(On people "hating religion")
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27)
If one says that "hate religion" - please remind them of what they SAY they hate.
I love religion. I know it's popular to parrot the "I hate religion" mantra these days, and I understand what those saying it are trying to say - they don't like it when people abuse religion for personal gain, whether that gain is financial, personal, or whether it just to make themselves feel better.
But to say "I hate religion" is an abuse of the word "religion," which is actually a pretty morally neutral word. To assign a neutral word a meaning that it was never intended to carry is an abuse of the word.
We don't want the political gay agenda to change the meaning of the word "marriage" - well, don't change the meaning of the word "religion." When somebody abuses it, reclaim it.
.
I love these things that add up to: religion.
I am committed to, and devoted to, the service and worship of God - that is, my religious faith.
What spurred this post, is the book "Affirming the Apostles' Creed" by J.I.Packer. That institutionalized system of beliefs is best summed up in the "Apostles' Creed"
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN
.
and can I hear another AMEN?
what part of this would any Christian hate?
"Crossing Oceans" by Gina Holmes was predictable, with some curves that sat nicely with me. Sad, yet satisfying ending.
The main character, Jenny, is dying of cancer. Taking her daughter to her childhood home to wrap up loose ends, more than a few surprises are thrown her way.
Confronting past sins, while avoiding new; trying to make old wrongs right; confronting fears along the way and making peace with enemies.
Like a lot of fiction, this is 'brain candy' - and very tasty. Don't expect meat and you'll be happy with the snack.
In the first chapter, Kruger frames the direction of the book.
If "heresy" (divergent thinking) was the order of the day in the first and second century, and it wasn't until Rome had enough power to vote orthodoxy into place, heresy came first - and was the norm. The idea that there was and "orthodoxy" was heretical (outside of common thinking)
However:
If the writers of New Testament Scripture were unified in doctrine (although not necessarily practice), then there was an "orthodoxy" ("conforming to established doctrine especially in religion" - per Merriam-Webster) before the word "orthodoxy" was used.
~~~
My thinking is that if God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the writers, He would not have inspired them to say conflicting things. (1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.) There is no conflicting doctrinal statements in Scripture.
Yes, there was divergent thinking in the early church. Paul addressed it.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:6-7
So there were doctrinal differences, but it was not a good thing.
What Walter Bauer misses is the men who codified "orthodoxy" He treats the topic as if they all just got together one day and decided to vote on what they liked best, and "orthodoxy" is no more correct (or incorrect) than the "different gospel."
In this case, "heresy" became heresy because of orthodoxy.
But...if what happened was that false teaching was becoming more prevalent and needed to be addressed by church leadership as a whole, they would have gathered together in prayer and study, in order to determine from Scripture what "orthodoxy" was. They weren't looking for what was most popular, they were looking for what was most true. Orthodoxy was codified in response to heresy - but it was present from the start.
In this case, "orthodoxy" came before heresy.
This was from the sermon this morning. Everybody knows the "wings of eagles" verse, but I have seldom seen the whole passage used.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God”?
The pastor noted that this was a person who was telling the Lord that he had been wronged...why wasn't God paying attention?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
Our God is a good God, the Creator, He knows...He knows.
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
Where I am weak, He is strong.
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.
If this is my third life, let me start here.
I've been attending a Lutheran church, which is where I needed to be. Fed by the liturgy, I got the gospel every week.
But, in that liturgy, was only old songs. This church brought new songs to me.
The sermon was drenched in the Gospel. The Spirit was there.
It was good.
This is a bit from "God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology" (I have a few comment underneath)
The Center of the Theology of the New Testament Letters: The authors of these twenty-one letters are radically united in the proclamation of bizarre ideas.
To see this, let us engage in a bit of contrastive analysis, contemplating what these authors did not do and what their letters do not advocate.
Rome was not their kingdom, and they were not trying to make it home. They sought the city that is to come. Not one of these authors gave his life to address the systemic injustice of the Roman Empire by means of political reform. Not one of these authors went the way of Josephus and sought to cozy up to the emperor, though Paul seems to have had opportunities to seek such “influence” with some high-ranking officials. Not one of these authors did or said anything about trying to stop Rome from fighting its wars. Not one of them championed the idea that the government should take money from the rich and redistribute it equally to the poor, nor did they leave the ministry to advocate a government of greater fiscal responsibility, lowered taxes, and increased national security. Not one of these authors taught that the way to change the world is by initiating a universal, government-funded education program. Not one of these authors was out to make as much money as he possibly could. Not one of these authors embraced one of the popular philosophies of the day, nor did they seek to synthesize the message of Jesus with the spirit of their age. None of them advocated higher moral standards in society at large (outside the church), nor did they lobby for universal health care or a revised definition of marriage that would legitimate same-sex unions. None of them seem to have cared whether anyone reading their letters would be perceived by the broader culture as hip, savvy, chic, or cool. They had a different program.
These authors believed that the decisive event in the story of the world had taken place. God loved the world by sending his Son, condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, poured out all his wrath on Jesus at the cross, and accomplished salvation through that ultimate display of justice. God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples by proclaiming the good news.
How did they go about carrying out this commission? They all basically did the same thing. None appears to have sought to carry out the commission through political or educational institutions. According to the book of Acts, they simply told people, whether groups or individuals, who God is, what he had accomplished in Jesus, and what this implied for them. God accomplished salvation through judgment in Jesus, and the implication for every auditor of the message is that they would either believe and be saved or disobey (be unpersuaded by) the gospel and be judged. Through the announcement of judgment, the saved rejoiced in and glorified God. The converts, those who believed the message, were gathered into congregations, churches. Paul, Peter, and James all refer to elders who led these churches.
The authors of the letters studied in this chapter wrote what they did to form, instruct, and protect the churches. Their message is that God has glorified himself by working salvation through judgment in fulfillment of the Old Testament in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Their message is that there is a way of life that evidences belief in that message, and a way of life that does not. Their message is that God has sent the Spirit, who has given new life to those who believe; and the Spirit will keep them to the end, so that on the last day, when Christ comes to save through judgment, they will be those who glorify God for his mercy. The center of the theology of the letters of the New Testament is the glory of God in salvation through judgment.
I think where this goes sideways is the apparent false dichotomy between political activism and spreading the gospel. Does spreading the gospel rule out being politically active?
If one of the messages of Scripture is that Christians should pursue justice, one way to do that is through the political system.
Other than that...the authors of Scripture wrote exactly what the Spirit wanted them to write. No more, no less.
I've been reading "Grounded in the Gospel" - a book that teaches the "old fashioned way" of using catechisms and confessions to teach people about what we believe and why.
I don't know how to do a chart in wordpress, so I'll write out this piece that really struck me.
The premise is that most catechisms (whether planned or not) follow a 3-piece structure
We proclaim Christ
Who is
and who is our:
Each one of us is called to be his:
Together, with all the saints, we are
We are called to live in light of
And are called to exercise
The summary of our response to Christ
A couple of years ago I started reading through the Bible "in a year" - I'm more than halfway through! I get off on tangents, buy and read related books, etc.
I've learned that getting through the Book is not as important as getting INTO the Book.
Anyway...a few months ago I discovered cozi. It's an app that keeps an entire family up to date. I use the free version (I get ads.) But one email address and one password lets the whole family use the program. I can use the PC to add to a list, I can use an iPhone or iPad, so can Tom. Tom can add to the grocery list while I'm on my way to the store and his list will be there. The advantage is that if it's not on the list, he can't complain if I don't buy it.
See? a tangent.
I use cozi for my Scripture reading list. You can make as many "to do" lists as you want and I have one for my Scripture reading list. As I read a passage, I check it off. Every month or so I add about 30 from my page, and delete the ones I've read. My list is with me all the time, and I have my Bible app, so it is also.
Cozi has made it very easy for me to keep track of my reading schedule and every bit of paper I don't need to carry around is a good thing.
"We've laid down our blood to have a free exercise of religion in this country and will continue to do so."
Working from a variety of sources, I really don't wonder very much what the motive is.
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Just as the spectacle of an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee’s stern questioning of her in the 1990s drew women voters to the polls, these lawmakers and women’s groups say Thursday’s House hearing on the Obama administration’s contraception rule — with an all-male panel testifying before a largely male committee — could provoke the same kind of response
First thing: There were two panels, the second panel included two women.
Second thing: it's not about contraception, it's about religious freedom and it's fitting that religious leaders were on the panel.
"The real issue here, it's not birth control; it's religious liberty, it's freedom of conscience, [and] it's the freedom of individuals and their churches to determine their own positions and their own policies about contraception and abortion,"
From the Catholic News Agency (quoting Pamela Haag):
“The phrase 'women’s health' in the birth control dispute is the latest nimble euphemism,” author and blogger Pamela Haag wrote in a Feb. 17 essay published on the “Marriage 3.0” blog.
Access to contraception, she said, “isn’t really about my 'health.' It’s not principally about the management of ovarian cysts or the regulation of periods.”
“Birth control isn’t about my health unless by 'health' you mean, my capacity to get it on, to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner,” wrote Haag, criticizing White House supporters for discussing contraceptives mainly as “preventive services” for women's health.
Even the folks who support the mandate (who are not following the administrations party line) know that it's not about health, it's about the ability of women to have sex without responsibility or consequences.
From Timothy George and Chuck Colson , via Christianity Today:
But Catholic institutions aren't the only ones affected by this mandate. Prison Fellowship, for example, which employs 180 people, could not purchase insurance for its employees that covers abortifacients. Nor could the world's largest Christian outreach to prisoners and their families afford the fines we would incur.
Three years ago, when we co-authored the Manhattan Declaration, we predicted that the time would come when Christians would have to face the very real prospect of civil disobedience—that we would have to choose sides: God or Caesar.
Certainly for the Catholics and for many of us evangelicals, that time is already upon us.
Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:
Harrison's goal Thursday, he said, was to tell Congress to "get the federal government out of matters of conscience for religious people, particularly in life issues where there's long-standing moral and ethical church precedent."
But he also wanted to drive home the intense feeling of alienation that, he said, conservative people of faith feel under the Obama administration. He said he would rather go to jail than comply with even the modified mandate, and that he would "give up my sons to fight" for the First Amendment.
On Friday, he explained those comments: "We've laid down our blood to have a free exercise of religion in this country and will continue to do so."
Harrison told the committee of the charitable work of the Missouri Synod and its members, calling the church "a machine which produces good citizens for this country, and at tremendous personal cost."
The members of his church "work, pay taxes, are charitable and responsible, take care of their children, participate in their communities and government, and serve in military," Harrison said. "The state should be interested in religion for this purpose: We produce good citizens. So stop attacking us. We are in every way a blessing for this country. We feel attacked for our fundamental convictions as if we're a detriment to our country. And that is a lie."