Christianity

•

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"

They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

John and his two followers saw Jesus.  "Look!" says John and they do.  Put yourself in the sandals of one of those followers - trying to catch up - your attention is fixed on this "Lamb".

Suddenly, He turns around and looks you in the eye.  Can you tell there's something "other worldly" about Him?  He holds your eye and draws you in.

You are hooked.

Imagine that you move closer to Jesus until you are standing face to face with Him.  You know, although you don't know how you know, that this is a turning point and that you will never be the same.

What is it like for Jesus to look at you?

What do you do when He gazes into your eyes?

When I feel Christ watching me, I am so very aware of how far I fall short.  And yet, when I look to Him, I know that I am covered.

Not because I am good, but because HE is good.

It is not my righteousness, but His.

My "goodness" only gets in the way; it is when I am aware of  my "badness" that I can fully fall on Him.

•

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"

They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour. (John 1:35-39)

Put yourself in the shoes of one of those disciples of John the Baptist.  In the middle of town, the hustle and bustle of the marketplace, John says, "look".

What do you see?  There is nothing special about the way He looks.  But you follow.

He asks, "What do you want?"

~~

What do I see in Jesus that catches my attention today?

What do I want?

I see peace in the time of turmoil.  Shelter in the storm.  A refuge and strength; an ever present help in trouble.

I am drawn to Him like a moth to the flame; I cannot help but believe.

Now more than ever, as Reformed, I understand that there is nothing in me that would make me search out Him.  The power, the sovereignty, the sacrifice all catch my attention.

That HE LOVES ME - not because of what I am, but because of who HE is.

I want...to know Him better.

• 1 Comment

•

I am not a fan of Jeanie Miley - and I'm not a fan of "meditation" (Eastern religion style).  But this book has some good points.  It's out of print now, but Amazon still has links to book sellers who have it.

The thrust of the devotionals is that we can reach out for Christ, know Him better, become more like Him - by getting into the Gospels, meditating on the Word, seeing the narratives from different points of view.

From the introduction:

An old tale from the desert fathers related by George Maloney in his book "Why Not Become Totally Fire?" tells of a disciple who went to Abba Joseph and said, "Father, according to my strength I sing a few psalms, I pray and fast a little, I meditate, and as well as I can I cleanse my thoughts  Now what more can I do?"

Abba Joseph stood up, spreading his hands toward heaven.  His fingers were like ten lamps of fire.

"If you want," Abba Joseph said, "why not become totally fire?"

Encountering Jesus through the stories in the Gospels is a way of becoming fire.

The first few devotionals are based on John 1:35-39

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"

They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

•

cAs usual, the extremes are where the problem lies.

On one hand, the link of centering prayer to the meditations of Easthern religions might be seen as a bad thing.  One another hand, even the most vile untruths may contain a kernel of something we can use.  The danger is in trying to sort it out.

A long time ago I bought a book, "Becoming Fire" by Jeanie Miley.  I disagree with a lot of what Miley teaches...but this book was very helpful to me at a critical part of my life.

Looking at definitions:

contemplate: To consider carefully and at length; meditate on or ponder: contemplated the problem from all sides; contemplated the mystery of God.

Meditate: To engage in devotional contemplation, especially prayer.

And I'm reminded of this passage

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (Phil 4:8)

Anyway...back to the book.  Miley takes several Scripture passages about the life of Christ and turns them into devotional meditations...she asks the reader to look at the passages from the viewpoints of different people within the passage; to put oneself in those shoes.

Then, read the passage...again.  and again.  And then spend 20 minutes going over the passage in your head...just you and Scripture.

Does that sound like a bad thing?

• 1 Comment

•

The "L" - "limited atonement" - AKA "definite atonement", "particular redemption".

I know what the doctrine means, but there are folks out there who can put it much more simply than I can.  From wiki:

The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.

Removing the "predestination" language, which is a debate all unto itself, we can "universalize" that definition.

Some folks define "predestined" to mean "those who God knew, from eternity, who would (in the future) believe).  That's fine...for the purpose of explaining "limited atonement", we can use "those who will believe".

If I try to simplify, what I come up with is

"Limited atonement" means that Christ's suffering and death on the cross made atonement only for those who believe."

(my brain is working at half-speed - thank you, nyquil)

If we want to define "limited atonement", we need to define "atonement".  Here we can get into a spiral:  atonement = expiation = atonement, etc...(it is here I go off on a tangent, reading Anshelm...Subsitutionary vs. Satisfaction - which for the purpose of definition doesn't seem to matter much)

I found a "definition" of "atonement" that is more of a graphic than a definition.

"atonement" = at-one-ment.  Sort of romantic, actually.

Who has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made "at one" with God?  Whose sins are paid for?

If the sins of all the people in all the world are paid for, how can God justly send anybody to hell?  They've been bought and paid for by the blood of Christ.

In the end, everybody except Universalists limit the scope of the atoning blood of Christ.

Outside of Universalism, both sides limit the effectiveness of atonement (atonement being the actual payment - either Christ being the our substitute on the cross OR Christ satisfying our debt to the Father on the cross).  In unlimited atonement, the death of Christ does not pay the penalty for the sins of the unsaved; they go to the grave still owing the debt.  In unlimited atonement, Christ is not the substitute

If atonement is limited to those who believe, then Christ's blood paid the penalty in a very effective way and it does exactly what it was meant to do:  purchase souls.

If atonement is universal (for every person who every lived), then Christ's blood effectually purchases nothing, it merely raises the possibility of salvation.

Either atonement is limited, and only the sins of some are paid for; some are saved, or atonement is unlimited, and all sins are paid for and none will go to hell.

Has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made all "at one" with the Father?   Is the scope of effectiveness of the payment limited to those who believe?

OR

Is all of mankind "at one" with the Father?  All are bought and paid for, all have been purchased and all will find eternal life?

I started this post with an eye toward 1 John 2:2.

  • Does the "whole world" mean every person who is living or who has ever lived?  Is the scope of atonement unlimited?
  • Or does "whole world" have a meaning that is pointed at "people groups" - Jews vs. the "whole world" (Gentiles).

Unless Universalism is true and all people, of all times are bought and paid for, if their sins are covered, and all will go to heaven, then atonement is limited...the question is:  who limits it.

• 1 Comment

•

I'm sitting here listening to the "noon whistle" - every first Friday of every month of the spring and summer months, the tornado siren goes off for two minutes.  "This is a test, this is only a test."  No matter where you are in the city, you can hear the siren.

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of working with a very cool student who was born in Bosnia.  (He has since passed the exam and become a US citizen...that was a wonderful day)

He remembers the air raid sirens.  He remembers hearing the sirens and hiding...and then hearing (and feeling) the bombs.

When he came to the States...he'd hear a siren and panic.  Fire engines, ambulances...all causes for great alarm.

Every single siren was a cause for panic.

I see that out there - in the Calvinims vs. Arminianism deal...comp vs. egal...Protestant vs. Roman Catholic...Mormon, Islam, yada, yada...

If, in everything we read, we read it through the lenses of what is worst in our own past, we will think the worst of everybody else out there.

If we read articles, blog, books...with the lenses of our own abuse (whether we were the victims or perpetrators), we are more likely to see abuse.

When I read an article about cessationism,  I read it through the lenses of a person who believes she has had brushes with the prophetic.  It is hard for me to comprehend a "silent" God.

When I see women out there who have been open about their past with controlling, neglectful or abusive (or any combination of the three sins) reading blogs and articles and seeing only the possibility of abuse, I wonder how much of what they see is the article and how much is the the set of lenses they are looking through.

I have my own set of lenses.  I can see neglect (where none is there).  I can see a husband with a skewed sense of priorities (when I may be wrong, the priorities may be shared).  I can see a person who does not care about one thing (when they really only have different priorities than I do).

I can dread doing one act because I fear what the next step might be...even when I know in my brain that is not the case.
~~~

The "D" I know now...when he hears that "noon whistle" - no matter where he is, he runs outdoors and stands, eyes closed.  Just listening to the whistle.

He hears the fire truck and tells everybody around him, "do you hear that?  They're going to help somebody."

He's learning not to use his "Bosnian" lenses.

He's getting over his past.
~~~

Perhaps the  healing starts when we learn that the lenses of the past can sometimes keep us from seeing clearly.

Perhaps the healing begins when we stop automatically fearing the worst and start expecting the best.

•

So offensive, in fact that I refuse to return to a site that has the button in the sidebar.

Personally, I would not compare a spiritual sibling to a religion that condones violence and death as a means to an end...that end being the silencing of anybody who disagrees with them.

I have in my personal library,  the book "Infidel" by Hirsi Ali.

Ms Ali is Muslim;  she is Somali born, and was circumcised as a child.

As an adult, she worked with Theo Van Gogh to make the film "Submission" (she wrote the screen play).  The film was not "anti-Islam", it was anti-violence-against-women and decried those Muslims who supported that violence.

As a result, Van Gogh was murdered and a note containing a death threat against Ali was pinned to his chest.  Ali has received numerous death threats and some of them have come close to succeeding.

This is the Islam that uses violence as a means to the end.

~~~

Christian girls on the way home from school:  ahhh...the photos were here...a young girl's body...her head laying beside her...the World Trade Center...Danial Pearl, his head laying on his belly....

This is the religion that some egalitarians compare complementarians to...and nobody objects.

I will say again...if a picture says a thousand words...that says volumes.

• 1 Comment

•

Two books:

  1. The Five Love Languages
  2. How to Get Your Husband to Talk To You

My reading is rather scattered right now - I've been attempting to discuss gender differences in communication in a generally healthy relationship...but decided to bring it here.

"The Five Love Languages" (Gary Chapman) is based on the idea that everybody as at least a "primary" love language.  (Take the 30 second quiz here.)

  • Words of Affirmation
  • Quality Time
  • Receiving Gifts
  • Acts of Service
  • Physical Touch

If a wife's "language" is receiving gifts, verbal compliments may not make her "feel" loved.  If her spouse's language is "Words of affirmation", he may very well believe that his praise will make her feel loved, when a single long stem rose would mean the world.

If a husband's language is "quality time", a good home cooked meal (act of service) may not mean as much to him as a long dinner talking.

It helps to not only know your own love language, but your loved one's as well.  Even if your mate's language is not as "natural" to you...if "physical touch" is the language, make a point to touch him/her in a way that you know he/she likes.  This is one that I need to focus on -

These languages are not gender specific - but they are helpful in avoiding "communication pitfalls".  The book has two quizzes (his and hers) that reflect each other.  The questions are not mutually exclusive, but you do have to choose one over the other.

samples:

  • I love having my husband's undivided attention
  • I love that my husband helps clean the house

or

  • I love when my wife tells me she's proud of me
  • When my wife cooks a meal for me, I know that she loves me

Most people have a primary and at least one secondary love language.

And it not only matters how we "speak" the love language, it matters what language the partner "hears" best.

And then...there are also the gender differences...

•

I've had these tabs opened for a while...instead of summarizing, I'll just let you read...

"Speaking in Tongues" is a blog with contributors from  "both sides of the aisle"

These articles all reference the same study (brain imaging of people speaking in tongues)

Slate

The Neurocritic (an "anti") - with graphics of the brain scans.

And Penn Medicine (the university where the test took place)

I found these very interesting...the tests seem to bear out what the speakers describe as happening to them.  But (on the other hand), we can find our brains to be very suggestible.

• 4 Comments

•
Godwin's Law:  "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
MzEllen's Law: "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Islam or Muslims approaches one.”
Godwin wrote: “Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,”Well, when a person compares [something] to Islam, I’d like them to think a bit harder about
  • female circumcision
  • honor killings
  • forced arranged marriages
  • beheadings for being raped.
  • being stoned to death for pre-marital intercourse.
  • being killed by your father for dating the wrong boy
  • being stabbed by your brother for going to a dance club

I want you to think a bit harder about those things.
Again, MzEllen’s Law (if it’s out there someplace else, let me know!)

“As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Islam or Muslims approaches one.”

From Wiki:

The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge. By 2007, The Economist had declared that “a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.” And in October 2007, the “Last Page” columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, “you have only to say ‘Godwin’s Law’ and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles.”

“As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Islam or Muslims approaches one.”