearby work. I could have embraced history.

I think that the idea of the question...all...day...long..."why did you do that?" and "what is that for?" or "what does that mean?" felt too risky.

I love the Church calendar now. God created seasons, and changes, and the yearly rhythm. The church calendar embraces that rhythm and reminds us of the changing seasons. Each Holy Day reminds us of our redemptive history.

Anyway...this should have been written on Ash Wednesday...and this post should have been about Palm Sunday.

But that's not what went through my brain. Regret at not having the courage to wear ashes on the first day of Lent...

•

20140412-093404.jpg

As I sat at a picnic table, one of my favorite places to stretch after a walk, and I heard a rustling in the trees behind me. Always aware that wild pigs hang out in this park, I always check those rustling sounds. I've never seen a pig, but lots of deer, and Phil and I saw a bobcat once. This time it was a wild turkey.

Anyway, I noticed the grass. The deer and other grass eaters that live here like the meadow areas, and this one has trees around for shelter from human (and predator) eyes.

See in the photo, the clear line of shade and sun...and how the grass stays short and a little sparse in the shade, but grows with wild abandon in the light.

The grass grows best where the sun shines most.

I had read in "Everyday Prayers" how we should start each day with the gospel, letting the Holy Spirit minister grace to us each day. Then came to mind "justification." - the moment we are declared righteous by the blood of Christ, to become the righteousness of God. The grass is planted.

Tullian Tchividian says (roughly) that our sanctification is being pointed back to our justification. Partly, but I think that's only part of the story. We use our justification as motivation for our sanctification.

I believe in a monergistic justification, but Scripture does speak of working out (not for) our salvation. It speaks of the works that are prepared for us in advance, it speaks of studying, of becoming more like Christ.

This is sanctification.

We will fail; we will sin. We should (and must) remain secure in the knowledge of our justification. This, the gospel, should stay in our minds each and every day.

We should have more than living in the past set in our sights. We are rooted in the past, our justification. Our justification - being found in Christ - causes our sanctification.

I believe in a synergistic sanctification. Growing in Christ takes our work - powered by the Holy Spirit, granted by God, grown by Christ.

Christians grow best where the SON shines most.

Only when we continually bask in the love of the Saviour, and yes, pointing ourselves back to our justification, only when we bring ourselves out of the shadows of our sin, only when we walk in His light, and His Word, do we have the basis for the works that He has prepared for us.

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:5-7 ESV)

•

It strikes me as I sit at the end of a (nearly) four mile hike that my "diet walk" bears certain similarities to my spiritual walk.

This may ring a familiar tune: "Dear God, if you just grant {this,} then I will...{that.}

If I can {this} then I can {that}

If I do the Rotary Furnace loop in 1:30 or less, than I can sit and enjoy a smoke at the end. (by the way, I did the loop in 1:25, and yes, I'm enjoying a Partagas 1845.)

If mapmywalk says I burned 400 calories, I can eat 2 Cadbury Cream Eggs.

Some days it seems like a reward system, other days it seems like a bargaining system.

Maybe the reward system works: As long as the "treat" doesn't impinge on my "bad foods" list (gluten, potatoes) maybe the system works. As a bargaining system, I think...not so much.

Does the mindset make a difference?

If I use {that} as a reward because I did so awesome on my workout (tomorrow's plan is an 8 mile, Quicksilver end-to-end hike) then my goal is still the workout, with the treat at the end.

Turn that around...I want {that} so much, that I'm willing to do the difficult workout in order to get it. The goal is the treat, with the workout as the obstacle. The {that} is controlling my behavior.

"All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “ All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything" (1 Cor. 6:12 ESV)

I don't know how to tell the difference. I might need to work on that.

•

Ah...the wedding ring. Many of our traditions concerning this symbol and token began in ancient Egypt.

The ring is a circle - the symbol of eternity. Never ending, always moving. The shape of things far away...the sun and the moon.

But it's not just the "ring," the hole in the center where your finger goes carries the symbolism of a gateway. Your finger going through that ring symbolizes an entrance to a new life, changes, opportunities and sorrows, known and unknown - but together.

Even the finger symbolized love. The Egyptians believed that the vein in the third finger on the left hand flowed directly from the heart. The Romans adopted this, calling that vein the "vena amoris" - the vein of love.

The first people who wore wedding rings made them out of hemp or some other kind of fiber...so the love might have been eternal...the ring, not so much.

Later, people used bone, onyx, or other easily carved stone. It was not until coinage became easily "mintable", that metal rings became more common.

(Note: when silver was popular during the renaissance in Italy, engagement (or betrothal) rings also became popular. The wedding ring was added to the engagement ring; the engagement ring was made of silver and replaced with an identical (gold) ring during the wedding ceremony.)

For a time, in Ireland, people considered it bad luck for a wedding ring to be made from anything other than gold (the poor, prohibited by cost from wearing gold, would have considered themselves prohibited by superstition from wearing anything but gold -- stayed ring-less?). The Church of England put a stop to that, teaching that the material didn't matter, as long as a ring was present.

Contrast that with the Puritans, who believed that any jewelry, including a wedding ring was both vanity and pagan, hardening back to the Egyptian root on the practice, and banned the wearing of wedding rings. This practice stuck: an old friend of mine told that her parents had been brought up in a Pilgrim Holiness church. They were a scandal, since her mom wore a wedding ring.

Millennia later, the wedding ring remains a symbol of love and eternity; so much that the exchange of rings is part of most wedding vows

With this ring, I thee wed...