I can’t help but be drawn to the charismatic/evangelical movement at times. I understand that side of Christianity has made its share of mistakes, but I am overjoyed to know them. In case you wonder, not all of them are the crazy people you might think they are. I was listening in my class studying Galatians, where my professor, Dr. Witherington, mentioned the fruit as opposed to the gifts, and I got to preview Gordon Fee’s Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. He mentions the idea of gifts and how he thinks the idea is portrayed in 1 Corinthians.

I really enjoyed Fee in that he stated that the “gifts” or “manifestations” are not a systematic listing at all and does not cover every base. I can’t help but cringe at the idea of a spiritual gifts assessment (this is more general evangelical as I do not want to put this on the Charismatics) in that most of them are limited and some do not allow for these things to be manifestations of God’s Spirit to His people. It’s hard to define a list of gifts because the lists in the letters are never exactly alike. It must be known that God does not always work in the same way and that he might shell shock our preconceptions of how God gives gifts to His people through His Spirit. Needless to say, Paul would be confused.

Realize that it is not about us having a gift as if it is our own…

but that. supernaturally, it is about God showing us that He is here…

IN POWER…

BEYOND OUR WILDEST IMAGININGS!!!

We get prepared to live out the future reality in this present age.

The other thing to remember is that Galatians 5 shows us the fruit of the Spirit and not the gifts. There is a distinct difference. The gifts are what are given to encourage and prepare us, but the fruit is what is produced by the presence of the Spirit. Paul’s community ethic under the Spirit would have put so much emphasis on the fruit and the gifts have to be secondary and subject to the existence of the fruit. Read the difference. Where one is about the supernatural happenings and the things that are given in affirmation, the fruit is about the life of the community, which is what the letters of Paul are quite repetitive about.

If we forget the fruits of bringing true blessings of God’s love to the community, then the gifts will not matter. “If I do not have love, I am just a clanging cymbal.”

I heard a story once of a woman who led in a ministry. Many were blessed by her musical gifts and she loved what she was doing. She was married to a man, but happened to find romance with another man who was not her husband. She asked her pastor, “Would this require me to give up my musical gifts in this ministry?” The pastor replied with compassion, “Daughter, it is not your gifts that are in question, but your character that is in jeopardy.”

Remember to tend to the fruit (your character) and the gifts will be given to you. And be ready if you live this out. God may give  you a gift that was never in your community before.

And to close, all are gifted.

I say that again with greater emphasis added…

ALL are TRULY gifted BY GOD’S SPIRIT.

Grace and peace to you all.

I usually do not agree with Glen Beck. I’ll go ahead and say that he can seem a little like Alex Jones, and his conspiracy theories seem to promote a political standpoint that can cause people to be scared of any movement out of the norm at all. But he did mention one thing the other night that I couldn’t help but agree with. Among all the talk that I didn’t agree with about money coming from politicians, he mentioned that we should open our wallets and time to those in need directly. What a surprisingly Godly thing to say. I think he was onto something that has been a wish of God since the beginning. If you read Torah, there is a recurring theme of giving those who need (or will need). In the prophets, there is a calling back to that sort of understanding.

In the New Testament, there is a repeat of that same idea (yes, they repeat the same points and are most of the time not novel in there ideas). They pull from the long history of understanding God as a generous One who wishes others to be that generous image to creation.

I take this idea and apply it more specifically. Most of you have credit/debit cards. What you may not know is that every time you use it, there is an extra fee put onto the charge. It’s not a fee that you pay, you pay what comes up on the register. But the company is charged for running that card. Now, for a large company that makes billions, that is something they anticipate and have the funds to cover this, but I shop and eat and drink at a couple local places that struggle with this. Some have had to fight tooth and nail to come up with ways to either deter the use of cards for items under $5 (a slight inconvenience that some can overlook), or start increasing the price of items (an inconvenience that EVERYONE will notice). You should think about this next time you pay with your card.

There are two ways you can remedy this.

1) Pay with Cash at local setups. They truly local places (places that are not made into a chain or make a substantial amount) will greatly appreciate this. For me this has caused a sense of compassion for the worker and sometimes opens a conversation that can lead to witnessing the faithfulness of Christ (Gal. 2:16). Plus, it at least shows you are aware and responsible.

2) If you pay with your card on an item under $10, leave a 25% or more tip. I even say that if it is below $5, then you should leave a 50% tip. That allows extra funds to allocate for these expenses. This depends on how they disperse their tips, since you have to deal with tips as an earning of the people who service the customer, so you might have to be creative. There is always a way to help cover the problems you might be creating. You can’t erase your wrong, but you can fight to undo the coming consequences.

Something that is always helpful is to eat at home. Although this means that you are not paying someone else something, you are also not wasteful in causing extra, unnecessary funds to be spent. Some of you out there might have a better idea on how to handle these things. But I want to start this dialogue from the Spirit inside you so that conviction will take you to look out for the Saints, humans, and creation.

BE RESPONSIBLE.

BE LOVE.

Grace and peace to you all.

As many of you know, I am always pushing for the pro-life stance to be more consistent in their approach to the issue. Although there are many distinctions among abortion, war, murder, genocide, and capital punishment, we can all agree that there is a common theme of death. Some are discriminate and controlled (abortion, murder, capital punishment), while others are merely mass killings with no discrimination (war, genocide). I found that Dr. Witherington III has recently posted an article that some could benefit from. You may not agree with everything, but pay attention to how he attempts to streamline the pro-life stance, making it not only pro-fetus. Another place to look is an early Church Father source. There are quite a few pre-Augustinian Fathers that speak in such a way.

Grace and Peace.

I hear many crazy things, but some things put extra cherries on my ice cream. Here’s a verse to start things off:

“And they will be saved through the childbearing, so long as they persist in faith and love and holiness with modesty.” – 1 Timothy 2:15d (my personal translation).

I know that most of your translations will not place an article in front of childbearing. Let’s explore that for a second. If you say that, from a strictly textual viewpoint, you can see how it seems as if men can be saved when they have faith in Christ, but women would be through childbearing. This seems a little off, however, since Paul has said that there is no male nor female in the kingdom. This doesn’t make theological nor biblical sense.

Look at it in the greek (if you can). There is an article in front of the word for bearing children. Let me give some 101 information on how articles are used in greek. If you do not see an article, there is a chance that the noun could be a general idea, but it can also be specific in idea, but that needs context. Here this is not the case. There is an article. If there is an article, then it has to be more specific. It cannot be general in a syntactical sense.

Here is what I propose. There is a specific birthing idea that Paul wishes to bring into mind. Considering how Timothy was a Christian in leadership, what would be the infamous birth that got the snowball rolling in this era of salvation history? You guessed it, the birth of Jesus the Christ. If you consider that all that Paul has said that although wives are subject to husbands, he is implicit and explicit in greek that women in general are free to participate in Church life. Even Luke in his book “The Acts of the Apostles” seems to imply this as well.

Although this may be what some of us were thinking all along, here is the ammunition you need to do effective ministry.

Grace and Peace to you all.

So I’ve been studying like a madman the past couple weeks, when all of a sudden, I’M SICK. I guess life throws curveballs here and there, but I generally like it when it’s convenient. I am working on Galatians and my Exegesis paper is supposed to be 20 pages long. I’m sure I’ll get it done. My passage is going to be 2:15-20. Everything in the book hangs on this as Paul’s thesis. notice how he identifies as a former Jew what the Jewish mind thinks, and then shows that it is not the Law of Moses that saves us, but the faithfulness of Jesus the Christ. Some of your versions say faith IN Jesus Christ, but I translate that later. In Chapter 3 it begins to start focusing on what the believer does in the relationship, but 2:15-20 focuses on what we cannot do. I’ll probably spell that out some in a simplified way later on this blog.

I noticed everybody has their panties in a bind about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I do agree that Obama hasn’t exactly “accomplished” much according to most standards of accomplishment. But I will say that he is off to a good start on a few things. He did at least get a major conversation going on health care, which was needed. He also tried to make good progress with certain countries when he toured the Middle East. And his infamous stance to block lobbyists while running for president was a good face (there is some murky water about lobbyists while a state politician, but I did enjoy him trying to hold them off in the national political realm). To further this discussion, I will say that he was moreso AWARDED the NPP. We can also look at the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and say that he achieved nothing and that full civil rights was accepted much later (if you want to think that full civil rights was achieved at all). His holiday is mostly considered an african-american holiday and his face mainly shows up during Black History Month. But it stands that he was for Civil-Rights for EVERYONE. He was awarded the prize in the 60’s, and I would say that he was well deserving of it. Many others fall in this line too (I personally am one to be understanding of even Al Gore winning that award for the mere fact of bring attention to the issue of global warming, even if he had his facts mixed up). So be a little more thoughtful before saying Obama is undeserving and then realize that this is something given to someone by a council. Take issue with those Norwegians who award this prize.

Also, I got to see Food Inc. for the first time. I highly recommend it. There is a lot going on in big business when it comes to food that we need to be aware of. It reminded me of the book Serve God, Save the Planet by Dr. Matthew Sleeth. It’s good stuff. I’m extremely moderate and I am not registered with any party, so when it comes to government control of Big Business, I can vote how I think necessary, but in the film, even a Republican has stepped up to say “Enough!” I’ll stop there, since I don’t want to turn this into an emotional rant after seeing Hollywood expose corruption, but I will say to see it. It’s very well laid out for a documentary, and the text at the end of the movie is much more powerful after seeing the film rather than by itself. You begin to hear and see the fate of farmers and consumers and it creates an emotional response that you wouldn’t think is possibly from such a simple line of text. Anyways, go see it and form your own opinions, and then study up to see if you are correct (which means don’t just google it, because that would be stupid).

Grace and Peace to you all.

So we had a minister from the Charismatic Episcopalian Church come in to speak for my first attendance of the Healing Conference put on by the Healing Academy at Asbury Seminary. I’m learning some things. I have always realized that healing is part of Christianity, but I have never really been connected to it in my experience. I can’t help but be intrigued, especially since I’ve expounded on this blog that God, according to scriptures (especially Revelation), has already set us free to act, so healing must be a part of our entire ministry. (Understand that our liberation from the powers that be are partial in that God has ALREADY acted, but has NOT YET completed His act.)

I start off with points of contention that I have so far. He mentioned in his lecture and his book Christian Healing that lay people will have to report certain confessions to the civil authorities. He implies in his book and explicitly stated that clergy are protected from witnessing against people in court. I have a hard time with this proposition since Christ was at times public in his rebuke and even seems to imply that good is more important than politics and traditions (though neither He nor Paul were against traditions; in fact, they were supportive of new ones). Another point is that he seems to read some of modern psychology and medicine into the Scriptures. He is not over the mountain with his use, but I would encourage him to use caution. I also had a hard time following the idea of souls that never depart onto the Lord for there rest or judgement. His experience inclines him to say this, but since my experience with this, and the first point also, is very limited, I will just say that I have a hard time following him in this part of ministry.

I will, however, give him due credit for his comments about liberal and conservatives in politics. He admitted that he prefers the conservative Republican stance, but he has his mind limited on them. He says that they can be quite haughty in there stance and that, in his opinion, they are 99% of the time pro-fetus, and not actually pro-life (see some of my post on Abortion, War and Capital Punishment). He is right in saying that one side will want to keep the fetus alive just they can live in relative poverty (which is not supportive of living well), and the other side will support those that survive the allowances they have to kill them. How many are anti-war and still allow babies to die, and how many want to keep babies alive and support wars that they will grow up to be killed in? There needs to be a full application of the philosophies used in life (like sanctity of life).

He also mentioned that healing ministry is not what he is all about; instead he is about the church’s ministry. That is to say, healing is not the only thing he does. I agree completely. One should seek whole ministry. Too many extremist will focus on one thing or another, but not seek some measure of balance. This is something to consider for any minister, lay or clergy.

As far as his application of what the Lord has already done, I give him kudos points galore. And his view of what is to come is not too bad either.

I am starting off my semester off with a blast. I am taking an interesting mix of classes: Exegesis of Galatians, Theology and Practice of Healing, Life of Prayer, and Non-Canonicals (auditing that one). I can say that the one I am reading for today is the Healing class. The book is Authority to Heal written by Ken Blue. I find it very helpful that he has described the fallacies of theologies of “name it and claim it” healing and the ones that accept sickness as the will of God. (He actually makes a distinction between the words suffering and sickness, which he claims is not the same to the Biblical writers.) He also points out that the modern western world is too “secular” and that our infatuation with science as the savior has dismissed God and the miraculous. His proposition is that science and healing is not incompatible, but that secular humanism and Christianity is. There are many cases where the turn away from death is unexplainable and at this point is only explained as an act of God.

I think he might be wrong in saying that the western world is completely that way, though this was written 1987. There is too much spirituality involved in the current setting (just watch Oprah). I have to say that people still understand that death is a negative thing. The overarching point of the entire Bible is that Death is defeated. It points out that 1) we must seek things that move away from death (healing, peace efforts, medicine, counseling) and 2) we do not use death to push our agenda as Christians (war, abuse, degradation, rape).

My challenge here is that if you believe in a physically risen Jesus, the first of Humanity, and our same resurrection in the end (which is part of the Christian hope), then you must defy death and hope that despite death we have a hope of bodily resurrection (though we will be glorified and will actually rule over the earth in a way becoming of love and peace as commanded by God).

So go out and seek to make life better, despite your urges fed to you by Satan himself to use death.

Grace and peace to you all.

I heard a sermon awhile back at a church where a pastor preached a sermon on the commandment of stealing. You could tell that the man was referring to taxes and that he was implying that the taxing of the top percent of Americans would be stealing. I wasn’t sure how much to agree with him. Sure, taxing is not exactly stealing until you talk about those poor who have been oppressed by stealing, but for the top percent of the country, I’m sure that they have much to spare.

That got me thinking. How does the church view economy and money. I can’t help but think back to acts and the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 and how many of us find our feet on the same cliff they were on. Do we give it all, or try to keep some for ourselves? And if we keep some, do we lie or come clean with what we have kept?

How many times have we done that?

How many times should we have died at the feet of God’s throne?

I do believe that the gospel counters much of what any government is. Most tend to say that they will bring hope and change for the better, but with the Christian, that is God. Obama has said “Yes, We Can,” which can be pushed to a level that equals the Tower of Babel at times. But we must remember Bush as he stood on the debris of the twin towers and vowed vengeance, which landed us in two wars, one which most think we should not have stormed into, and a prison which suffers from human rights charges. Being a Christian, I would say that although I voted for both of these men, they have come short in many ways. (I don’t mean to bash them too hard, but I do want to point out the reality of humanity.)

Maybe we should be more attentive to God’s will. You hear many saying this or that about taxes and the economy, but the truth is that our country is struggling, and the Church has a potential for greatness. Crisis has an element of chaos, but also of opportunity.

Where are our old saints who opened hospitals and orphanages?

I hate to say this out of enjoying Capitalism, but the first century Church had some ideas that would lean toward socialism (Though at other times, seems very much like a democratic republic). I think it’s funny that Christians are yelling that they are scared of Obama because he is a socialist, never mind the social security check they will be cashing in (assuming that it will still be there in the future). Plus, they would probably have yelled the same about Peter and the decisions of the early Church for spreading the wealth.

I just think that the Christians need to open their eyes to suffering, and they might not yell so much. Disagree if you like, but there needs to be a solution discussed immediately.

I end by recalling the Rich Man who had an overabundant harvest (Luke 12:13-21, Luke has a tendency to critique the rich). He decided to build bigger barns to hold ever bit of that grain. We must remember that the first century Jew would know to be appalled at this since the man was supposed to keep the same barn and actually leave some grain for the widow, the orphan, the poor, and even the alien. So, in layman’s terms, if the rich find ways to get richer while the poor get poorer, or even cause them to get poorer (remember that we must never look at resources as endless) than something is wrong. And it becomes quite obvious whom God will vindicate when he comes to judge.

Grace and Peace to you all.

Here is another point. I listed it due to the intense focus of the Church on the issue. I can’t help but think that the Church has an unhealthy fixation on the issue compared to other sexual issues. Not only that, but it tends to place it’s views on America. I think it probably has to do with this view that the Church and the state have made the distinction between the two fuzzy. Biblically speaking, the world (which includes America) is something that is not quite what Heaven (which includes the Church) is. Such an idea leads me to search Christianity. The Church is it’s own political entity with it’s own agenda. The Nation is only included when we consider that it will one day fall under God’s rule, but that is not yet. In the church we follow God, but in America, the constitution and the leaders of the nation are the rulers.

Most solid Christians have to admit that Israel was a nation under God, the only geo-political nation to ever attain such a title. But the faith has changed its course. Since Christ rose from the dead, we no longer fight for a geo-political entity. We know that at Christ’s return, and the resurrection of the saints, the geo-political entity we wait for will be made reality. In a sense our politics are already existence, but not on the scale of what will follow the Judgment.

If you read Scripture, you will see a motif of a people who, although they mean no harm to current powers of the world, they oppose them and their anti-Christ agendas (which is more tied into thoughts of men over the ages and is not some crazy being in the future, Revelation doesn’t even mention the word anti-Christ).

Now to the topic at hand, marriage and homosexuality. I start with marriage, since I hold a highly Christian view of it. I believe marriage between male and female is sanctioned and protected by God as a means of survival (Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:5). However, I think that is a Judeo-Christian ideal (I also admit other religions have the same view). To place this expectation on the people of the world I think is a little ludicrous. (A side remark on marriage in heaven [Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35], marriage is used to mock the Sadducees. I don’t think that marriage is the point here. I also think that maybe any point on marriage is that it will not be needed, since marriage is a custom/law issue for people who would not remain with those whom they promised to be with, and those evil people will not inherit heaven when it come here.)

What people need to realize with these verses is that the institution of marriage is not the primary recipient of protection, the people that are married are. That means that the ones currently taking advantage of the marriage situation are just as guilty as homosexuals are…no…they are more guilty. Oppression is always more devastating than simple sexual deviance from the law.

Homosexuals are obviously not highly favored in Scriptures (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Many use the Sodom and Gomorrah and tie in homosexual motifs (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6 [this one is an example of when that is not done]). It is usually a later development. The first writers, and the writer of 2 Peter, probably had bigger issues with taking people out of their homes to rape them, and homosexuality was the straw that broke the camels back. Ancient Israel would have looked at the creation account and said that since God’s first creation was between man and woman, and since there is a command to multiply, that homosexuality defied God. They saw God as moving them towards life, and homosexuality was not a move toward life. Since Christ rose from the dead, furthering the point that death is the enemy, Christians would have kept that point, and should still do so today.

But since we don’t use death or move towards death, we do not bring death to our enemies, since we are enemies to death…PERIOD.

The end of Revelation is explicit about letting the evil do what they must. We know that vindication will come. And what if God was to change his mind in the end? Although you can’t condone here on earth what they do, should you not be kind and admit their worth before God? What if America was to allow homosexual marriages? Is American a nation of God? No. There can only be one nation of God, and that is the Kingdom of Heaven, which is represented by the Church.

If you want to follow God, worry about how we are following His will.

Don’t commit adultery.

Don’t seduce and rape young women or men.

Stay away from incest, beastiality, and prostitution.

Don’t steal what’s not yours.

Do not murder with the gun or the tongue.

Do not split apart a community of God with your agendas.

Do not hold money higher than God.

Do not take in excess when others have nothing

Follow his will as is expressed in the Law, the prophets, Jesus, and others.

If you follow His will you will inherit heaven.

But if you willingly oppose him, you will inherit hell.

And surprisingly, some of the ones condemning homosexuals to hell, since they are not faithful to the terms God has listed, or probably closer to hell the any self-respecting gay person.

Grace and peace to all of you. I love you all, even my friends I don’t agree with in lifestyle.

(This is derived from the NRSV Bible, IVP Bible Dictionaries, and The Anchor Bible Dictionary)

Yeah, I know this one is tough, but I think it’s time I just say some things about it. Everyone seems to make it a very simple issue of black and white. I can’t help but think that it might that simple in and of itself, but I differ on answering the problem. Sometimes when looking at that simple problem takes an answer that is a little complex.

I turn to the pro-choice people. I tend to not agree with all that the pro-choice argument states, even though it’s difficult to really draw a line that separates two beings when one is still in the womb. I tend to think that pregnancy is a gift of responsibility, which is the only point that pro-choice is applicable, since a law controlling that would be an invasion of freedom. There is a good number of people arguing the pro-choice argument that argue more on a political idea that says that government shouldn’t be telling people what they should do with their bodies. Although we disagree with how that is being pushed too far, the majority of this group is admitting that there is a problem with the number of abortions today, which is good. I’ll return to this later.

The pro-life argument I tend to agree with, but usually just with the abortion issue. Let’s be honest, most of them argue against abortion, but there are other things that they accept without paying any attention to their arguments of sanctity of life. If someone argues for the sanctity of life, you have to at least consider it when it comes to things like war and capital punishment. It’s a illogical to give attention to one type of killing and turn a blind eye to another type, unless you find a new foundation for your argument, which means kiss the sanctity of life argument and Christian world-view goodbye. Or, if you want to push the true pro life view point, take it further, start looking for things that would in general be contrary to preserving life. Some are starting to see that we should oppose killing of any kind. Just look at the Patristic father Justin who disowned even the abandonment of children and his contemporaries who generally ranked abortion and infanticide with killing, whether homicide, warfare, or even capital punishment.

I personally think that there are some complications that produce gray area. Let’s say that I had a wife who had complications with pregnancy and the doctor presented the choice of saving the child or the mother. I don’t exactly what I would say. I would probably lean in favor of the wife, but you can see the problem. Or, let’s say, a guy has a gun and is getting ready to shoot my family, but I have access to a gun and can stop him. I just don’t know what I would do. I would like to talk him away from it and beg for the life of everyone, but I just don’t know.

One of my points may cause some people to swallow their pride. Many Pro-life proponents would not even think about joining sides with one for pro-choice legislation, and the same vice-versa. But let’s think about the fact that there are pro-choicers who admit that there is a problem. Most of the sides take to picket protests and holding signs that simply say things that not only are dividing, but hurtful at times. The point is to help with the problems in a way that reflects Christ. This would mean that maybe those who admit that there is a problem have had something revealed to them. What if we could let go of our pursuit of legislation and move towards programs that would help lessen the punch of the problem? That actually would move toward an answer better than what we’re doing right now. If we are concerned with the sanctity of life, then we must no longer stand on a platform that goes nowhere, but step towards inclusion with those who also want to answer a crisis despite political philosophy. Perhaps that will be the picture of grace and, even more importantly, hope that this debate has been lacking for a very long time in America.

Some would call me a little naive, and understandably so. Most of those people work with the idea that we will not return here after we die and that the separation is necessary in order to make the most of here. That is extremely unbiblical. The bible teaches us that resurrection for us will be physically real.

That here, in this world, but just in a transformed reality.

The point that I make is that the Christian has a different basis of reality, so that they are  not naive, but in a new hope and in a different world view. So don’t judge too quickly. If you truly believe in resurrection, then death here means nothing, since whoever dies will be present in the Lord, which means that when God returns and resurrects everyone, that they will be present with everyone else.

So don’t worry about trying to punish people by using violence. We push for redemption, and that means no vengeance, which is tough. But once again, resurrection, which leads to a line of thought.

Someone is murdered,

but they are going to be resurrected later,

so there is no point in getting revenge or being scared of dying.

And since we are enemies of Death as Christ was, we do not cause death (or try to).

These are just some thoughts. Don’t be scared of dying, and don’t be so prideful to team up with someone who is willing to approach some answers. Although you may do it for different reasons, at least for a Christian it becomes a point of going towards the Kingdom and taking as many with you as you can.

At least consider some of this.

Grace and peace to you all.