Miss Saigon and The American Dream

My daughter gave my wife and I a ticket to the musical play Miss Saigon a few months ago so we went to watch it. We enjoyed it very much, one of the reasons is that the main casts were played by several Filipino singers/performers! I am biased of course. We were quite pleased that they did very very well and our hearts were warmed. Seated to the right of us were Vietnamese folks and I thought they were touched by the story and by the performance. There were a few hankies drawn and sounds of sniffs after the performance. It was a very touching and real piece of a story. I hope the Vietnamese watchers considered the performance doing justice to that part of their history some 30-40 years ago. The Filipinos and the Vietnamese in some respect share a common experience, they both were colonized by western powers. Ours was with the Spaniards and then the Americans. We Filipinos are good colonial children. Colonized people live in a mixed cultural mindset. Everyone is superior to you and you are down there below. You are never happy with who you are and you wished your skin was white, your height tall, your nose pointy and your hair blond or fair. You wish you were rich and not poor. Everyone is beautiful except you. Ever felt like that? Then we got something in common.

Here is the conclusion I draw from seeing Miss Saigon, though the Americans retreated and lost the war, culturally they won! They won because that American Dream got embedded in that generation they touched and they are pursuing it today. That is what is going to happen in Iraq. The US may lose the war, but culturally they will win because their version of democracy and lifestyle appeals to the human psyche, it is right on the ball and in sync with human nature. The right to be "happy" and the right to pursue it, what could be wrong with that? Who would not like the nice life shown in Hollywood?

Some one like D. Gelernter's Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion says that America (Americanism) is a religion!(I got the book reference from Bill Cork's blog). In fact if you look at the way Evangelicalism has developed today, Americanism is mixed in there too, right there in that form of Christianity which, ironically has very little trace or connection now with the original Evangelicals, it is there too. Fortunately thinking ones are reflecting and are waking up.

Over at the restless reformer blog, I got this poem

i repent, i repent of my pursuit of america’s dream
i repent, i repent of living like i deserve anything
of my house, my fence, my kids, my wife
in our suburb where we’re safe and white
i am wrong and of these things i repent

~ Derek Webb, “I Repent”

Same here, I repent of it too.

Hmmm, yawn, whatever

I went to a Atheist vs. Christian debate last week, Matt was kind enough to let me know so I went to my uni where the debate happened to be. I was actually expecting the Dr. (the atheist) to do a lot of damage since the Mr. (the christian) has not even finished his uni degree yet. I mean, the credentials of the atheist is just so over whelming.

Firstly, the christian went in first on the floor, but actually he should have gone in after the atheist because the atheist is in the affirmative, his thesis is that religion is a delusion and the christian is on the negative. At any rate the christian boy did a good job specially in the middle of the "debate" as he focused on Christ and his Cross.

Unfortunately the atheist did not even do a dent. The atheist made assertions even to the point of asserting that Jesus did not exist! Now you may try and prove he did not rise from the dead but there was a Jesus who pagan historians said that was crucified and whom Christians addressed as their Lord. To assert that is to be taken out of the realm of being serious. So plenty of assertions but nothing to back up that substantially can be taken with much seriousness. Then comes the kicker, the atheist stated that atheists are moral people and that you do not have to have a God to have morality. Hence, he believes in being moral but he does not believe (or he doubts) if there was a God. Now his definition of his type of atheism is already subject to equivocation, but the justification for morality is...passe'.



Here is what I mean by passe'. I remember when I was a young college sophomore, in my Philosophy class, we studied Immanuel Kant and his work - Critique of Pure Reason. I do not remember the full details of the book but in summary, Kant showed that there was no positivist evidence one can use to convince that God exists. There is no empirical test one can use. Whether we agree with Kant on that or not is another issue. But the atheist in the debate was sounding off Kant, but with a sad incoherence. Unlike him, Kant showed that for practical reasons we should believe in the existence of God because morality and social order has no basis at all. In fact social order has no foundation or basis to be. One's idea of justice also becomes irrational and absurd. Rather than order, it will produce anarchy (yet the atheist's solution to world peace is to chuck out religion).


So the position of the atheist, I conclude is passe'. Did you observe today that there are not too many becoming atheists? What are people becoming? They are becoming spiritual! The issue today is no longer does God exist? The issue that people are working on now is - which God should they believe in? They are shopping for a God or some form of spirituality they can latch on to.

The Gospel does not give spirituality, it tells and gives the love of God for poor souls wandering in the dark, in demonstration. It does not simply say God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Yuck.

Rather God says I love you and here is how - see my Son hanging on the Cross for you, an enemy worthy of my wrath.

Psalm 14:1

Beating to submission

I see that the ELCA will vote again on the topic of homosexual clergy. I heard they have discussed and voted on this issue before, and now it is back again on the table. Ohh, I see that, all you have to do is if at first you do not succeed just try and try again until you beat your opposition to tiredness and wear them out to submission.

I am just wondering, this technique can be used also for pushing again the ordination of women. All those who want this to be a reality is attempt to put it again on the next synod. They know how to wait, but you just got to admire the tenacity of the movement.

Do you think I am a super star?

Ahh yes, the world of Superstar Apostles, Swash Buckling Preachers and Adorable Master Jedi of Communicating Therapeutic Prosperity Get-All-You-Can-Get-From-This-World Message, where else, but in CCW (Crazy Charismaniac World)?

I got to share with you the world of celebrity preaching, read here at a Charisma Mag editorial. Something is wrong isn't it? It starts from its root doctrines that are wrong to begin with, how come my pastor friends find it hard to see? This sort of thing is the fruit of false teachings. How crazy does one need to get?

The sad thing is that this American Pentecostalism is being exported in Asia, South America and Africa, in short 3rd world nations, and they are being misled by it.

Saved *from* 'good works'

I said one time in a correspondence that God has saved me from good works! Someone read this took objection, "how can God save you from something good"? "He saves you from evil (nut head), good works is not something God has to save you from"!

That is the question, are my good works looked by God as "good works"? Or is it me, by fiat, declaring my works, good? If you are going to come to God for acceptance based on what you believe to be your good works, may I have a suggestion? You'd better be sure that those works you have are darn "good" and God judges them to be so.

God saved us from our "good works", he is not requiring us to rely on the good works that we might thought we have performed as the basis for being in a right status/ relationship with him. God has released us from looking at our "good works" as a basis of having a relationship with Him, that is what I mean by saying God saved me from (my) good works. I forget the words of Luther, he even said somewhere that we should repent of our good works! Good works when used to front up to God is no longer "good".


I believe St. Paul's attitude towards his good works were the same, he said (one of my favorite verse) in Phil 3:9
...

9and be found in him, not having(V) a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but(W) that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

Having good works is not the problem, having faith in Christ is.

We got groove

In the last couple of years I came to see that God has given us many gifts like music and culture. The thing is that we misuse and abuse these gifts. I thought I should share something personal, this was the type of songs my buddies and I used to like when we were in high school. Its got groove, its got soul (Funk Bros & Joan Osborne). We liked these types of songs because we were a bunch of lonely cowboys hanging out figuring out the meaning of life. Besides we were Filipinos boys, what could we do but sing. Imagine that, I am posting something "un-spiritual" and I do not even feel guilty about that! Just tells you how much of a baby boomer I am. If it looks unclean in Firefox, let me know, Safari Beta isn't handling this well.

I know I got to find, some kind of peace of mind, help me please.

Thank God, the words of this song is not the last statement that can be made to the broken hearted.

UPDATE I have been praying for the Korean Christians being hostaged by the Taliban.

The Prots 'ave 'em

I remember when I was in my teens, a local RC priest came to my mom, asking her to encourage me to enter the priesthood. I remember him chatting with me trying to convince me to enter the RC ministry. I can still picture him even today walking with me towards the bus station encouraging me to become a priest. Where I came from, it is a pride and joy of parents to have a "Father" as one of their offspring. My mom never spoke to me about it though after that incident. I associate RC priesthood with celibacy and I am happy that I did not have such fortitude, it is kinda scary. I was not cut out for the RC priesthood.

Now when I see these Protestant pastors entering the RC priesthood and being allowed to keep their wives, I kinda like shouting - foul! How come they get to keep their families but when an RC priest gets married, he is kicked out of the RC ministry?

Ever thought about that, eyh?

That is not fair! However, may be there is a good strategy here. My advice would be, if anyone wants to be an RC priest, first enter the ministry via the Protestant communion, get your family, then switch over to the RCC. That way you get your cake and get to eat it too; you have your wife, and you have those magnanimous looking vestments too! What more can you ask? That is bliss!

Christ-full Grace

I have been thinking (though it hurts my brain) about grace once again. This brought back memories of preachings that I would do at the start of a new year. I thought it would be good for my hearers to be encouraged again about the fact that God has grace for them as they face a new calendar year. Each new year brings with it new life challenges, that is obvious. There was something wrong with those sermons.

I am in firm belief that the Evangelical Charismatic and Calvinism will one day merge. It is happening now, I know of a couple of friends from Charismania who are now Calvinist/Calvinistic today. People like Dr. Piper, Dr. Storms i.e. mainly from Baptistic/Charismatic traditions are providing such doctrinal harmony. With Charismania lacking substance and a Confession, thinking Charismatics are migrating to Calvinism helping to bolster their numbers. The thing is that both streams affirm the Sovereignty of God. In the Charismatic stream, they believe God's miraculous powers are still true today, and in the latter, God is Sovereign and can save whomever he wants to save. I can affirm both, in some sense.

But there is still something amiss. How can I know or how do I know that God's Sovereign Power is for me rather than against me?

This is what I observe, when I was in Charismania/ Evangelia, people speak of God's Grace as a separate concept or as an entity on its own. It may be taught as a doctrine that stands out in isolation from other concepts. I heard people preach on Grace and speak of Grace as a stand-alone idea. When they speak of Grace, it is not Grace because it is some kind of infusion of Power that God gives in exchange for some satisfactory action performed. In other cases, it is not a favorable attitude of God towards a sinner as it is just an arbitrary predilection without demonstration.

What is missing? Christ. He is shown not to stand in between the sinner and God's Grace. It seems to me whenever we speak of Grace in isolation from Christ, this is not essentially what the Bible means by Grace. How do I know God has favor for me, since as a sinner I have no claim from God? I am his enemy, I deserve no mercy. I can not know, unless I see Christ, for Christ is the demonstration of that Grace. It is not arbitrary, it is decisive, it is firm and it is for sure, for the sinner. It is not partial.

God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us--Romans 5:8b.

.

If I look away from where it is found, in Christ at the Cross, I will live life in wonder, like a sheep without a shepherd, a ship without a rudder. There is just despair with an occasional swing towards self-elation when things are going great.

Today when I get my prayers answered, I tend not to think God has Grace for me as me. Rather, I tend now to think that God answers my prayers because of Christ, because as a sinner, I am one of those Jesus died for. I have no claim, neither a right to approach God, but I do, only because of Christ since he has been provided as my Mediator.

There is no such thing as God's Grace without Christ, Christ is God's Grace for you. A Grace that has no Christ and no Cross in it, is just simply, -- not God's Grace.

grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. -- John 1:17b

Jimbo's Book

One of the greatest delights of this internet world is that you meet new friends, brothers and sisters in Christ. My buddy Jim Cronfel, a Reformed guy (one day he will come to the light ;-)), sent me a copy of his first book. The subject is the idea of annihilationism, and Jim does the job of critiquing this concept with a passion. Congratulations to Jim, it is not often that one writes a book that the masses can read and it is about Christian faith too. I know of only a few in Evangelical world that believes this, one is Dr Stott mentioned in the book and I think the Adventists believe in this concept too. He would appreciate a comment or two.

Speaking of books, I think it is a privilege to have written a book. Perhaps also, I can turn my thesis into a book one day, when it is finished. Its tentative title is "Contextualizing Description Logics" or something like that. My wife is looking forward to it as she thinks it would be a wonderful gift idea. She says it has lots of uses for every day folk like her. She says, it can be used as a door stopper, paper weight, or a decorative item. She is a very perceptive and clever girl.

Godel's Theorem and Religious Assertions

If you are not a geek, you may be intimidated by this post, please don't be. What I am posting here may sound way above your head but hang on a bit, you may find this post interesting if not intriguing as it is related to Christianity in an indirect way.

You must have heard of Albert Einstein (you haven't? you must be gen X), but very likely you may have not heard of of Kurt Godel (see my picture? That's his photo). If Einstein is to Physics, then Godel is to Mathematics. Both of these figures discovered major results that revolutionized their fields. In one way or another, you must have heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, remember your high school physics? I doubt if you have heard of Godel while you were doing your high school algebra. You encounter him only if you are taking logic or number theory subjects, that is quite true but let me reduce in a nutshell the point I am about to make.

Godel is known for his Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems. Skip the first one, but let us focus on what his 1st Incompleteness Theorem because this has a relationship to theology.

In a nutshell, Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem may be stated this way on a popular level - there are some true things or statements that can not be proven. Remember this is my popularizing of it but technically what he stated was in the realm of arithmetic about arithmetic truths (about numbers and their properties). Since our language includes arithmetic (human language does) then simplistically, there are some true statements that have no proof in our world. This line of reasoning sounds reasonable but let us for the sake of argument, agree to this even though such popular notions is just an analogue of Godel's.

Now this has plenty of implications for the people of faith. For the one committed to sola scriptura, beliefs must be gathered from assertions made by Scripture. For those who are not committed to sola scriptura, then they may employ this theorem to their advantage. They can assert a statement of belief with nothing to back it up.

Let me give an example, take the RC belief in the bodily assumption of Mary. There is no direct support of this from Scripture and no matter how one tries, the Scripture just does not give even a suggestion that this has happened. Try as one may, it only winds up in frustration, making hard for Protestants to be convinced. Now to an RC apologist who is quite an expert when it comes to Philosophy ( they really are philosophically savvy and sophisticated), Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem may be appealed to for support - they can say "Mary was assumbed bodily into heaven" is one of these true statements that have no proof!. Let as call this statement - M.

There is a catch though, it won't work. The reason is that in order for them to say that M is true, they are still left with work to do, they still have to prove that M is a G Statement ie it satisfies the Theorem's properties. Hence, they must demonstrate that M is one of those statements that the 1st Theorem speaks about. Where do you go to prove M has the property of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? You wind up showing a proof which is a type of question begging exercise.


(for amusement see here for weird reasonings based on the fact that since the Bible does not speak about all things we may derive many things)

Yom - don't be ridiculous

Did God use evolution in Genesis 1-3? I did a study of this several years ago and as I concluded then, the more I conclude now, my answer is : I do not think so.

I came to this conclusion by studying the word "yom", the Hebrew word for "day" as used in the Hebrew Bible in Gen 1. Now, I am no Hebrew expert but I did take university subjects in Biblical Hebrew for a couple of years and I think I was taught enough to know what are the arguments going on surrounding this word. I believe the word "yom" stood for "24 hour day" as we know day to mean in the normal day to day usage of day (pun intended) to mean, ie just that. Why? I have several reasons, both linguistic, philosophical and theological.

1. If Moses wrote this to his contemporaries, "yom" could not be understood as a very very long period of time. The reason is that the ancients do not have sophisticated arithmetic notion of millions and millions of years. (My knowledge of maths come here too). So, in order to give a notion of evolution, Moses would have to say God took myriads and myriads of time for things to sprout on the earth. Also, ancient people are so into changes in seasons, they have this notion of cycles and at home with it. Evolution counters the notion of cycles, even if theistic evolutionist say that "yom" means epochs. This granting of cycles for day is an argument itself against the notion of evolution, for evolution has no cycles. It is just one long continuum of time when you come to think of it.

2. If theistic evolution is the way to understand Gen 1 narrative, then it rids itself of literalness. If day is not literal then, was there a tree? Was there an Adam and Eve? Was there a serpent? Or are we to understand these as representing something else? Was there an actual eating of the forbidden fruit? In effect, was there sin? This completely throws off the need for atonement. If Jesus died for a literal sin, then there must have been a literal Adam too, and so on, and hence it has to be a literal day for there is a literal world that God is stated to have created.

3. Evolution requires and implies death of previous life forms. Then death happened before sin came, and collides with, Rom 5:12. According to this verse, death only happened due to sin. Evolution presupposes dying and decay prior to sin thus it does not square with the other implications of Scripture. A friend of mine even suggested that the lions around have always eaten other animals during Adam's time. I said, then it was possible for Adam to have been mauled by a ferocious beast and could have died then. Think of these lions stalking and pouncing upon weak isolated water buffaloes, look at one here

4. Lastly, I do not have to resort to the validations of Science to affirm my faith. The concept of fiat creation is at home with the nature of a Supreme Creator who is by definition the Judeo-Christian God. I find it weak to say, God had to use evolution in the process. God does not have to be patient here although he is patient with sinners not desiring their destruction but their repentance.

This reminds me, of Balki, one of the main characters of Perfect Strangers, one which I enjoyed watching very much. His famous line is "don't be ridiculous". I hear some people out there telling me that now.

Frankly I do not mind being called ridiculous because I already believe in something that sounds ridiculous, one of them is the Gospel. Let me challenge you, if you think that the Gospel which says that this God takes the sins of the wicked world, dumps it and punishes it in his innocent Son is not ridiculous, you may have a natural understanding of the Gospel. The Bible says the world calls this thing foolishness. If I believe in something the world ought to be calling foolish, why should I not let them call me a fool for believing in a fiat Creation which Science says is contrary to "evidence"?

If our minds are not astounded by the Gospel, if it does not say "this thing is so good to be true", we may have gotten the Gospel wrong, it should sound ridiculous and radical. Of course, it is out of this world. Am I making sense?

Fair Dinkum ??!

The Vatican says as usual they are fair dinkum here and for a news item covering the document look here. They have been in the news lately. IMHO, the theme of the document is Apostolic Succession(AS), if one notices how that point always turns up! As far as I can remember as an RC kid, it was hammered in my brain that what makes the Sacraments valid is the AS. The one performing the sacrament must have been ordained in the line of AS. It does not matter if you believe in the Real Presence of the Lord in the Supper, if your minister is not in line with the AS, that Supper is not valid. Besides your pastor is bogus too if he does not have AS. So if you as a minister want to really have valid sacraments you must get AS, i.e. come to the umbrella of Rome. That is the bottom line. If one elevates the Office of Holy Ministry (Pastoral Office) to the level that you attach validity to the Sacraments to your office, you lose out on RCC, they claim the right pedigree of AS, and no else has it, you certainly don't have it. Just my humble advice, if you really want confirmation of what you are doing, get your AS.

Also then over here, on the matter of indulgences still around, we say Fair Dinkum??! No, not really, honestly I am not saying that. We Prots who come from Latinized countries got experience, we are not that naive. We knew that it has always been there to this day. The ones who are probably saying "fair dinkum?!" in amazement are the ones who signed the JDDJ. Poor people, they seem to be in bewilderment. Seems like the signers are feeling the offense of this. At any rate, the RCC has clearance of this. The RCC can turn around and say that they never signed anything containing indulgences in the JDDJ anyway. They can turn around and say," but why cry and complain, you won't be using them, right"?

Pardon my usual sarcasm, I hope they are learning some lessons now.

No Apologies

Some have observed and question why there are not too many apologists that come from a Lutheran background. Whereas there are many professional RC apologists, Reformed and non-Denominational ones, yet there are very few that stand out from the Lutheran camp. So far the most well known ones are Prof. John Warwick Montgomery and Prof. Rod Rossenblad. Even my finding KFUO was an accident (providential). So not too many.
They are obscure and when you do see them engaging in apologia, you do not see them debating topics like the existence of God, the Bible etc.

There are several reasons for this obscurity, and I think it is due to their philosophy.

1. For them the Pastor is Theologian and apologetics is done in the context of the parish environment. All Christian work, like apologetics is done in the context of a pastoral sphere. This is a different concept when compared to idea of para-church organizations.

2. They got the Book of Concord, their confession, which is highly apologetic in character. So in a manner of speaking, they can throw to you "the book". It codifies there their defense for believing what they believe.

3. They won't discuss with the atheist if God exists, or the issue of the Bible being the Word of God. No, they will discuss with the atheist Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. This is a different philosophy and it makes sense. One can convince an atheist to be a theist but that still misses the point, one can be convinced that the Bible is the Word of God but that still falls short. None of these makes one a Christian. So, they will discuss Jesus with the atheists as foolish from a logical standpoint that might seem.

The point is that Jesus Christ the Lord has come already and that has changed things. God proved he more than exists, he went further, he proved he loves us. The atheist does not need a God who hates him and who simply makes demands. He also needs to know that the God he does not want to believe in, actually loved him. Christ is proof of that. You hit many birds with that one stone. God, the Bible, life's meaning falls in place when the atheist sees the Christ...given for him.

See also blogologists of Lutheran stripes at aardvarkalley. Follow the links there.

Johnny B. Good

As you can see, this blogspot has been rated G, suitable for the consumption of the general public, G is for general, not G for good.

It always makes me smile when my wife and I email each other and she would sign off with...

Be good, love
(then signs the name I call her)

"Be good". That is an internal joke between us. She knows I have the habit of putting my foot in my mouth, I just have a way of rubbing people the wrong way. I do not mean to, but it comes out that I am liable to offend when I speak. Even my jokes are just funny to me and my kids but not to the public. I do not have to work hard at it, I am just a natural. One of my great gifts, the ability to annoy people without trying.

It gets worst each day. I learn each day to abandon all hope of acceptance, from God and fellow man, and rest in the hope that I might be found not having a righteousness that comes from "being good" but that of simple faith in Christ who is the one who is Good ... for me. He is my Righteousness, not only in front of God, but also in front of man - Phil 3:9

They have a vision

I don't know much of Federal Vision. This is a movement inside confessional Presbyterianism and my light reading tells me that they are making strong attempts to bring more value and take more comfort from the Sacraments.

I am a very simplistic thinker, and the way I see it is that they are like people in a race track. They are running towards the finish line that has the label Lutheran on it, but just a few meters before reaching the finish line, they fumble and fall. They do not quite make it. The reason being their ankles are chained to a post labeled TULIP. It can not be done without mangling severely Covenant Theology.

It seems to me that once you become Lutheran thinking in your Sacraments, you will have to go and put your stress on objective universal justification because it is the center of the wheel that gives life to other parts of its theology, it is the heart and foundation of Lutheran approach to Christian faith. It is like a magnet that will pull you in its orbit, unless you are careful to resist it.

I am sorry for being reductionistic of course but that is the general drift of my impression. I am willing to be educated though.

How did they do it?

I have been wondering how Luther and Calvin get to write so many things in their short life span. Take Calvin for example, he wrote The Institutes and commentaries on the books in the Bible. Luther wrote so many sermons, tracts and for example the Bondage of the Will. They were living book machines, tons and tons of them. They wrote so much in such a short span of time and what they wrote are still being read today!

How did they manage this? I have no answer, all I can think of is the fact that they did not have TV back then.

Church Reforming or Switching

semper reformanda, always reforming. It has been said that the church that has been reformed continues to reform.

I have been reading quite a bit on what is happening in the Christian scene, mainly my experience of course is limited to the Evangelical side of things. If you look deep in the bowels of my archive you will see that I have written on several aspects in relation to denominational switching of which I am one denominational switcher myself. What I mean is that it seems that the Christian world is evidently in a crisis. There is no question, the Protestants are, I don't know though if there are RCs who would admit that the RCC is in crisis too, perhaps the level headed ones, well maybe. Ministers and lay people have been making switches and I would cite a few. For example, we know that the Episcopal/Anglican Church (ECUSA) has been struggling with the ordination of female and homosexual ministers. The same is true with the Lutherans like those in the ELCA. There are those that are faithful to the orthodox Christian beliefs and practice in these denominations and they are hurt by what is going on. Most of the moves I have read was a move towards Rome and a very handful to Constantinople.

Now you might say, those are liberal leaning denominations anyway but there are those moves too from confessional denominations like the LC-MS, to either Rome or Constantinople. But the disatisfaction here is not something I understand since I am not in the thick of these things.

In most cases, the move seems to go into this type of reasoning -

1. "they have departed from the faith, we need to jump ship".
2. "they do not have the right faith in the first place, we need to jump ship".
3. "their faith is no different from ours, only much fuller, we need to jump ship".

From what I noticed with what happened to Luther, he believed that his Church, the RCC came from the true faith but has departed from it, and needs to go back. He did not jump ship, rather, he stayed as much as he can until kicked out.

Some reason that because point 1 is present, it must mean point 2 is the case. This is not true. I have seen wherein points 1,2, and 3 have been used to justify with good force the ship jumping. For this reason there are those in ECUSA and ELCA that are trying to reform their church body and have not jumped shipped yet.

Reformation is messy, but it is only taken if point 1 is the case. It is like fixing your car and evolving it to be a hot rod. It is much more expensive and time consuming exercise, so why not simply just buy a hot rod off the shelve? Some have done this to find out that the hot rod they got is not so hot after all.

So what happens if those from ECUSA and ELCA who jump ship see their former denominations repenting? Would they return? Most likely no, because point 2 kicks in already. Is repenting for a church not possible? It is - look at the World Wide Church of God, they have aligned more to orthodox evangelicalism and still in the process.

So what about my relationship with Pentecostals? I still try to be connected with them even though I have been shunned and been barred from their pulpits. I want them to return to the Gospel, I did hear it 25+ years ago even though haphazardly intermittent. We can not be bitter towards the people we are trying to reach. At first that might be the reaction but after a while you get to understand that falling into error is what sinners do. I feel for those in reform groups, they have a tough road ahead. Like the Lord said to Elijah, he still has people who have not bowed down the knees to Baal.

Who should believe the Gospel

Seems, to me that the one who should believe the Gospel first, is the man behind the pulpit. He is not only to believe it personally but he is to believe it as the very means God uses to bring others to Himself. If that preacher is not convinced in the promise of Romans 1:16-17, that it is the Power of God to save, he will cook up weird strategies to prop his ministry.

Today, pastors are so much under pressure to play along with secular culture. When you have 40 people filled with folks who are about to make an exit from this world and you see besides you another church which is overflowing with young people, there is so much temptation to lose confidence in the Gospel and make a switch. There is every reason to justify the use of some marketing gimmick to compete. This is when the message starts getting skewed and the diet given to the pew becomes more and more messages for self help and tips for living.

So if I was a pastor should I not give a seminar on "controlling your finances", "relating to your teenager" or something like that? I will but, I will not be the one to give it, and neither will it be done on a Sunday. I would probably ask an expert to tell my people about this stuff on a mid-week seminar, but not me.

The thing is, if your church is growing and people are coming there for various reason, except the reason of the Gospel, then whatever got them there, you need to tap into and make it bigger and better. You will have to refine that thing that is getting people in. If it was excitement, then more excitement up ahead is needed. Do you think people will not get bored with it? That is the nature of sin. So , you need to adopt new techniques then when the time comes, right?

If people in church are excited but their excitement is not in the Gospel, well some serious things will be happening down the road and it is just a matter of time before disillusionment sets in.

What more could be better than being the person to tell people where to find peace with God and show them how their sins are forgiven? That is the pastor's sacred niche, he should not give it away nor sell it out to what felt needs people may have. Besides, people really do not know what they need anyway.

I think today, preachers are under the testing of God. He is testing them to see if they themselves are cleaving to the Gospel, testing to see if they will be faithful to the simplicity of the promise of salvation. If the Gospel is not the message that is preached in season and out of season, then whatever that message coming from the pulpit happens to be will not bring lasting substance. If the preacher himself is bored with it, then maybe he needs to hear Law and Gospel also preached to him. That is the common trick of the devil, to make us doubt the promises of God and one of them is to make us doubt in the power of the Gospel to change lives.


As St. Paul said (and I apply it to them) : Woe are they, if they do not preach the Gospel.

Those 25K denoms and counting

Over at Fearsome Pirate, we read a reply to the criticism that the Protestants are to be faulted for the proliferation of these sects, specially Christian sects. The Pirate's thesis is that religious freedom makes such a phenomenon happen. I got nothing much to add to his great insight.

I will only add $0.02, to why is it that most of the time the sects that sprout out come from the non-Catholic "christian stream", meaning they invariably promote the idea of Scripture Alone or sola scriptura. OK, to what authority will one appeal to when a group is digressing from another? Of course it will be to the group's sacred text. This is not the fault of sola scriptura, for sola scriptura as a principle is inherent to every religion that has a sacred text. For example, the Muslims have two major streams each has its own take on the Qu'ran. The Jewish people have several sects or denominations in them all having their take on the Tanakh- the Orthodox, Conservative and the Reformed movements. Each nevertheless appeals to how they interpret their own sacred text. The Buddhists have their variations too on the teaching of Budha. Having various opinions is not the fault of the sola scriptura, it is a phenomenon that comes with the turf when a group has a revered text.

I got an idea about online confessions

NO doubt you have heard the concept of online confessions offered by church bodies and self-help groups. Rightly so, the problem with these is that the most important aspect that of absolution is not there. In this past blog I pointed that even those who come from denominations that do not practice confession-absolution long to hear sins absolved.

I got an idea - why not online absolutions! Weird? What do you think online confessions are? Normal?

But hey, look, we can make some money on this. We say ok, after you've done your confessin, and braggin about your great sins, hit this button to hear your absolution (for a small fee). Voila! We pop open Media Player or iTunes and there the one confessing gets to hear right there through the computer speakers a pastor's absolution.

Good idea? What do you think? Shall I program a web site for this? Don't forget to give me royalties for this idea!

Give us some more, we can do it

The Vatican has new 10 Commandments for Drivers

I guess we should have more since the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20 is so easy to do. Ok , go ahead bring it on, hit us with some more, we need more commandments, life is getting so easy with out them and gets boring.

No Gentleman

I have been thinking about what I have heard so many many times articulated by people and by my former pastors - "God is a Gentleman, He will not force Himself on you". No he is not! That is why the Gospel is so good.

I tell you why God is not a Gentleman. He does not need to consult me if I wanted a gift, he does not ask for my approval, he does not ask if I like to be saved, he does not negotiate, he does not bargain. He does what is good and has no regard for people's opinion. Proof? Read Romans 5:8

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died, took the blows of God that was meant for me/you before you/we were born. He asked no one if this was a good idea. He does what is good. We do not even know what is good for us, so Jesus comes to save.

In Arminianism (modern Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism) as well as in Roman Catholicism, it was possible for no one to be saved. In the first, it was possible for no one to decide to give their lives to Jesus. In the second, it was possible for every one not to use the the infused grace for one's justification. In Calvinism, Jesus did not die for the whole world, "whole" does not mean whole (it really means some). In Lutheran theology, Jesus died for all. So how come not all are eventually saved? Because of faith, Scripture says not all have faith (2 Thess 3:2), but not because Jesus did not save. God does what is good - provide a sacrifice, a gift for sins. If He consulted us first before He acted, we would have debated, argued and quibbled. Finally we would have said "No Thanks, I am not so bad, I can do it".

Mossa's Gospel Collection

I have been listening to James Morrison's Gospel Colletion CD given by a brother in Christ for my birthday. This James Morrison (there are many out there with the same name) is Australia's King of Jazz, akin to Wynton Marsalis. James is a multi-talented, multi-instrumentalist musician. Name a brass instrument and James can play it. From trumpet, flugels, trombone etc to even piano, he can deal with it. My former trumpet teacher the late Cal Martin said James is a master technician. He is The Screemer (the guy who hits the high C and over in the trumpet). He is the real trump(et) geek, if I met one.

I did not realize he has a Christian upbringing and that he writes Gospel music too. In this CD he has a couple of those he wrote. Jazz can be disrespectful when not done properly to sacredly recognized music like the hymns of the Church. In this CD there is respect and reverence for what has been regarded as property of the Church. Yet there is swing! The wow factor is high. There is a tint of Dixie/Trad flowing in some of the songs but very subtle, you have to really hook your ear to it but it is ingenious because it is not that obvious.

My favorite is "Jesus Loves Me", I kept repeating it in the car's CD as I drove to work.

Not only 2, there is 3.

It is customary for the average Evangelical to think that there are really two systems of theology in Protestantism. They think either you are a Calvinist or an Arminian. This is naive, and really not true at all. There is a theology that is neither Calvinist nor Arminian and in fact older than both - Lutheranism. It is older than both because in the Reformation world, it was the Lutherans who wrote their first Confession, called the Augsburg Confession. In fact Calvin himself signed a variation of the Augsburg Confession also known as the Variata.

Classifying Protestant systematic theologies exclusively into Calvinism vs Arminianism is simplistic and plain wrong.

For a quick view of differences you can study it here

I have a recommendation, if you want to evaluate what you would be between these three, do not start with the Sovereignty of God because that is not how God speaks to us. God speaks to us through the person of His Son. Start with the revelation concerning Jesus Christ and His Cross.

And oh, was Luther a Calvinist? No. Though Luther acknowledged double predestination, he did not go to its logical conclusion in fact he rejected Limited Atonement and Perserverance of the Saints. In this regard, the Lutherans followed Luther contrary to the rumour. You can read an analysis of Bondage of the Will here

Lastly, as one Lutheran blogger said, the beauty of the Lutheran Confessions (BoC) is that you can subscribe to it in good conscience, you do not have to make it appear that it is not saying what it is plainly saying. Unlike those who subscribe to WCF who put their own spin on the sharp edges of that confession, that is why sometimes you would like to ask now will the real Calvinist please stand up!. You do not have to do that in the BoC. You can repeat and assert verbatim what the Bible says even if you sound philosophically inconsistent, you are still Biblically accurate. There is no need to be defensive and do creative (even spectacular) exegesis. It gives you intellectural honesty, it even allows you to be guilt free in your ignorance. You can say - I have no idea, I don't know the answer to that question, I leave that to the wisdom of God. No such pressures at all to be obsessive.

Sorry for her

You know I feel sorry for Ms. Paris Hilton (see here). I know some would disagree with me but I do feel sad for her. I have been reading the comments in ABC news web site and some of them are pretty hard and nasty. Some are quite obscene comments that show no sympathy for this young woman. I feel sorry for her for a couple of reasons.

First off, I feel sorry that she touted herself as the life of a socialite party. I mean, you know, she hanged out with the beautiful people like her, she made her life public and even displayed who she is like. I think there is no denying that she has the reputation for being "bad" and for her peers, and what she seems to promote...this is "good". She has been right there doing and practising the moral value system of the pop/entertainment culture she belongs in; and I do not think this is something to be proud of. Let's face it, she is media fodder, they made bucks from the news she made and she welcomed the media attention too. They found someone to use and they are using her well.

She behaved as if she was invincible in her being "bad", she appeared to be gaining the world, appeared to be getting away "with it". But now when she is down, humiliated and put in her place... she weeps and then gets kicked in the head - by, I believe, the same people who shared her values. I am sad and feel sorry for her.

I am reminded of a saying, if you swim with sharks, do not be surprized if your legs get eaten.

I pray she learns quickly to distrust the empty promises of happiness this world gives and may the words of the Saviour come to her who says "what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul". She is young, and it is never too late to realize, our ways do not work. May the light of the Gospel reach her rather than some "spritual" junk that will lead her no where.

Punishment for laughing

[UPDATE: The embedded YouTube messes up in Firefox so click here ]

I got this from Random Dan.

Imagine if you get hit by a kendo stick on the bum each time you laugh? Like what is the english for 27? It is ten ten seven.

Here is what happens.

Click here with subtitle

Debating Atheists

I like to debate them having once an anti-believer myself. But now a days, it is impossible to conduct a meaningful conversation with them. For example, which Athesist's version is the official version of beliefs by Atheists?

I mean, do these people have a Statement of Faith? If they do, then we can start somewhere, that way I am not misrepresenting or need to deal with an individual Atheist. It would be nice if someone can point me to say The Joint Declaration of Atheists or something like that. I mean, what Confession of Faith does an Atheist have? I heard Atheists subscribe to some belief in morality but which statement of morality do we get to read and examine? As an aside, what parameter of truth can one use to conduct a meaningful conversation with them? It is like pinning a jello on a wall.

The exercise is just too much trouble and besides, I can not take them seriously anyway, so, they must not exist.

Those un-Reasons

Over at Internet Monk, and interview of Dr. Wyman Richardson, a Baptist minister, can be read there. Much of the interview touches upon Roman Catholicism. I think Dr. Richardson is one of those Reformed folk who are wanting to go back to the "catholicism" (small c) of his faith forefathers. He is a contributor to www.reformedcatholicism.com.

I am drawn on the first question as to why he did not become an RC. Here is what he said...

But I do believe that the unity must be a unity in the truth. Ultimately, what caused me to pull my toes out of the Tiber can be summed up in one word: justification. I reached a point where I realized that I was simply unable and unwilling to abandon the doctrine of sola fide and the idea of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, an abandonment that I believe I would have to make if I am reading the anathemas of Trent correctly.

(bold is mine).

Justification? Right, Dr. Richardson is not alone in making this conclusion, ie. that this doctrine is the one that gets a beating when an Evangelical becomes an RC. This has been pointed out again and again.

Justification? Ask an average evangelical/pentecostal if he/she has heard of the concept or knows what it means or knows what Protestants teach about it, I am pretty sure they would not have a clue. Now, I do not mean to be hard on my former affiliations. I still assert that I love my people (my former Christian idengtification) and you may not believe it, I weep for them. Love in truth, not in words only but in deed, so says St. John. The truth is that they have not been taught about this concept. But ask them whether Jesus likes them to have the best wife, best career, well behaved kids, beeming bank account, good health - for them to be happy, wealthy and wise - they will say "yes" and will tell you the how-to's of that! They can tell you how to let Jesus come into your life, or how-to be "born again". But justification? I doubt it. For once, please surprize me.

Those reasons

I am reading an analysis of Dr. Beckwith's ratonale for coming back to the RCC. It is found here

I came to this bit, he comments...

For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.

Either he is re-reading Trent with his own sets of presuppositions or he missed some portions of it, for I do not think he could have missed this bit...from Trent

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. (Trent Session VI, Canon XII)

Here Trent was not condemning naked faith or mere faith or assent, it is condemning "trust alone" or "confidence alone" ie "faith alone" as the Reformers defined it.

Now if you are an Evangelical and you are not condemned by these words, please check again, perhaps your notion of faith is not as the Reformers defined it, you may be functioning RC in you ideas of the nature of faith etc.

If as Dr. Beckwith thinks that Trent and the Reformers in their confessions are saying the same thing about "faith" ie mere "assent" is not what they mean, why convert? My point is this - ok, he thinks that the RC position has been mis-represented by his evangelical communion, that is, no, the RCC actually is saying the same thing as his evangelical friends are saying. What is the difference then if he converts back? Is he not simply bringing along what he already affirms? or is there something else more profound underneath?

Then I wonder if he studied the Fathers and the confessions made by the First Evangelicals and compared them?!? Frankly I don't think he did. I think he did not dare bother about the Book of Concord. On the otherhand, if there is a pre-disposition already, perhaps the BoC would have been irrelevant anyway.

Kinda, "I have made up my mind, do not confuse me with facts"!

Superfluous

Sometimes I think the work of RC apologists gets knocked down by default - by its own doctrine of Magisterium. I really think it is pointless debating to no end with RC apologists. Not that they have no interesting things to say but their work becomes irrelevant. Firstly, if there is an Infallible Magisterium, then who decides to be the proper interpreter of its teachings and pronouncements? You might say the Magisterium itself. So it just revolves around them. Hence, if you go on debate with RC apologists, what is the point? For after all, they are not the official spokes people for the Magisterium. They are not officially sunctioned, so, the situation is superfluous.

Returning Rider

I am a returning rider. There is something about bike riders that is by default ingrained. When bike riders pass each other on the road and in viewing distance they sorta give a nod at each other or some signal to tell you, they noticed. Sometimes when a fellow rides on your side of the rod, a friendly look or a gesture is expected when you pass each other. Like, when both of you are in traffic on a stop position waiting for the traffic lights to turn green. You are expected to be sympathetic and polite. The nod is a kinda secret handshake that says "you and I are on this road together, I know how it is like to be on the road on your own, we have somethings in common".

That culture should be the same amongst Christians, don't you think?

By the way, I ride a Honda Magna. It is a fun machine but I complain, it is too soft noised for me. Motorists don't know I am there, like the HS?

All done in the name of Christ

I passed by Cyberbretheren and I saw him discussing The Secret Files of the Inquisition on DVD. I so happened to pass by too in one of our suburb's DVD rent shop, and I browsed at the DVDs for sale, and guess what, I saw on the rack the DVD for A$26.95. It was good buy so I took it home.

What made me more curious of this documentary on the Inquisition was the event that happened to Jews and to a couple of Venecian Lutherans. Firstly there was the case of Fr. Baldo Lupitino, a Franciscan monk who became Lutheran. He was supposed to be publicly executed - the plan was to behead him and his body burned on the spot, but this was bad for "business". Instead he was indefinitely imprisoned and after 14 years of ordeal, he was executed in secret. He was drowned.

Then there was Pomponio Algerio, a university student. He was given time to re-consider his Lutheran convictions and sent to jail. But in the jail, his conviction all the more grew. He wrote

To my most beloved brothers, fellow servants of Christ, I must tell you that I found comfort in a dark cave, serenity and hope in the place of bitterness and death. For he who had been far away is with me now, and offers me his hand. I am in the company of those who have been crucified, stoned, hunted, beheaded or sent to the flames. It has been written, if we are accused in the name of Christ we will be blessed for the honor and virtue of God rest on ye. Goodbye fellow servants of God, be strong and pray for me unceasingly.

He was spoken to and asked to recant and in exchange, as a act of mercy, he will be strangled instead so that he does not have to go through the agonizing process of execution. The Venecian authorities refused to carry out the excution order of Paul IV, so he was extracted to Rome where he was boiled alive, in oil, tar and turpentine, a new technique devised by the Inquisition.

What is also interesting is the comment made by the Vatican Undersecretary interviewed in this documentary. He insinuated that one should understand the Inquisition in the context of its time. Killing people because of their ideas may be horrible to us today, that might be true, but he said that it is possible to understand it in context of sociology of religion. Hmmm.

But you see, the Inquisition of the RCC, killed people because of their ideas. This is bad in our time. I agree. However, the RCC with its Inquisition did not kill people simply because they have bad or oppossing ideas - they tortured and killed people in the name of Christ! The Magisterium who claimed to be the True Church, the one "founded" by Christ, ordered the killings and even divised torture chambers in the name of Christ! So they killed for Jesus. I know of another group that does that, kill in the name of their faith.

Those Re-Conversions

As was said in the last posting, there is much publicity on famous evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism. Over at Bill Cook's blog we see the reverse of what happened to Dr. Frank Beckwith. Mr. Cook went from SDA to RCC and then to SDA again. I am going to be side tracked a bit and tell you what intrigued me in the comments to Mr. Cooks reflections. Someone who converted to Roman Catholicism commented to him, said this...

When I became a Catholic I was spiritual both a Jew and a Muslim and I didn’t have to give up either to become a Catholic.

This comment confirms what I have been suspicious of, those Lutherans, Baptists (or whatever) who became RC , have they really converted or did they just carry over their spirituality inside the RCC? No one knows the heart, hence you can be in RCC and be a crypto-evangelical, crypto-Jew, crypto-Muslim, crypto-Mason etc, like this gentleman commented. The label you used to wear is no longer there but it is still the same clothing, like new wineskins for old wine. This is what I observed in my younger years and here it is again. So have they really converted with that philosophy in mind?

Now, back to the topic of what Prof. McKnight said of conversions from Evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism. I will just comment on one aspect; he says that the person gets into a crisis situation,a crisis of transendence. One of them is the crisis of certainty (but others would be that of history, unity or authority). I will focus on certainty. These are questions of the type "how do I know I am saved", "how do I know that this interpretation of the Bible is true", "how do I know this is the true church", "how do I know I am in God's will"?

These are legitimate concerns, I had them. I go through crisis of self-doubts too. However, because evangelicalism focuses you on yourself, these crises are made accute. For example, it makes you find out these questions within your inward experiences. Evangelicalism is not the same, it is now post-Evangelical. It has departed miles apart from the Reformation. Whereas in olden days, justification was the core focus, it is now regeneration. The first makes you look outside, the second makes you look inside. It became "Christ for you vs Christ in you", and the latter won. So there will be a lot of swimming going on for a while, until the likes of Mr. Cook come out of the woodwork.


Indeed if you are going to find certainty, you got to find it somewhere outside you, it can not be in you because that is circular. There is no certainty inside you. So, the converts rely on the RCC Magisterium's claims that they are the TRUE Church, and they hope so. This gives security because it has claim to history, has claim to authority and works for unity, what more can you ask? Or does it? Some who went to the RCC have gone beyond and become Sedevacantists.

Going to another authority like the RCC Magisterium is outside yourself indeed. But apparently Calvin said that the RCC and the AnaBaptists are the same. The latter makes you point into yourself as an individual and let's face it the Evangelicals today are highly AnaBaptistic. The former, makes you point in yourselves (us, we and our - The Church). Hence, according to him, they are ruled by something in them, not by something above them. Of course, I have some disagreements with Calvin but here, I think he is correct.

So where does one go? Is this spiritual journey like walking in the wilderness, like the Israelites of old, always going around in circles whereas the Promised Land is just a few miles away? The good thing is that crises do not last very long, what we feel real is not that real. When crises of certainty happens, experience tells me it is an opportune time to go back to Jesus through His Word. And, let's face it, you will miss God's will for you if that is your concern, you will have a feeling that you may not be in the right "church", you may doubt if you have the right interpretation of Scripture etc etc. but if you get all of these right but you get the Gospel wrong, Luther says, you still got error, you still have uncertainty, you just made yourself believe you no longer have them because you belong to the "Church".

13(A)These things I have written to you who (B)believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have (C)eternal life.

1 John 5:13

Seems to me, there is only one thing that we need to be sure of, this thing trumps all uncertainty - Did Jesus died and rose again for your sins' forgiveness? Scripture says "YES". If so, then what is the problem?

Those Conversions

I have been reading Prof. McKnights' paper published by the JETS on September 2002 entitled From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals Become Roman Catholics. I have been reading it in the light of famous and prominent convesions lately, like that of Dr. Francis Beckwith's and now in Lutheran circles that of Prof. Koon's. Now isn't that embarassing? I can hear RC friends hollering... "Jump ship, join the bandwagon, your ship is sinking, see, they are leaving the Titanic".

I have few random thoughts here.

1.) I wonder what those Lutheran martyrs and other Protestants of other stripes who gave their lives rather than recant during the Inquisition, would say? Those people who were murdered, tortured, killed, burned rather than renounce their confession. I wonder what the Evangelical converts would say to them - could it be this - you died for nothing, bad luck, you should have listened to the Pope , the Mother Church has been right all along, you got what you deserve. I hope not.

2.) I have not read Prof Koon's paper, but I have just browsed through it, I have no time lately, my thesis is 3 years late and I can not afford to be side tracked like blogging! But I noticed he quoted Cardinal Newmans' work - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Now again, I have not read the whole work of the Cardinal, just read sections here and there. I was a bit turned off, because he would say the Church Fathers believed this and that but there is not much reference for me to check. But here is really what has got my mind thinking lately. Cardinal Newman said in that work this

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Now pause a little and feel the blow of that statement and now put your mind on what was the theme or spirit of that paper? - the theme was on how the doctrines of the RCC are historical. It tries to defend and justify how one can believed in RCC dogmas even though historically the evidence for such is nil, e.g. - supremacy of the pope, papal infallibility, immaculate conception of Mary etc. That art and process of defending and arguing speaks from an outsider and ignoramus like me this thing ... as if he was saying - no, the RCC is deep in history even though you can not find in history that our doctrines have been believed by people of apostolic times, it is there - you just could not find it in Scripture or history. Duh? Go figure.

3. Lastly for today, Prof. McKnights's paper outlined several reasons for conversion, one factor is the crisis, but more on that later.

Mum's the word

Last Sunday was Mother's Day. As I recall, in the church calendar, there is no such thing as a Mother's Day.

Anyways, for the first time, I was happy in church for a Mother's Day Sunday worship servce.

I was happy because at the sermon, I was not scolded for not being a good husband, not being a good dad. I was not lectured on how lowsy I treat my wife and ugly a father I am. Instead, I was convicted of how I do not really love Jesus yet Jesus still loves me. I left church, broken but strangely paradoxically blessed.

I remember when I was in ministry how I hated these special day Sunday occassions. I hated it because it gets in the way of my chosen agenda of trying to correct a situation in church, like people's lack of spirituality or their lack of prayer etc etc. Goodness, I would mumble, this is the opportune time to address church life issues from the pulpit, and I must give way! Instead I had to preach about moms if it was Mother's Day or dads if it was Father's Day. In all cases, my agenda was, come to think of it now, wrong headed too. For my agenda was not a talk about what Jesus did but rather what the Christian should do.

I also am not impressed with these special day occassions, for another reason. I mean surely there is one for me, like Father's Day after all I am a dad. I don't like them. I tell you why, it gives my kids the excuse to ignore me the rest of the year but suddenly on that special day like Father's Day, suddenly they start giving gifts to you, sort of, to make up for the days they pre-occupied themselves with themselves, a day they can relieve themselves of the guilt of being self-focused. Everyday ought to be a day to love your neighbor like you love yourself.

I knew it

Sometime ago, I had a feeling that it would just be a matter of time when we hear a famous Evangelical turn to Rome. I had this notion because apologists of RCC persuasion have been very active publishing conversion experiences. Now it has happened, like a big fish swimming the river (Tiber) to Dr. Francis Beckwith, former Evangelical Theological Society President. This is no ordinary layman, returning to the RCC, this is a leader in a highly visible Protestant scholarly society and has lots of publicity with embarassment for Evangelicals. So many things have been written in reply to Dr. Beckwith's move. I am not here to offer a profound analysis( I am hardly profound). I have no doubt he is sincere and must have come to a crisis of faith that only this move can reconcile the turmoil (so he thinks).

A few things are worth noting. Should not the local church to which Dr. Beckwith belongs exercise discipline? That is I am sure, that Protestant local church to which he attended, if it be Evangelical, surely believe that he is embracing some false teachings, thus should publicly call him to repentance and publicly state that he is under discipline.

Now I wonder, had each Evangelical convert to RCC got disciplined in such a way, I wonder what could result if the Scott Hahns, the Gerry Matatics etc. got such public chasening from their former local churches, I wonder what might have happened? It is not too late to do such a thing, I suppose.

But then, wait - does not Vatican II makes conversion to the RCC superflous?

On an amusing note, from what I heard (and this is just hearsay), had this happened 200 years ago, it would not be strange to hear a suggestion from some quarters that the person converting to RCC from Protestantism must have been a Jesuit mole whose main design was to convert Protestants back to Rome. Don't laugh loud, I know this is playing up to the music of conspiracy theory. But apparently that suggestion was not considered entirely pointless, a couple of hundred years ago.

You're soooh mean!

You probably think this blog is about you. Sorry, not really. I don't know.

Many Evangelical as well as Calvinist folk are so offended with the closed communion practise of Lutherans. At first, in my mind, that was a concern in me too. It seems so tribal, divisive, clannish and not Christianly at all.

Over at Reformed Catholicism this is being discussed. It was started off from The Pirate with a nice help from Confessing Evangelical . These guys' contributions have been insightful.

To my Calvinist and Evangelical friends who are quite disappointed at the close communion practices of orthodox Lutherans, I have a suggestion, a sincere advice. Do not start with the question "why do they do close communion"? This is not the first question to ask. The first issue is this, "what is happening at the Lord's Supper"? Is this the body and blood of Christ? This is the first question to understand, and when it is settled, the idea of closed communion, you will find is not strange at all.

If you answer that question with a "yes", to which a Lutheran will say also "amen", then you got your answer too - you will see that it makes sense why they practice close communion and they only offer it to those who can say "yes", this is the body and blood of the Lord according to his Word.

If your answer is "no", then why blame them for being closed? This is something to be happy about, why commune at the table to which you can not agree? You should not be desiring it. Besides, this answer means there is nothing special about communion and it is no different (really, I mean no dis-respect) to eating bread for breakfast or taking a sip of wine during dinner.

So the Lutheran practise of closed communion is a very simple issue to resolve. It is not hard and you will not be offended once you know the answer to "what is on the table". Believe me, I was like that too, close communion became the least of my concerns after I got the answer to the question from Scripture (1 Cor 10:16).

Now would an RC commune in a Lutheran table? Of course they won't! I got my suspicions why they won't, I just want to know if they match their reasons.

Theology and Mis-Theology in Spiderman 3

I must confess, I am a Spiderman fan. I saw Spiderman 3 last night with the family.

I like Spiderman because he is so human, he has money problems, love problems, ego problems and also, sin problems.

Spiderman 3 proved to be more theological than the last two episodes, for me anyway. Here we get the problem of revenge, hatred and its resolution - forgiveness.

Being infected by a venom from outer space, Spidey turned into a violent revenge ravaged man - he turned into a nasty and not nice than usual self - he was there to enjoy the fun, of getting even. And he loved being that way. Giving in to the self is addictive, intoxicating. Gal 5:19. I like the line Peter Parker said to Eddie Brock, "what do you want, forgiveness? Get religion".

There are a couple of things though that are mis-theologies in Spiderman 3. For those who have no Christian connection, but are submerged into pop culture, the theology in Spiderman would probably be the only exposure one could have.

There were a few things which some what bothered me. Firstly, Eddie went to church after being humiliated by Parker, he prayed to the crucifix of Jesus and asked Parker to be killed? Is this a swipe at Roman Catholicism which normally uses crucifixes or to Christians in general i.e. is it ligitimate to pray to Jesus for others to die? I probably prayed that way but that is wrong.

Secondly and the most disturbing to me now is Parker's exhultation of "your choice", so much Pelagian innuendo came through at the ending, and I felt it was in line with the American notion of free will/ your choice. cf. http://extranos.blogspot.com/2007/01/mighty-holy-will.html
When it comes to attaining a connection with God, our free will is incapacitated.

In the end, the exaltation of our free will is still part of that sinful flesh.

Any thoughts?

The Small Cat

I once asked my daughter, who worships in a Pentecostal church, if her friends in church heard, or could recite or just plain speak of the Apostles Creed. She said - "Well I would know about it since you spoke of it, but I doubt if my friends ever heard the thing".

The more I observe young Christians in evangelical churches, the more I am convinced that many (quite many) are not taught or catechized well. I wonder what would they say if I asked them - "what is justification, regeneration, or name one commandment in the 10 commandments"? They probably would give me a shocked looked, eyes wide open and rolling. People today are not into those might big words, they would probably say "I am not into that sort of thing, all I want is to know Jesus". (To be interpreted) "I want to know how to make it in this life".

Mighty big words? I don't think so - those words like justification, atonememt etc are in Scripture or used as terms in Scripture. You can not ignore them if you read the Bible - they are there.

But really it is not the fault of young people why they are like that. It is the church that is representing Christianity to them and what they see done and talked about in church gives them the impression that, that is what Christianity is all about - how to make it in life. So long as the church is giving people what they want and not what they need, Biblical ignorance will not decline, it will even increase. If the church caters to what people want and not to what Scripture says people need, then trouble is just in the corner, the church will be following where they lead, not tell them where they should go.

Oh, don't be impressed that some could even quote the Small Catechism verbatim. I discovered that there are those who can quote what Luther said there and still manage to believe that Christianity is about good works, and that one is saved by doing good. In fact that could be the reason why they go to church religiously. When we see this - we should not just sad about the young, we should get sad about the old too.

Born Again -st-ness-ism

There is much correction needed in my former evangelicalism. I agree. I would not be where I am standing now had I thought all was well. It was in the process of observing the things going on inside and those outside me that made me try to understand, how is Christianity "suppose to work"? I had questions, questions like - what really is the Gospel? What is the nature of faith and Christian life? Is it a trip of one victory to another? Is the Bible about me and how I could have good success? I did discover that what I formerly thought was true was not all that true and it needed adjustments. Like any naive believer, I was influenced by people I admired who lived behind the pulpit. They were sincere dynamic and yes, charismatic pastors whose teachings I absorbed and parroted. They represented what Christianity was all about. They were well meaning people, they taught what they believed the Bible said. But, there were things that were wrong. Now, I am like a boy who seemed to have discovered where the real goodies are and enthusiasm gets ahead, often it being manifested in a somewhat critical way.

I hope my readers who visit from all over the world (mainly in the USA, Australia, UK, Canada) [but I do not mean to imply I got tons of them, but this is the world of the internet, they can be in India or Malaysia, no matter] do not judge that this one blog site is just against anything going on in evangelia or in Romanism. I hope they do not visit this blog to entertain themselves by joyously wondering, now what is he against this time? That would be boring wouldn't it? Besides, such novelty will wear out. I hope they find that somewhere in the bowels of this site, they find some of my blogs that does not kill but rather make alive, make the soul sing through Christ and His Gospel. I hope so.

So I put the picture of Whitfield here for a reason, to discuss the subject of "born again-ness". I have to thank Steve for jogging my mind on this. When I realized the work of Jesus was for me, I did not know the term born again. The pastors of the Assemblies of God felloweship where I first attended after believing told me that this was what happened to me. The term was foreign to my consciousness, I knew about being "saved", but not about "being born again". From then on I heard about it and even going to ministry that was the subject of my teaching and my theme. Like Whitfield I preached on "you must be being born again", as if one can do something to do that. Sometimes questions are good and so a few years ago, I did an exercise to see if the Apostles in Acts preached on this theme. So I scrutinized each sermon I could find in Acts. Shockingly, I found no sermon enjoining people to be "born again" like I did (and like my pastors did).

In John 3:5, being born again does not mean it is a command, rather it is a description of what should happen to us to see the kingdom of God, it does not imply nor taught that we can do something about it. Indeed the verses even discuss the role of "water and the Spirit" in John 3. As Steve said, Nicodemus wanted the "how". In Acts, the disciples did not focus on this for this is the effect of something - it is the effect of the Holy Spirit. I noticed the disciples in Acts concentrated on proclaiming the Law and the Gospel to their hearers. Their sermons were different from mine - and I should say, far different from Mr. Whitfield's too. Under the disciples, people came to faith, they were indeed born again, but the effect was not their theme, the Gospel was the disciple's theme and focus.

So do I want people to be born again? Yes, but that is something I can not do for myself nor for someone else, nor for themselves. The same way I did not decide to be born, neither did they, so I nor they can decide to be born again. But here is what I as a preacher can do - I can faithfully tell them the problem of their sin, and tell them the solution that Jesus did for those sins. Now, let's see if they don't get born again.

Not In Limbo Anymore

While growing up as an RC kid, I was well aware of the RC teaching that babies who die un-baptized go to limbo - an unknown place, a question mark spot, neither heaven nor hell. Of course, there is no official teaching about this - not in the sense that there is a document signed by the Magisterium, but RC pius folks and priests followed this line of thought.

Now the RCC is stating through its Vatican International Theological Commission that babies that die un-baptized go to heaven, or atleast we should have a hopeful expectation that they are there. You can read about it here.

Modern evangelicals have always believed that babies that die go to heaven. For them it did not matter wheather or not these babies got baptized, besides, they do not baptize babies anyway. They go there because they are innocent by default - I remember John MacArthur teaching that babies that die are by default elect because they go to heaven straight away. This new position or a bit official position (I do not know what to call it) complies with the modern evangelical teaching.

So the RCC is lining up closer to the modern evangelical view. Though this official document by the RCC commission carries no official dogma, it is pre-cursor to future official teaching pronouncements by the Pope. Realizing that this weakens their doctrine of baptism, the paper was quick to assail such possible implications.

My evaluation is that their attempt fails. It does indeed weaken their doctrine of baptism. So could being aborted the best thing that can happen to a person since it brings them to heaven? I am being cynical as usual. Then there is another question - the same question that can be hurled at modern evangelians -- at what age when an un-baptized baby or child dies is it dis-qualified for heaven? When is a child no longer a child or a baby stop being a baby, at what age? If they changed their traditional mind on this, I am not surprized if they change their minds in other things too. Perhaps one day they can canonize Luther, that way one day the Lutherans may well burn their BoC.

Lutherans believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, though it is not absolutely necessary. However, there is no sure place we can stand on, and baptism is that place where sure hope is found, for there the promise of God is sealed. Hence, we dare not weaken the gift that God gives. Excuse my lack of pius speech - but there you can hold God's feet to the fire.

Time for some repentin'

I tracked for some time the Virginia Tech tragedy (VTT). Yes, you can say Virginia Tech killings. I thought about the families of those who were killed and the family of the killer too. The whole incident makes me dream of a better society.

I looked at those who died and almost all of them where younger than me, I am now in my middle years. The age of the killer and that of those he killed where in their late teens or early 20s, young students not yet lived half of their years. Their lives were cut short by the gun man and he cut his life short too. I asked my self the question, why them, not me? In times like this when we see the awful effects of our own sins in this world, yes, our own sins, not just that of the killer's, we can see that it affects those that have nothing to do with it. It hurts, even destroys both the guilty and the innocent. I think of families. I think of parents who had nothing but better wishes of a good and peaceful life for their lost son or daughter, now cut short, no longer with the living. Those who died may have never even seen the gun man before. The gun man's family undoubtedly innocent of the actions of their son will be affected as well. Shame, dishonor, sadness, these are just a few that they will be living with. Then, I am reminded of what Jesus said, in Luke 13.

1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

When tragedy and horror happens to our fellowmen, we need to realize, that such can be our experience too. Its time to re-evaluate. Have I refused to stop and listen to those who are unable to talk, those who are not as sociable than others? Have I replied their lack of trust by my lack of trust towards them? Have I valued the proud, the strong, the beautiful and those which society admits more than those who are timid, the weak and those that society welcomes? Have I been so pre-occupied by my own self agenda, that I could not care any better for the ills and troubles of my neighbor? Have I refused to offer compassion to those who are less fortunate than me? Have I been a party to the promotion of greed?

I have.

Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, he forgave the woman caught in adultery, he allowed a woman with questionable character to wipe his feet with her tears and commended the unclean woman with the issue of blood for touching his clothes. These were just some of the things Jesus did to those who were not, we might call beautiful people.



The question is not why bad things happen to good people, the real question is why good things happen to those who are bad, like me.

We smile and we laugh, so relax.

The smile is a very important behaviour of Filipinos. They smile when they are happy, they smile when they are shy, they smile when they do not know the answer, they smile when they are embarassed, they smile when they are angry and they smile when they are sad. They even smile when they cry.

Then they laugh. Filipinos have another trait, a very Filipino trait of laughing at themselves. The greatest Filipino jokes I have heard are jokes about Filipinos. Well what is left to do if your economic and social condition has no hope of ever changing? Take it easy anyway.

So in line with this trait of laughing and joking about themselves, I am featuring here Betty Butterfield when she went to a Lutheran church ( I have heard of her the first time in horn+swoggled).

Proverbs 17:22

Dr. Piper on Hearing God's Voice

Here is more cherry blossom pictures. I am back in my home base now.

I used to be a great fan of Dr. Piper, back in those days when I was toying with Calvinistic thinking. Over on this article, he gives a critique on the experience of a Christian university professor in "hearing the voice of God". I think his critique in the extra-Biblical experience of the professor is well taken. The professor believes God speaks today because he (the professor) felt an inner movement or an inner voice in his heart, telling him to give the monetary proceeds of his book to a needy student.

However, in this written piece, prior to his critique, Dr. Piper too first relates his own experience with hearing the voice of God, and this is through a reverberation of a voice which is Scriptural in content. This experience convinced Dr. Piper to attest that God speaks today. Such reverberations for him is a clear cut evidence that God still speaks today in our space and time.

I wonder about Dr. Piper's experience. Don't get me wrong, I do have such internal experiences, I have countless of them and I can relate to what Dr. Piper says. The effect of such feelings is exhiliration, you walk away with a shout of joy.

Here is my question, why is Dr. Piper's experience valid rather than that of the professor? Is it because Dr. Piper got his with some Scriptural content? What makes his inner experience more proper that that of the professor? Both of these are experiences of spiritual nature - that of Dr. Piper and that of the professor are experiences - perhaps even mystical experiences?

What am I saying? Are they not both walking by sight and not by faith, in that they conclude God speaking by way of inward experiences?

Rather, should we not think that the Scripture is God' Word today whether or not we experience any innward movements in our hearts? Read it and you hear God's voice speaking to you. Indeed, God does remind us of what he wrote in his Bible, but the proof that God speaks to us is Scripture itself revealed in what he has done through Christ.

Over at KFUO, Dr. Hein discusses mysticism here, there he says that there is one thing that God wrote in our hearts - the Law and the convicting power of the Law is what is internal that God promises to do, all the rest are external - like the Gospel.

Land of Cherry Blossoms and Gamba-te

I am spending my Easter holidays here in Japan.This is the second time of being here but this trip is deepening my sense of appreciation for the good things I see in Japanese culture and creativity, my... what a humble and hospitable people.

I came just in time when the Cherry Blossoms are just opening up and now, they are fully opened. Some of the petals have started to drop. Cherry Blossoms are so beautiful but it has a very short life span - 2 weeks and it is gone. This is so similar to life on this old world, our lives are like these Cherry Blossom flowers, it is there for a very short time and it is quickly gone.

Gamba-te (do your best) is often used as a farewell blessing to someone you want to wish well. I realize now how happy a Japanese can be when he hears this encouragement said to him. Unfortunately from "doing one's best" one can switch to "being the best". This second shift has produced so much pressure in the lives of those who take this concept seriously... it has produced depression, tiredness and guilt/shame for we know we always fall short of being the best in our class/group/community. I observe that this is the Law... and as we know it produces despair, and if not this -- going over the top with honour or pride. Hence, as I see them, many are tired, weary, often sleeping in the train as they go to work. They are not only physically tired, they are emotionally tired as well, it is like a vicious cycle. The reality is that "you can be the best" and still leave yourself empty inside. We must help them realize that there is One who is the best in all things and He became so -- for them, that they might rest in what He has won for them.

Lord, be merciful, send workers in Japan to show the light of the gospel on these people - she needs your Cross, they need the freedom and the acceptance of still being forgiven for not being the best.