· "It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict. God's job to judge, and my job to love." uhhh, no.

 

·  "It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict. God's job to judge, and my job to love."  uhhh,  No, and here's why not:

· We preachers think we can say things we know will be interpreted as disapproval of other people's way of life and may likely make other people feel terrible, but we do it claiming that any conviction felt by the listeners must come only from God; our only intention is to love people. So we describe our responsibility as "to love" and God's responsibility as "to convict and to judge". We love the sinner.  God is the source of conviction and judgement. There's a huge problem with this kind of role play. It results in abuse in the name of God. "Hey- It's not our fault you feel bad after what we said! Take it up with God - Maybe you will feel better after you repent and start to see things our way." It also results in discrimination and could even result in violence taken up against others by people who believe that what we preach against, is truly sinful in God's sight, and must be dealt with.

·  If conviction in the human heart comes only through the Holy Spirit, then explain the guilt felt by a woman who is assaulted by an abusive husband. Explain also the sense of guilty sin experienced by children that were constantly told they are no good and bad because they spoke their native language in an Indian residential school. Explain also why Huckleberry Finn felt extreme conviction and in danger of hell-fire when he made his decision to help Jim escape from slavery. Conviction does not just come from God. Conviction, humiliation, guilt – these can be inflicted upon innocent people, like weights tossed onto their stooping shoulders, by preachers.

·  The trouble is, some preachers speak vehemently against others because they do not like or appreciate the social norms other people have. But the preacher declares that they are only telling the truth; their own love is pure, and if what they say convinces or convicts anyone, it must be God at work because conviction and judgement are his domain. 

 

·  I believe a more scriptural view and one more consistent with Jesus' message would be that we are co-labourors with God and the degree of our usefulness to Him in the establishment of His Kingdom is in direct proportion to how well our teaching and preaching line up with His Heart. We are called to admonish, rebuke and exhort but the subject matter had better line up with what Jesus indicated was important to God, and not simply be an imposition of our own paradigms: reflections of the culture we are most influenced by and too readily proclaim as "God's Way". Depending upon when in history various Christian preachers have been born, "God's Way" has been among other things capitalism, communism, slavery, the abolition of slavery, conquest of lands by warfare, emancipation of women, the refusal to allow women to vote, child labour, and a myriad of other ideologies that cover everything from hair length, the wearing of hats, bowling, going to movies, dancing, Sunday shopping, marriage and the right to bear arms.

·  Care is needed I say, lest we become a clanging bell or an irritating cymbal. Or worse, that we (although we blame God for the guilty sensations) lay upon others, burdens of guilt that we are not willing to ease.

·Luke 11:46  "Yes," said Jesus, "what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden. NLT 

Not convinced?  Then what would you say if I preached against women cutting their hair, and refusing to wear hats in public?  Many Christians nowadays would smile quietly to themselves, almost embarrassed for me. “That's not in vogue nowadays! Our present culture doesn't have a problem with those things. That preacher is embarrassing to God and the Christian cause!”  Then, what if I were successful - if I convinced the women and they felt real guilt and conviction because they had not been wearing hats? What if their husbands too, were convinced by my preaching and not only agreed, but forced their wives to wear hats and forbade them from speaking in public against the edict? Then many Christians would say I was manipulating them. That is, many Christians here- in the West, in 2015. Christians on the other side of the world or living in a different era may give credit to God for providing the conviction. What? I thought God doesn't change?  God doesn’t change. But the sin preachers rail against does change – admit it, and in the name of Jesus, we preachers have historically laid guilt upon the innocent and threatened them with hell fire because their lives did not measure up to our social ideals. Holiness isn’t about whether or not I smoke or eat shellfish, but more about that later.

·  Well, we better all be careful what societal norms we preach against this year - lest history prove we were preaching our own tastes and were loading burdens (guilt) on the backs of people that the Lord never meant them to bear. After all, our Lord's command is "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you". Matthew 28:20

What Is Missing From God's Appearance In Bethlehem?

The Christmas Story:  Luke 2:8-20  

(Can you tell what's missing?)

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

The shepherds are just ordinary men. Well, not quite ordinary. According to tradition, they would have been a little less than ordinary.  Especially if you are referring to their personal holiness, personal cleanliness, religious education, vocabulary or place in society.

The shepherds were sitting around after a days work. Picture the usual scene nowadays. Mechanics, labourers, hired hands - sitting around having a beer. "That was a f***'n close call today" "Next time the boss comes around, make sure someone a hell of a lot smarter than Joey explains what happened to his f***'n sheep."  Not the sort of conversation we usually insert into Sunday School Christmas plays.

Then suddenly God visits them in their ordinariness to inform them He had not forgotten them.  No wonder they were SORE AFRAID ! But the angel gives them a message that shall be for all people - even them! Then they are given instructions on how to find the Christ Child and after talking it over, they decide to go and visit the manger. They decide to approach the Holy Son of God - God incarnate, the fullness of the Godhead, dwelling in bodily form, the Word become flesh, Emmanuel - God with us. 

What is truly amazing is what is missing from their visit:

-  No instruction to remove footwear.

-  No requirement to wash up to the elbows, or cleanse themselves seven times before entering.

-  Not even a call to repentance!

-  No specific instructions to follow, on pain of death if the instructions are deviated from in the least.

-  No warning not to touch the Ark of the Messiah (the manger he is set in) on pain of INSTANT death.

-  No long list of who may and who may not enter the stable, but simply "which shall be for all people".

God the Son. Not a burning bush or a thundering mountain, but a little baby - The most express image of God He had ever revealed. As if to say: This is what I am really like - and I am here for all people.

Weasel Words: A Quote from Billy Graham

Okay, I don't imagine this post will make me very popular. Not among my evangelical friends anyway. Describing Billy Graham's words as "weasel words" probably won't go over too well with a lot of people. But before you discount me as an apostate and worthy of excommunication, let me preface my blog with this: Thanks in part to the printing press, WordPress, and Facebook, We can quote other people and turn a sound bite into a thesis for our own purposes. Billy isn't writing here to further explain his words, but nevertheless, others use his words to promote a theology that is deceptive and that is what I want to point out.

1. wea·sel words

   noun

   1. words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.

   
   





"It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict. God's job to judge, and my job to love."
In other words, We preachers can say things we know will be interpreted as disapproval of other people's way of life and may likely make other people feel terrible, but weasel out of it by claiming that any conviction felt by the listeners must come only from God; our only intention is to love people. So we describe our responsibility as "to love" and God's responsibility "to convict and to judge". We love the sinner, and God hates the sin. God is the source of conviction and judgement. There's a huge problem with this kind of role play. It results in abuse in the name of God. Hey- It's not our fault you feel bad after what we said! Take it up with God - Maybe you will feel better after you repent and start to see things our way.
If conviction in the human heart comes only through the Holy Spirit, then explain the guilt felt by a woman who is assaulted by an abusive husband. Explain also the sense of guilty sin experienced by children who are constantly told they are no good and bad because they were speaking their native language in an Indian residential school. Explain also why Huckleberry Finn felt extreme conviction and in danger of hell-fire when he made his decision to help Jim escape from slavery.
The trouble is, people want to look like the good guy, the nice boss. Such people may actually not love other people, or accept the social norms of people different from themselves; but they want to look good and kind and loving. So they speak vehemently against others, but declare that within themselves, there is not a judgmental bone in their bodies. Their love is pure, and if what they say hurts anyone, it must be God at work because conviction and judgement are his domain.
I believe a more scriptural view and one more consistent with Jesus' message would be that we are co-labourors with God and the degree of our usefulness to Him in the establishment of His Kingdom is in direct proportion to how well our words line up with His Heart. We are called to admonish, rebuke and exhort but the subject matter had better line up with what Jesus indicated was important to God, and not simply be an imposition of our own paradigms: reflections of the culture we are most influenced by and readily accept as "God's Way". Depending upon when in history various Christians have been born, "God's Way" has been among other things capitalism, communism, slavery, the abolition of slavery, conquest of lands by warfare, emancipation of women, the refusal of permitting women to vote, child labour, and a myriad of other ideologies that cover everything from hair length, the wearing of hats, Sunday shopping, marriage and the right to bear arms.
Care is needed I say, lest we become a clanging bell or an irritating cymbal. Or worse, that we (although we blame God for the guilty sensations) lay upon others, burdens of guilt that we are not willing to ease.


Luke 11:46  "Yes," said Jesus, "what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden. NLT 

Not convinced?  Then what would you say if I preached against women cutting their hair, and refusing to wear hats in public?  Many Christians would smile quietly to themselves, almost embarrassed for me. That's not in vogue now a days! Our present culture doesn't have a problem with those things. That preacher is embarrassing to God and the Christian cause!  Then, what if I were successful - if I convinced the women and they felt real guilt and conviction because they had not been wearing hats? Then many Christians would say I was manipulating them. That is, many Christians here- in the West, in 2014. Christians on the other side of the world or living in a different era may give credit to God for providing the conviction. What? I thought God doesn't change?  
Well, we better all be careful what societal norms we preach against this year - lest history prove we were preaching our own tastes and were loading burdens (guilt) on the backs of people that the Lord never meant them to bear. After all, our Lord's command is "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you". Matthew 28:20

Lifestyle Management

Is the church today attempting Lifestyle Management? Or are we doing God's work?

"By this, shall all men know that you are my disciples: If you don't smoke, drink, buy lottery tickets or vote for a liberal government."  Actually, although the foregoing is what is often preached, Jesus said something very different.

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:35

Christian's love for criticizing the actions of other people is part of human nature. Human sin nature. It's an old habit. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’  Matthew 11:19

Actually, a short while ago, the list of habits that would identify anyone as a non-believer, or at best a backslider, was much longer. Twenty years ago the list included dancing. Twenty five years ago also included shopping on Sundays. Before that it included bowling, playing pool and watching horse races. Interestingly, the list hasn't simply been getting shorter. It's dynamic - it changes with the mood of society; sometimes contrasting with acceptable norms and sometimes duplicating them. A hundred years ago, famous preachers smoked tobacco and had a drink after supper.

Did Christ ask his followers to attempt Lifestyle Management of their neighbours, friends and society?  I don't think so.  "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20 What did Christ command? Search and see..... not much about drinking. Not much about smoking, nothing about which political party to vote for. 

"Your lifestyle betrays to me your rebellion against God." Have you ever had that sort of sneaking suspicion about other people? Judgement regarding the spirituality or state of salvation of other people must be one of the most important and common themes Jesus taught on. He taught NOT to do it. Yet how often do we raise superior eyebrows and knowingly pass judgement on someone else because they are not living their lives according to the pattern laid down by men, reinforced by the careful selection of scriptures taken out of context?

"Adherence to a certain lifestyle demonstrates to the world that we are trustworthy servants of the Lord. The maintenance of an appropriate public image is important so that the 'work of God' (read: our ability to raise cash) is not hindered." Really? Then I guess what Jesus said about the subject isn't true? (Read John 13:35 again)  Doesn't adherence to a certain lifestyle rather demonstrate to the public that we are clean-cut conservative middle class tax payers? People that can be counted on to support their world view of capitalism tempered with charity?

Is it not rather more important to focus our teaching on actually loving others, regardless of their background or place in society, choice of refreshments or whether they esteem one day above another, or not? I think we should be striving, not for a uniform appearance of "niceness", but that we would be known as a people that teach and live forgiveness; not judging others, but offering assistance to anyone that needs it.  -People would say: Look how they love and receive others! They have no facade of righteousness, but they really care for one another.

Is the Gospel just too gracious... without a few explanatory notes?

We evangelicals have a habit of adding explanations to God’s messages to earth.

1. God says something simple.
2. We know that people will misinterpret it if we don’t add a few conditions and explanations and if we don't do that, we may be liable; implicated in offering a too-simplistic message that might not bring about the correct response in the listeners.

Result - What I call Legally Evangelical:


It's as if we are afraid the legal department in Heaven would disapprove of any short and possibly misinterpreted bible passages or sermons. You know, like the one which inspired Martin Luther (est iustus autem ex fide vivit).   Sadly,  I believe adding to God's message does not mitigate anyone’s liability and it’s not to anyone’s edification, unless the Holy Spirit closes peoples ears to it and allows the hearers to hear only that which He is Speaking.  Take a few examples:

-  Luke 23:34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Legally Evangelical Translation: “Father, help them to realize that what they are doing is wrong, so that they are seriously repentant; desiring in their hearts to be clean and forgiven, so that You, O God, will forgive them if they believe with all their heart that You, O God will raise Me, Jesus, from the dead.”  Even then, we’d feel uncomfortable leaving anyone with such a brief explanation and would load them with literature exhorting them to tithe, attend an evangelical church regularly, pray, read their bible (the correct translation thereof), flee immorality, and perhaps also get baptized quickly before they forget and maybe throw in a doctrine or two about the rapture, or dispensationalism.

Here's another:
- Luke 2:8-14 “Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host priasing God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

Legally Evangelical Translation: “Be afraid! For Judgement is coming! For behold, I bring you essential information that will allow you to live forever, if you receive it with your heart, the evidence being a transformed life, otherwise it’s proof you don’t believe: For today, in the City of David, there has been born for you who believe, a LORD, who is Christ, that is, the fullness of the Godhead – God, incarnate and He shall save some of you, but not all of you, so don’t get your hopes up! This message is only for Evangelicals.  And this will be a sign for you: you will find the baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”  And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, and may it not be long before He crushes the vile and the sick and perverted, and all the sinners on earth!”

Thanks be to God we did not write the original script!

Does God Forgive The Unrepentant?

Does God forgive the unrepentant?
I just came back from a men's camp. The presenter wanted to assure everyone that God WILL NOT forgive anyone that does not repent.  "God can't forgive you unless you are repentant" is actually how the speaker put it.  Can't ?  You mean, as in, Can Not ?  Weird.

Although it's weird to my ears, it is, unfortunately, not uncommon. The "righteous" who have repented (or think they have) do not very much like the idea of God forgiving anyone who has not been as diligent in their spiritual walk and seeking as they have.

1.  Can't God do anything He wants to do?  Who are we to limit God?

2.  Wouldn't God the Father do as Jesus requested?

"And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. But Jesus was saying, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.' " Luke 23:33-34

According to some preachers, God would have to respond to Jesus:  "No Way !  They are not repentant, I CAN NOT forgive them... sorry about that son, but I have to work within the theological framework I've set up."  Or, maybe, some would explain it this way:  Yes, God forgave them that particular sin (killing Jesus), but he damned them to hell because of all the other sin in their lives - the sins they had not repented of.  Can you imagine the judgment seat proceedings?  ....Mr. Pharisee, I forgive you for crucifying my only begotten son, but I damn you to hell because you never repented of your other sins, nor did you ever testify to having faith in my son. Goodbye.

Better questions may be: Can God restore an unrepentant person? Does God give assurance of forgiveness to an unrepentant person? Can an unrepentant person be useful in building God's Kingdom on earth?

If these questions challenge your thinking, or your hard-wired paradigms, very good. I don't think it is very healthy to possess a cookie-cutter faith.

Special Powers for Apostles?

Watch out - I have super-powers. That line has been used a few times. It's taken various forms: Join our church or be damned; be baptized our way or be damned; repeat our creed or be damned; pay me money or risk having to pay for your own sins. It is sad that many scriptures have been used to reinforce the idea that man or men have the power to determine the eternal destiny of other people's souls.

Following Easter, I happened again on the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples.

John 20:19-23

"When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

I read through the major commentaries to see what others have said about these verses. I saw everything from anti-papist rants to the Wesleyan view that Jesus was simply conferring upon the apostles the ability to authoritatively state that if a person didn't want to come to Christ, that such a person could pretty much assume he wasn't going to be saved.

Then I saw something else and it wasn't written in a commentary, but consider these thoughts, and comment back if you like.

Jesus always spoke to the needs that were in the hearts of his disciples and those he ministered to. Often, Jesus' words seem on first glance to be unrelated to the situations described in scripture, almost as if he had a penchant for changing the subject. But I don't think that was ever the case.

In John chapter 20, the disciples were holed up in a locked room. They were afraid. They were angry. They had just witnessed the murder of their leader and they must have been considering what their next step should be. What options may have been running through their minds and be foremost in their conversation?
- Flee to the hills of Judea?
- Recruit followers to launch a counter-attack against the corrupt priesthood?
- Storm Herod's seat of power?
- Launch a public relations campaign to expose the corruption of the Pharisees and Sadducees?  I just don't think that at this point, they were making plans for the spiritual growth of the Christian community.

Into this confused meeting Jesus makes his presence known. And he responds to their largest emotions and answers the questions foremost in their minds.

They are fearful -  "Peace be to you", he says.  Peace. Relax, I'm with you. You don't need to listen at the door for the footsteps of your enemies.  The sight of their Lord fills them with a sudden and joyous excitement. He's back! Now we can make some real plans! Now we can storm the palace, now we can de-throne the corrupt priesthood! Now we can.... but Jesus interupts their excited and joyful responses.  He says: "Peace. As the Father has sent me, I also send you."  No, we aren't going to storm the palace. We are not going to take over the temple. I was sent by the Father, from the very presence of His Glory, to walk humbly on the earth; not to condemn the world, but to communicate the Father's love for the world and his forgiveness of sin. Now I am sending you to walk humbly through this world. You are to suffer for righteousness' sake; you are to faithfully administer the grace of God.  Imagine the disciples listening to this with increasing anxiety. Going "out there" means going out there among the butchers and blasphemers that condemned their Lord to die on a cross. How can we relate to those people, they may wonder. Maybe they even put the question to Jesus verbally: What about those wicked men that incited the riotous crowd and presided over your murder? How shall we deal with them? Christ's response is in keeping with all his other teaching: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

That is the quote that I think has been so misconstrued and misused. Literally, "their sins have been forgiven" reads: "have previously been forgiven"*.  That's a reiteration of Jesus' words on the cross. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He did forgive them. He's reminding the disciples of that fact. Did they think he wasn't serious, or was speaking irrationally when he was hanging there on the cross?  Look you guys, what have I been telling you since day-1? Forgive. Forgive. Owe no man but the debt to continue loving. You can forgive, they are already forgiven, but if you hold back your forgiveness, watch out. Who wants to walk through this life retaining (in their own hearts) the sins of all those who have ever hurt them? Presented with the two options: Forgive in confidence, or retain and carry it with you, which option do you wish to choose? I don't think Jesus was conferring a special authority to forgive people's sins, or deny forgiveness for anyone. Nor was he at that moment granting a special ability to the disciples that would enable them to discern whether any person was "saved" or not.

*according to margin notes in New American Standard Reference Edition Bible
Comments?

Bringing Every Thought Captive To Christ

2 Corinthians 10:5
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

"And bringing into captivity ... - The figure here is evidently taken from military conquests. The idea is, that all the strongholds of paganism, and pride, and sin would be demolished; and that when this was done, like throwing down the walls of a city or making a breach, all the plans and purposes of the soul, the reason, the imagination, and all the powers of the mind would be subdued or led in triumph by the gospel, like the inhabitants of a captured city. Christ was the great Captain in this warfare. In his name the battle was waged, and by his power the victory was won. The captives were made for him and under his authority; and all were to be subject to his control. Every power of thought in the pagan world; all the systems of philosophy and all forms of opinion among people; all the purposes of the soul; all the powers of reason, memory, judgment, fancy in an individual, were all to come under the laws of Christ, All doctrines were to be in accordance with his will; philosophy should no longer control them, but they should be subject to the will of Christ. All the plans of life should be controlled by the will of Christ, and formed and executed under his control - as captives are led by a conqueror. All the emotions and feelings of the heart should be controlled by him, and led by him as a captive is led by a victor. The sense is, that it was the aim and purpose of Paul to accomplish this, and that it would certainly be done. The strongholds of philosophy, paganism, and sin should be demolished, and all the opinions, plans, and purposes of the world should become subject to the all-conquering Redeemer." ....Barnes Notes On The Bible

Really?

You mean Paul was describing himself and his fellow apostles as "Thought Police" and was ready to drag behind him the unwilling victims of a conquest, to be humiliated as he enters triumphantly through the gates of the eternal city?

Why would Jesus want such an illustration to be used? He came to "set the prisoner free" to "proclaim liberty for the captives". When he rose from the grave, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Verse 1 sets some background... "By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you--I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away!"  Whoever heard of a Roman General being described as meek, or gentle?

Verse 3 also sheds some light: "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does."  The Christian War, the spiritual war, is not a war waged against others. It is a matter of walking the extra mile, turning the other cheek, submitting one to another, being last instead of first, least instead of most, the servant of all. Why?  Because the kingdom of God is a different kind of kingdom. It is not intended to be expanded by the sword, or threats against infidels and heretics. It gains ground by the laying down of our lives; not the demolition or subjugation of other peoples.

Then what did Paul mean in verse 5 ?

Maybe this....  he is bringing his own thoughts captive to Christ. He isn't waging war like the world: One look at the backstabbing, self-promoting world of politics (which often creeps into the church) should convince anyone that the world's ways of promoting doctrine are not Christ's way.

If it is true that as Christians, we make Jesus our Lord, why do we want Him to be Lord of our Lives, while we concurrently wish ourselves to be lord of everyone elses' life? Ordering others, telling them how to think, insisting on their demonstrated obedience to our interpretation of scripture....?

How much further the kingdom of God would really expand if we as Christians willingly sought to bring our own thoughts captive to Christ?

Spirit of eternal love,

Guide me, or I blindly rove;

Set my heart on things above,

Draw me after thee.

Earthly things are paltry show,

Phantom charms, they come and go;

Give me constantly to know

Fellowship with thee.

Come, O Spirit, take control

Where the fires of passion roll;

Let the yearnings of my soul

Center all in thee.

Call into thy fold of peace

Thoughts that seek forbidden ways;

Calm and order all my days,

Hide my life in thee.

Thus supported, even I,

Knowing thee forever nigh,

Shall attain that deepest joy,

Living unto thee.

No distracting thoughts within,

No surviving hidden sin,

Thus shall Heaven indeed begin

Here and now in me.

                    Albert Orsborn

Not dead yet....

A common theme on blogs.....  "I haven't written anything for awhile". Yup, I fall into that category. But I can also say no one has complained.  I guess there are certainly more people who like to write, than the number of those persons who like to read. Not much new under the sun.
Well, just for the sake of keeping track of my own thoughts, I may, just may, write again. Now and then. If you don't agree with what I say, COMMENT !   I love comments. Perhaps because I like debate even more than I like writing.

Scandal !

scandalizedpast participle, past tense of scan·dal·ize (Verb)

1. Shock or horrify (someone) by a real or imagined violation of propriety or morality: "their lack of manners scandalized their hosts".

It's not fun to be scandalized. But from a third person perspective it can be amusing to watch, especially when the violation is imagined, not real.

• The Pharisees were scandalized when Jesus told them tax collectors and sinners would enter the kingdom of God before they would. They were scandalized to see Jesus not only associating with, teaching and healing sinners, but even eating and drinking with them! They were scandalized when our Lord told them the story of the Prodigal Son: When the father saw his son a long way off, he ran to meet him. But Christ made it clear: He has authority to forgive sins, and frankly, he was going to!
• The sense of God being less moral than us leaders and possessing a somewhat questionable wisdom was repeated. No man dared ask Christ why he was speaking to the woman at the well, but our Lord told them anyway: The fields are white for harvest. After Jesus not only bought lunch at the Samaritan village, he stayed awhile, and the men reported they believed; not because of the woman's testimony, but because they themselves had met Jesus. I don't know what the disciples really thought of that. But whatever they thought of it, it couldn't have influenced them too much because the early Church was scandalized when the gift of the Holy Spirit was granted to the gentiles. Only after much debate did they release Paul to minister to the unclean nations. (Better Paul than any of them, I noticed)
• John 10:16 "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." Will we be scandalized when he does that? I wonder...  

I think our Lord has given us a peek into what that scandalous situation might look like:

Matthew 25:37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'  "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "

Would we be scandalized if Jesus were to bring into the pen, people whose only identification with Christ is that they were nice to people?