Christianity

•

Message to the Sick; Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II gave his “Message to the Sick” in 1999, in Mexico.  Diagnosed in 1996 with Parkinson’s disease, he did not write words of mere platitudes, he wrote with real meaning in his life.  He would have had a taste of the progression of his own illness and the words were borne out of his own painful experience.

The pope’s questions, “Why do we suffer?  For what purpose do we suffer?  Is there any meaning in human suffering?  Can physical or moral suffering be a positive experience?” were not rhetorical for him…he asked real questions and they had real meaning in his life.

This man, the most visible religious figure on the planet, did not  hide from life or to live a life of complaint…his suffering pointed him to the basis of his faith – Christ, who died for the sins of the world, was now with His servant who suffered.

Each person who suffers, whether physical pain, or emotional or mental, has the opportunity to use their suffering in positive ways, or to wallow in negativity.  The pope chose the positive, ever pointing to the source of his hope.

A man, dying of cancer, had spent years turning away from God.  He found hope in the Psalms of David and turned to Christ in the last days of his life.  When he wrote his own funeral, it pointed others to the source of his hope.  After that funeral, his widow found comfort in the message that her brother, who had also spent years in rebellion, had returned to the church because of the way her husband’s suffering had pointed to Christ.

That widow looks back at life, seeing years of infertility, the losses of pregnancies and the pain of her premature child…she finds comfort in the knowledge that beyond the grave, there is peace and fullness of life.  She understands now that she would not have the strength and compassion if she had not felt the suffering in her life.

Pope John Paul had a greater understanding than most people – when we suffer, we partake in the sufferings of Christ.  He died in April, 2005 – 12 years after his diagnosis.  He spent those years pointing others to the source of his hope.

It is in this pointing to Christ that we find meaning of pain and suffering in our human existence.

With these thoughts, I have wanted to arouse in each one of you the feelings which will lead you to live your current trials with supernatural sense; discovering in them an occasion to see God in the midst of darkness and doubt; and to gaze at the broad horizons which are visible from atop the crosses of our everyday lives – Pope John Paul II, January 24, 1999

• 1 Comment

•

Discuss whether you see a way around exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism that might still keep integrity of each particular religion in place. Discuss how religious language might or might not play a role in your conclusion.

Exclusivism (the doctrine that only one religion is “true”) is the foundation of many religions.  If Scripture is correct, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”  Whatever a person believes passionately will come out of his or her mouth.  People who believe that their belief system has the only means to salvation; if they believe that souls depend on the truth of that system, that belief will be shared with others. They can fully respect the dignity of other people, and understand the depth of the beliefs of others; they want to share the truth so that all will come to salvation.  One can “witness” or “evangelize” by simply stating one’s belief, while allowing others to share their own beliefs in the same way.

Inclusivism may be compatible with exclusivism, in that (in Christianity, for example) inclusivism maintains that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation, but salvation (through Christ) can be obtained without a specific belief in Christ for salvation, but through the “general revelation” of nature. People who embrace inclusivism have an understanding that people who have never heard the gospel of Christ, may (through general revelation) may come to a saving faith without ever hearing of Christ).

Pluralism maintains that all religions are equally valid and that any religion may bring a person to salvation.  This cannot be compatible with exclusivism (within a person) but may coincide with inclusivism.  Once cannot simultaneously believe that there is only one means of salvation and believe that there are many ways to salvation.

Within a group of people, discussions can take place that allow sharing and debates of beliefs.  These discussions can get passionate and even heated at times, and they depend on the ability of others to present their convictions and listen to other people and maintain respect and civility for the other people, even if they do not respect the other religion.  If respect and civility are not present, the “doctrine of ‘just shut up’” might come into play.

...continue reading →

•

On Free Will and the Sovereignty of God

1. Explain the difference between a libertarian and a compatibilist conception of free will.

My study of compatibilism, will, free will and libertarian free will goes deeper than the readings from the textbook…and I believe that how a person defines these terms (and how that person feels about those definitions) affects how he or she views the sovereignty of God.

...continue reading →

•

One of my professors is deaf; she became deaf at such a young age that she doesn't remember every being able to hear.  For her, being deaf is not a handicap, since she doesn't know what "hearing" is.  For her, not having a sense of hearing is "normal".

I have the feeling that it's that way in many churches today.  If the gospel (first importance) is not preached from the pulpit often enough so that it's missed when it isn't there...the flock doesn't miss it...can't have the realization that they are hungry for it, since they don't know what they're hungry for!

• 2 Comments

•

If I were to move denominations, it would be nice if I could find one (other than LCMS) that was more liturgical.

I like the idea of following the church calendar.  Today I listened to a podcast that talked about "Ember Days", which I had never heard of before.

Ember days are four different sets of 3 days of fasting (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday) throughout the liturgical year.

Fasting (in its pure form) is meant to sharpen the spirit and prepare for repentance and spiritual rejuvenation.  It readies our mind for prayer and helps to focus on that prayer.

I am drawn to the liturgical calendar, and will most likely keep track of some of these days, with the intent of honoring a few of them.

•

As I listened to Issues Etc. on closed communion, I heard the message come through loud and clear...we must be in lockstep on the smallest of doctrines, or you are a false teacher.

The speaker also added that the reason for closed communion is that those who do not believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the elements are not able to "discern the body" - Lutherans defining "the body" as the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the communion elements, other Protestants defining "the body" as being able to discern whether or not the "self"/person partaking of the supper is a part of the body of Christ (the church).

I cannot see that. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves, it does not tell the church leadership to examine the flock.

The "selfish" reason I cannot see it is that I will not belong to a congregation that would deny my parents access to the meal that Christ gave us, because they are not in total agreement on doctrine.

•

Had No Rights

He had no rights
No right to a soft bed, and a well-laid table.
No right to a home of His own, a place where His own pleasure might be sought.
No right to choose pleasant, congenial companions,  those who could understand Him and sympathize with Him.
No right to shrink away from filth and sin, to pull His garments closer around Him and turn aside to walk in cleaner paths.
No right to be understood and appreciated; no, not by those upon whom He had poured out a double portion of His love.
No right even never to be forsaken by His Father, the One who meant more than all to Him.

His only right was silently to endure shame, spitting, blows; to take His place as a sinner at the dock; to bear my sins in anguish on the cross.

He had no rights. And I?
A right to the “comforts” of life? No, but a right to the love of God for my pillow.
A right to physical safety? No, but a right to the security of being in His will.
A right to love and sympathy from those around me? No, but a right to the friendship of the One who understands me better than I do myself.
A right to be a leader among men? No, but the right to be led by the One to whom I have given my all, led as is a little child, with its hand in the hand of its father.
A right to a home, and dear ones? No, not necessarily, but a right to dwell in the heart of God.
A right to myself? No, but oh, I have a right to Christ.

All that He takes I will give. All that He gives I will take.
He, my only right! He, the one right before which all other rights fade into nothingness.
I have full right to Him.
Oh, may He have full right to me!