Will you blend?

No, dear friends, this is not a post about iPhones. It is a post about comparative religion that may lead one to a blended spirituality.

Comparing two religions is a subjective exercise. I am not convinced too that there is a cut and dry method of comparing faiths. You can almost see what you are looking for if you want to, like a brute force fitting a round peg onto a square hole. Let me give a couple of examples...

1.) When I was studying religious claims as a young man (that was ages ago) at uni, I read that Confusius says -"It is good to honor your parents". That sounds familiar doesn't it? Now, let us see, I am sure we have heard that before, no? Might that not be the 4th Commandment? Ex 20:12. Hmm so would you come up with the Biblical basis of Confucianism?

2. What about the Budhist teaching of Karma? Simply put, this means that your action leads back to you. If you do good, good karma will come back, if you do evil, you will get bad karma one day. Would that not be similar to "what you sow is what you reap" - Gal 6:7. More over it sounds like the Golden Rule too doesn't it?

More sayings that are similar to the Bible can be found else where, I found one in the Baghabad Gita a long time ago.

Even some words or sayings of Jesus had some precedent with the words found in Rabbinic writings like that of the Mishna, so what do you make of it?

Well you can say this makes the claims of Christianity not exceptional, there is nothing unique about this even worst, perhaps Christianity might have copied them and imported them since it is not as ancient as the other religions. So what is the difference?

Well when Confusius says "you have to honor your parents", I come back and ask, "so what if I am not"? Confusius says "but this is bad, you are not being a good gentleman". So I retort - "who cares if I am not a gentleman"? "But this is being horrible", he replies. So I counter "why should I accept what you say, who are you anyway"? End of story.

Ah, but it makes a difference when it is God, the Supreme Being - Creator of the Universe who says "honor your fathers and mothers, so that you may live long in the lang your God is giving to you". All my wise ass remarks won't work. He just says "because I am God and because I say so, end of conversation".

What about karma? Well for the time being assume that we do not have a Jesus who said about the Golden Rule, then all of the sayings of all religions on the Golden Rule are just nice opinions and at best good observations that happens in life, and this can be gathered by observation and experience. Besides, if I were a skeptic, I can only say - well the good/bad thing that happened to you had nothing to do with karma - it was simply fate, a struck of good or bad luck. See what I mean, they carry no weight.

But wait. Jesus said "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12.

What is the differenc? A lot. It is not what is being spoken, it is who that is speaking. If Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, the Messiah promised by God - you can dismiss him, but that is why what he says makes a difference, because it is the voice of God who is saying it. It is true not because we can observe it, it is true because it is God who commands and speaks it.

All the rest are puny sayings, they are dismissible, but not so with those that are spoken by God.

For this reason, Christianity's claims can never be considered one of those claims, because its claims purports to have the authority of the Creator God behind it. Thus, there is no room for syncretism in Christianity.

One thing too I have observed, all of these religions have some truth but based on Scripture - it is Christianity that has the whole truth, not just some of it but the whole truth.

Psalm 119:160The sum of your word is truth,and every one of your righteous rules endures forever

And oh, by the way, the central teaching of Christianity is not just about doing good to parents and reaping and sowing or such things - the central teaching of Christianity is the Gospel which is ---God sending his Son to die for our sins (yes we owe God a penalty for our sins) at the Cross and that Son was raised from the dead signifying the receipt of that payment. God accepted the payment of Christ on our behalf.

No other religion has topped that claim.

The Naked Pastor's equation

I found The NakedPastor from Steve M. I think he has some cartoonish things to say. Click on the picture to get to read his cartoons. What do you think of his equation?

Accentuate the positive

Eliminate the negative. That seems to be the message of an RC Bishop here to the victims of RCC clergy sexual abuse. Barney Zwartz of The Age reports it here. For the Bishop, these complaining victims are simply "dwelling crankily on old wounds".

We might recall that around this time last year, one of the biggest settlement payout by the RCC towards abused victims was reported by the ABC News here.

In the case of the Foster (the victims' family name) kids reported in The Age article, they were apparently young kids when the abuse happened.

No one can really comprehend the attending hurts when kids get abused of whatever kind. It is further a double blow when they are sexually abused, the real damage happens internally, psychologically.

There is something that compounds the hurt, it is compounded when the one who stands in the place of Christ is the one that inflicts it. But there is more, the hurt is multiplied a million times over when then victimizer is a member of "The One True Church".

I hears some say that it is not so much that a crime can be committed by a member of the RCC, because anyone is capable of abusing any helpless victime, you do not have to be an RCC clergy to commit such a sin, it is that with the case of priest sexual abuse, the priest does not get prosecuted, see here for this type of story.

So back again, if this is "The One True Church". If the victimizer belongs to, say a Protestant group, well, one can reason - that is the fruit of belonging to a False Church anyway. The situation is not the same for the case of the RCC clergies because the RCC claims to be the One True Church. It belongs to a Church group that has a higher moral and more serious claim than the rest.

I suspect one can not help but wonder, if this is the One True Church, how come it seems like it has such a disease? People surely are attaching different meanings to the notion of what "One True Church" means.

For reference that such abuses have been going on "for ages", read a copy of Jose Rizal's Noli Me Tangere. In English it is translated Social Cancer. Though this is a novel, the stories have real precedence. Let me warn you though, do not be surprized when you notice you are filled with rage before you put down this book, I however, won't blame you.

Matt 18:5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
6but (D)whoever (E)causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea

Who wrote the Serenity Prayer?

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to
change the things I can;and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at
a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to
peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful worldas it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things rightif I surrender to His Will;That I may
be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with HimForever in the
next.Amen.
--Reinhold Niebuhr

Was it Niebuhr? Look here.

Bye Bye

Finally. The Big Brother show is being axed.

They finally realized I was not watching. It took a while for the blockheads to realize that when you insult people's intelligence, you get their scorn.

It does not take a nuclear physicist to figure that one out. The show is a pathetic attempt to get ratings.

I would rather watch RAW or SmackDown any day compared to this. At least it is world class entertainment. There is drama, comedy and irony.

All For Jesus?

Purpose Driven Life (PDL) people are at a loss when we say that they have a man-centered approach to Christianity.

They are puzzled how in the world we can say that. Isn't PDL about what we do with Jesus, what we do with what He has given to us? Does not God wait for us to do what he wants done and so thereby blesses us? How could glorifying God be man centered?

This brings me to the title of the post. You may not believe this, but that was the name of the fellowship I first pastored. I came from a fellowship back home that had the same church name, then when I came to Melbourne that was the name also that I adopted when my little Bible Study group became a church. But note the name 'All for Jesus', you can get a sense of pride at this, - as if you really are 'all out for Jesus', (so you think and only if you have an unbiblical view of sin), you can get Pharisaical in thinking you are that - all out and out (as if).

It is funny but when you are lost in the woods all you see are trees. What turned out to be a response to the grace of God, namely: doing all to glorify Christ, becomes the focus of one's Christian walk - then pretty soon, what Jesus has done gets lost in the background. Soon also, things now turn on you and what you need to do -- for Him.

So we come now to why PDL folks are puzzled. To explain this to them (and to quote Prof. Nagel) - who is driving the verbs? When you come now to PDL's challenge questions like - what have you done for Jesus, what are you doing with the gifts God has given to you - guess who is the subject that is meant to work on the verbs - YOU.

When YOU is the subject, then that is where man-centeredness comes. Warren says it is about God but when it comes down to the wire - it is about you doing stuff, it is about you doing and yet you still leave undone, it does not become about what God has finished to do.

If God ever gives me again an opportunity to pastor, one of the church names I like to have in contrast to 'All for Jesus' is 'Christ for You'. To tell people what God has done and has finished to do in Christ is actually glorifying and glorifies Christ.

Another close second is Beggars Church (we are sometimes allowed to day dream).

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah (prayer)

Need I say more? If you thought Blah, Blah, Blah was something, wait till you hear the BAM, BAM, BAM.

I wanted to label this post with "funny" but I just can't.

Close but not quite, but more moderate.

[Updated: Please try not to be upset until you grasp my argument from the point of view of the Means of Grace]
Over at Wittenberg Trail, I got into a discussion that led to the subject of communion. To cut the long story short, the way my synod's pastors practice 'closed communion' has been dubbed by some LCMS folk as 'moderate' i.e. not confessional. As I mentioned somewhere, I describe my synod as a centrist synod.

Here is how the pastors at home practice 'closed communion'. In our bulletin sheets there is a mention of what our local church believes about the Lord's Supper, namely:

The Lutheran Church teaches that the 'Holy communion is the true body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ given with bread and wine, instituted by Christ
himself for us Christians to eat and drink'. It is for baptized people
who...

- repent of all their sins
- trust in Jesus Christ as their only Saviour
- believe that in the sacrament Jesus gives his true body and blood with
bread and wine
- join with the congregation in *this* public confession of Jesus and his
word

After consecration, the pastor comes forward holding the chalice containing the bread and say words to this effect ..."Dear Friends, our Lutheran Church *does not believe* that the bread and wine are *mere* symbols of Jesus' body and blood, but rather we believe it is truly the body and blood of the Lord given for our sins. Those who could confess this with us are welcome to receive the Lord's supper. Come for all things are ready".

I argue that because these words were written and are said prior to distribution, a visitor who comes forward is confessing what we confess about the supper. If a visitor comes forward dispite the words then there is no reason for him/her to be denied.

I defend that this is in the spirit of Scripture and the BoC. However, this position is called 'moderate' (but what can you expect I said we are centrist) and non-confessional - meaning we are not truly Lutheran (so reader beware).

I argue that the fact that the person is coming forward after the announcement of what it is not and what it is, is an assumption on our part (yes we can be wrong, but what do we have) that the person is agreeing with our confession about the Supper.

Further, I argue from the fact that the Lord's Supper is one of the Means of Grace, i.e. how God comes down to us, and therefore must not be denied on anyone who does not despise but rather rejoices in it!

Apparently for some folk, this is not enough. Apparently one must NOT ONLY believe that it is the true body and blood of the Lord, one must agree 100% with what the pastor preaches from that pulpit too. This latter one is rather curious, and opens for some abuse.

You know I am not always in church, sometimes I visit some Lutheran local church somewhere in the country when I am on holidays, I do not know what esoteric doctrine a country pastor might have taught sometime in his past or he currently hold, what I am agreeing with him is the confession on the means of grace, the Supper, that it is true body and blood of the Lord.

I examined for BoC references to check this position and here are the following

1. Large Catechism on the Sacrament of the Altar: We do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come.

My Comment: this is taken cared of by the explanation prior to distribution

2. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession (1531) says in Article XI.4 - Confession: "...Excommunication is pronounced on the openly wicked and on those who despise the sacraments."

My Comment: the fact that the person is coming after the explanation does not indicate that he despises the sacrament.

3. The Augsburg Confession (1530) says in Article XXIV.6 - Mass: "...People are admitted only if they first had an opportunity to be examined and heard".

My Comment: This indicates that before communion is given, the person must have given his confession in private to the pastor during the week and only then communion is given to such. In fact in some churches, this necessitates the use of communion tokens. I doubt if those who say we are non-confessional even practice this. Or, this may be also the general confession and absolution that happens earlier in the service, no matter anyway. Note that on my part, I agree with the meaning of the words in the BoC and not on the words themselves. The question is this - will our pastors eventually catechize that visitor? Yes. In fact if the person has been coming for some time, the person will receive a visit from the pastor and one of the things that would be discussed is this doctrine of communion.

Rightly so - one of the pastors (himself LCMS) in the discussion commented that there must be a way to practice close communion with non-Lutherans but we must be able to practice open communion amongst fellow Lutherans too irregardless of what Synod they come from.

I believe our pastors will serve you the elements if you confess what we confess about the Supper irregardless of what Synod you come from. I am open for correction and proper orientation on this by LCAus pastors themselves , but I have been to quite a few and find my articulation to be reasonable(if they are reading this, they can straighten my mis-impression or misunderstanding).

However, I am at this point comfortable that the way we practice it is in keeping with the Gospel as a gift and the nature of what the Means of Grace is -- that the very Sacrament (which is Gospel with elements) creates faith itself in the heart of the sinner according to God's will; why should we withold it if the person is willing to confess and receive it, why should we add more requirements that they belong to our synod etc etc? I just do not understand.



Well, dear reader : caveat lector. I do not necessarily carry the proper brand name to some: confessional. No matter, I only care that my position is Biblical, that is enough. You can call me a mongrel Lutheran, I do not care.

Remember, I am not perfect, I am not a member of Mt. Zion. Be careful of what you read here, you can get contaminated --- by the truth.

Small Cat as Evangelism Tool

[updated: thanks Pr. Kurt]

Remember the 4 Spiritual Laws? I remember at uni the poor guy who applied this to me, got an interesting response from me, I showed him my novena booklet for St. Jude.

The missus suggested to me to buy plenty of Luther's Small Catechism and give them away as an evangelism tool. I heard somebody suggested this, I said to her, but she has a way of pushing me, to get off my back side and do something so I am making plans to buy a truck load (a bit of hyperbole). So, why not. It will be a good discussion piece.

The thing that is nice is that with the Small Cat, you are not being asked for a decision, you are being told of a gift given. I won't sound like a sale's man. Since I am not asking for a decision, the point of being embarrassed does not even come to the question. I'' just be a witness how the Word is used by the Spirit to convert.

Sounds like a good idea? Has anyone tried this at home?

Improve 'me'

It seems what I need is not a better and improved 'me'. The more I get older the more I come to the idea that what 'me' needs is not to be come better or improved.

It needs to repent.

It needs to repent from the idea of what it needs is to be improved or become better!

What 'me' needs is to die and be no more. It needs death and resurrection, not just death, it needs new life, not just an improved one.

Even other religions hint at this. I know in my study before becoming a 'Christian', Buddhism advocates some form of nothingness. What is the difference? In Buddhism it is self help - you have to do this for yourself.

In Christianity, it is done for you.

OK. Comparative religion is sometimes a luny exercise, but it shows to me that Christianity has the WHOLE TRUTH.

Calling Experience.

How do you know you have been called to become a minister? This has been answered in various and interesting ways.


In my previous background, it is common to hear that they have become ministers/pastors , because just like the prophets of old who received a visitation from God, the same has happened to them. In the same way that they can identify a conversion experience, they can identify a calling experience too, i.e. that particular time when they heard an audible voice telling them to become a minister.


In my early years as a Protestant Christian, I could identify some such subjective experience. However, after that, I struggled. I struggled because I have encountered ministers who had no doubts as to validity of their calling experience yet, I doubted mine. So eventually I wanted to be assured once more, I wanted to be certain, so I wanted re-validation from God, i.e. that he might speak to me the same way he did to them. I was hoping that should this happen, all my doubts as to my calling would vanished. The voice never came.

From the Small Cathechism:

but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

I have this thesis, and let me run this by you. The same Gospel that calls me to faith in Christ is the same Gospel that calls people to minister on behalf Christ.

1 Cor 5:18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their
trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation

.


This is again not subjective but entirely objective, it is again extra nos. It is not dependent on a mystical experience. Since I have been reconciled to God by the message of the Gospel, I, by that same reconciliation have received something. I can then give that which I have received to others i.e. the Gospel so that others may be reconciled too. Therefore the minister is giving also what he has received, the reconciliation. Indeed, I am more convinced today that the minister is simply administering or dispensing that said gift.

It is one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread (didn't Luther say something like this?).

See why I prefer uni education?

[Updated]

Ichabod blogged a couple of months on how a seminary can have grave influence on its graduates for good or ill. It all depends on who is teaching.

In one of his posts, he blogged about a recent graduate from a "confessing" seminary here; the gentleman is said to be just one of the many who have either journeyed to Rome or Constantinople. The thought is this - it alleges that the said seminary produces graduates who eventually abandon the "confession". Ironic, if it were true, then this suggests that it seems to produce more defectors than defenders of the "confession".

A few months ago, I said why I prefer university education over seminary when it comes to ministerial training here. Did you get my point why I prefer university education?

You see in a university education - when it comes to theology at least there you recognize right away your "enemy". In the university, the liberals let you know right away that they do not believe the Bible is revelation, they tell you it is a work of myth etc. etc. In that respect the liberals are more ethical compared to Christian professors in seminaries. Liberals show their colors right away. In seminaries you do not know the "moles" or the "in-plants", it is so easy to hide behind the smoke and jargon.

Selectively repeating what Luther said

The more I read Luther's works that are in the BoC such as his Large Catechism, the more I appreciate his great gift of insight into the Scriptures. I believe that Luther was a dear wise man and should be considered a Church Father. Of course staunch RC fanats would spit on his gravy.

As much as Luther said many wise things, he said some pretty stupid things too. Here is one of them

I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the
Enthusiasts. (Luther's Works, 37, 317)

Most of those who repeat this saying like to sharpen the division between Luther and the Zwinglians (read - the modern evangelicals). IMHO, the people who repeat this saying usually are high church people, as if by repeating this saying it would bolster or strengthen their position or their program.

I am just wondering, why they do not also repeat what Luther said about the Jews and Germans . They don't, because common sense says that those statements are stupid comments nurtured and blurted out of frustration.

Just have a bit of horse sense, you become stupid when you agree with stupid statements.

No conditions apply

I took this photo outside a Wesleyan Church in Fremantle, WA.

I think this church got it right.

Of course, church signs are always catchy and there are unstated assumptions we must assume when reading them. The Gospel, of course, without the preceding accusation of the Law ceases to have its power, but we will not go into that right now. For the moment, at least the free gift of Christ's love is on this church sign.

Considering how the Gospel has been presented with lots of do's, lots of pre-conditions, lots of fine prints etc etc etc, that aspect of unconditionality I'd say is a good start.

Do something before dementia

I caught this sunset from North Fremantle, WA.

My, my, their train and bus system is so superior compared to the one in Melbourne. Inside Perth, the bus rides are free. Then you can travel any where within the reach of the train for a daily ticket of A$8.10 or for the family for the weekend - same amount! Their stations are safer, cleaner and presentable - no grafitis. They have tougher laws and severe punishments for kids that do this stuff. There is more discipline. It is no wonder, the Western Australians once wanted to secede from the rest of the Easterners. Easterner laws are a bunch of wuusies compared to the Westerners. Just read this news of a light sentence of a person who killed a girl in a drag race incident.

WA is filled with rich people. Perth is filled with rich people, almost everyone has a boat. I went to a marina in the south of Perth (Madurah Estuaries) and the missus started reading the names these rich folk named their boats - one of them caught our eyes, he named his "just before dementia".

I am taking the advice early, I better do something now while my mind is not as demented as it is (grandma died of this). Who knows if I'd remember those fun times.

If you want some hits

I just got back safely from Perth. I got some photos of sunsets which I should be able to share later.

I have been thinking about blog statistics lately and I want to share some tips.

It seems to me that if you want really good visits from people you should discuss the following in your blog:

1. Discuss something critical or controversial, like criticize some folk etc.
2. Discuss how-to-s like - how to be a better so and so etc.

Now, the following is a no-no, the following will surely get your post ignored and get the reader the impression you are boring and uninteresting...

3. Discuss something devotional... like the Gospel.

The real inventor

Too bad, Anders, a follower of Ribi Yehoshua has not replied to some questions. I did poke around the web site of the Netzarims. The thesis to me is simple - the Jesus of Nazareth that Christians worship is a corruption of a figure in history called by the name 'Ribi Yehoshua'. More to the point, I believe the group is repeating the theories of some Jewish folk - to the end that it was really Paul of Tarsus, a Pharisee who invented Jesus of Nazareth. Along side that, it was Paul who taught the idea of atonement of Jesus of Nazareth for the world and his rising from the dead. This is not precisely what the web site is saying but put it this way - it was the Hellenist Jews who created this myth about Jesus of Nazareth, something similar to the Paul, the-inventor-of-Christianity idea is happening there.

I note too on the site's insistence of the Torah to be fulfilled by human beings. When I was studying Early Judaism in uni, it came out clear that the Jews believe that God created human beings FOR the Torah.

Contrast this to what the Christian Jesus says
Mark 2:27
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath".

For Jesus, God created the Torah FOR man, to benefit man, but for the Jews this is reversed.

Now if Paul was the true promoter or even inventor of the Christian Gospel, he must have been a real genius, he was able to pull the wool on the world's eyes. Besides that the message is so so good - it sounds really good news.

You can only approach this "invented" news in two ways - you can say this is just too good to be true, "my sins have been paid for by Christ" and yet be skeptical about it, it must be a hoax. You know, like the hoax you get from the internet, saying they got some money from some place and they are willing to share it with you? Or you can reason - this is so so super incredible a story, so unheard of that only God could have come up with this ingenious news.

Update: Another thing, who is that Jesus that I encounter each time I take communion?
---
I hope to go to Perth this next few days - I heard they have beautiful sunsets and so I am taking the missus there. I have never been there I am off to take some sunset pictures, besides giving ourselves a break. Life, with its trials never ends anyway, it will be there when I get back - so what else is new, eyh?

God bless, in the mean time.

Messianic Jews under attack - as usual

Time magazine has an article on the suffering being experienced by Messianic Jews in Israel.

The quick way of thinking about Messianic Jews is that they are approximately orthodox Jews who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

They still follow the cultural aspect of being Jews, like their festivals and customs, the Sabbath and wear all the religious paraphernalia as the occasion requires.

I know of a few friends who are Messianic Jews. I have been to their services. As far as I can remember their liturgy is not the same as the traditional liturgy. I do not recall having confession/absolution nor recitation of the Apostle's Creed etc. I remember that it was semi-charismatic in that they clapped and raised their hands. Their music was original and Hebraic and Psalmic in tune and lyrics. They lit the candles etc. Structurally, their liturgy is more deflected from the way the traditional liturgy has been done.

So, do people have an opinion about this? Should they follow their cultural upbringing and should they have their own type of Christian spirituality? After all Christianity is Jewish in origin, correct? I just want to hear some opinions.

Oh, while we think about this, let us not forget to pray for them too.

Hyper and Fundamentalism

This urangutan's face shows how I stare in amazement at what passes as "confessional".

I just noticed that John H calls people who claim to be "confessional" but yet practically deny or contradict what the BoC says about repentance, good works and changed life brought about by the HS, by the term "hyper-Lutheran". See his post here. I call this Lutheran Fundamentalism, because most, I notice, are into traditionalism, liturgicalism and into negativism too. These folk are into "negativation" (a word I invented, for being anti-anything, yes, anti-anything but so called "confessional"). For this reason - it is "fundamentalistic". Fundamentalism is like that - all are bad, except itself. It also throws the baby with the bath water. Actually this is a subtle high-jacking again of another Lutheran term - "confessional". I am concerned for ex-evangelicals/ex-pentecostals like me because they are getting a spin of what passes as "confessional" but when you check what they say against Scripture and BoC, they mis-represent what that word implies.

This is the reason why I have absent myself from most blogs except for a very few and even this recent reference shows I have not been hanging out other spots lately. I encounter so much of these fundamentalistic types.

I went to Wittenberg because I was a pilgrim/a refugee in search for a confession that matches the Scripture, now that I found it, my job is full and should be spent studying it rather than spending my time reading the so called 'fathers'. They will just have to wait in the queue until I have out grown my studies because if I become ignorant of what the 'confession' says, I will also be - 'hyper'.

Kick her in the face

This is what the HS said to this "preacher". This is the ministry of kicking you in the face, and you know what? This is a healing ministry! You just might come out battered and bruised to get your healing here.

Please do not take this personally, specially my USA readers, but USA has been a seat bed of cultic activities. The truth is that USA has been a major producer and exporter of cultic religions in the last 100 years. What is it with you people? The laughing revival has come and gone, you would have learned from it but here it is again...

This is good old Rodney Howard-Browne revival, and you know what, he was not even American! This is the ministry of leg dropping, punching, hitting and kicking -- and he is proud of it because it is from God.

Here they are, they are laughing and giggling "oh you are such a man of God, you are going to kick me in the face, but no worries, I will be healed, glory Hallelujah"! People are being duped and they are laughing about it.

Folks, it ain't funny. I am actually teary eyed as I write this, I am crying. This has kicked me in the gut.

Faith - mediated or immediate?

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,”[d] 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. Heb 11:17-19

I have been thinking about this thing called faith...err, once again, ahem.

I have noticed a difference in understanding between the Gnesio-Evangelicals and the neo/modern evangelicals on this lately.

Faith for a modern evangelical is immediate. What I mean by that is that it is not mediated, in other words, it is sudden and without something in between. It drops from heaven, so to speak. I say this because faith in modern evangelicalism is personal, and by that it means direct, i.e. God deals with you in the raw, directly. It is understood that when Scripture said that Abraham was the friend of God, it meant that God spoke to Abraham about what was going on in his mind, i.e. God shared his secret heart with Abraham etc.

This is of course manifested in songs like "He lives, he lives, Christ Jesus lives today, he walks with me and talks with me in life's narrow way and so on". Some manifestations of this would be when God tells you where the bargain goods are, he tells you where the right parking spot is, he tells you what the Scripture means etc. In otherwords, it is sorted out while you are in the midst a crisis situation.

On the otherhand, for Gnesio-Evangelicals, faith is mediated. By that I mean, faith is mediated by a promise. All the while in Christian life, it is the promise (the Gospel) that drives all of deductions in life. I see this in the case of Abraham, his faith was not immediate, rather it was mediated by a promise (see the above verse). When Abraham was being tried he had no immediate word from God saying "look, all will be ok, relax, you kill him and I will raise him from the dead, OK? Don't worry, be happy". I am being sarcasmagoric but you know what I mean.

There was none of that conversation. In fact Scripture says that he used the promise to deduce that God would have to raise Isaac from the dead if he killed him. There was no immediate word, just the promise and the implications of trusting in it. Selah.

Yet, this is the same principle in operation in Gnesio-Evangelicalism because it presents Christianity as a religion based on a promise (in this case the Gospel promise). In this Evangelicalism, Christianity is a promise religion, and you make spiritual deductions based on the Gospel promise, it is the hermeneutic. Comparing to what happened to Abraham, it is similar. We believe the promise that for Christ' sake and by virtue of his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, and thus we hold on to the promise until God takes us home. It is a mediated faith, a faith that is brought about based on a promise. In this very sense, a Christian is a person who has a promise from God and so his faith is like that of Abraham, it is mediated by a promise. He has not gotten it sorted out, there is left over mystery absolutely! He has not figured it all out, he uses the promise to guide him in a crisis, he cleaves, he hangs on, he spiritually grabs the promise by the horns and won't let go and he uses the promise for comfort. Yet all this time, there is no new voice, or new revelation directly from God.

Seems to me indeed that a Christianity that focuses you on God's promise (which is the Gospel) and enjoins you to trust that promise until the end, is similar to that of the faith of Abraham. Well then, it becomes true -- that Abraham is the father of those who believe, whose faith is similar to his. Selah.

Supermaids

That is what Filipina President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) wants Filipina women to be.

Her vision for the Filipina is that she might become a "supermaid"! What a lofty vision for the Filipina, no? She wants the Filipina to go work abroad, like go to some Middle Eastern country, so that, what? So that they can get maltreated, get physically abused and raped.

It is leaders like this that keeps the country screwed and sliding down to the dogs. Talking about colonial mentality - this one demonstrates that.

I am ashamed to admit it, but you see, she has a PhD in economics from my university and a consistent Dean's List student when she was taking her undergraduate degree from Georgetown University (USA).

Supermaids. Yeah, right, brilliant. Is that the best vision you could have for your countrymen?

Hang on, my memory bank says that there is another meaning of PhD, "Phenomenally Dumb".

Subterranean river - vote

Hope you could vote for Puerto Princessa (Princess' Port) Subterranean River as one of the 7 wonders of the world.

Have you been to a subterranean river yet?

I have been to one, in New Zealand. It is part of a cave in the north island, south of Auckland. It was a fascinating and thrilling experience. At the roof of the underground river, you would see glow worms hanging off on the roof, they look small specs of greenish lights and so when you look up, they look like stars. These worms become moths without mouths and they live only for a few days (21 if my memory serves me right), they would mate and deposit their larvae onto the cave roof, then these moths die and the cycle rolls over again. The larvae are the glow worms.

This one in Puerto Princessa appears to be bigger and longer. She is 8kms long. Her current rank is 9th, so you can make her be part of the first 7 and perhaps one day you can even visit. I have been to Puerto Princessa, but not in the river, I have visited her satellite reef islands and walked on top of one of them. You can see clear water 30 feet down. Then little tropical fishes with loud colors, come around your toes and nibble at whatever they can - yes between your toes.

You can vote for Puerto Princessa here. Thanks.

Prefer university education

I hope no one finds it weird that I would rather have a university education rather than a seminary one when it comes to doing ministry work.

If I were a young man going to ministry, I would rather go do some work on the original Biblical languages and hone in on those exegetical skills and then throw in some linguistics into the mix. In fact this is what I slightly did, I went for a so called Graduate Diploma in Religious Studies. The program is customized, so I elected to do Classic/Koine Greek and also Biblical Hebrew. Then I also threw in Early Judaistic studies into the mix. Here is one of the guys who taught me NT Greek. Then, I would recommend people to study the Scripture and the BoC a minimum of 2 years and then go for ordination.

Many folk in the faculty I belonged were liberals. I had a professor who was an expert in Aramaic and each time the OT mentioned what appeared to be a miracle, she turned around and gave a human explanation of it. This might be a cause of constipation[sic] for some but it challenged me to work on my research and scholarship methodology. They did respect you even though you wrote on your essays that their views were bunk and bull. That is the beauty of a university education, you are free to dump even your professor's opinions. You can tell them they are asses and it will be accepted so long as you have the arguments for it. Try doing that in seminary and you will be labelled "trouble maker" or "not very nice". What a university education gives is an even handed and balanced scholarship methodology that you will use for the rest of your life. It gives you a critical apparatus in your tool box.

This is why I like university education, because in the university you knew your "enemy"; in seminary education, you don't. University education does not tolerate in-breeding, but seminary education does. Also both university and seminary education are affected by some scholarly fad and some scholarly politics too. A university trained person will be aware of propaganda right away but this is hard to decipher in seminary. A university trained person will catch such anomalies not before long.

Let me be quick to say too that there are seasons I believe when seminaries turned up good men and faithful ministers, but it is a double edged sword. If the seminary professors are into some pre-occupation such as traditionalism, being enamoured with things Orthodox or Roman, into marketing etc. the result is devastating. In the university, the color of your professors are out in the open, in seminaries, their true colors are concealed.

What is more is that since seminary professors are isolated, by enlarge, they have no one to interact or challenge their views, they can go on with their self delusion without anyone checking them. Why? Because they are scholarly ghettos. This accidentally promotes in breeding, seminaries do not have an environment for new or challenging ideas, it is not nice to have them, so they are sometimes called 'sausage factories' (by some blogger).

I am not saying that seminary education is all bad, I am just saying there are some limitations and those who come out of them need to be aware of what they have received when they graduate.

What if

I read in Extreme Theology that Chris had an audience with Rick Warren. See here.

This is a good thing, it is good that Chris is reaching out to Warren. Who knows, Rick might one day realize the error of what he taught? We must never cancel people out, no one is beyond repentance. Who knows, maybe through such conversations, Rick might be brought by God's Word to see the man centered teachings found in his books.

So what if Rick disowns his teachings found in PDL?

What if Rick turns around and says "Forgive me, I have taught you folk a man centered, works oriented form of piety found in my books, so please burn them. I reject all the things I taught there, I was wrong"?

What's next?

Just thinking out loud, I guess some blogs would have to shut down, there would be no material to blog about.

Prayer - by faith and not by works, also

Just some observations on prayer.

One of the most comforting thought in prayer is that God hears our prayer which are prayed according to His will and asked for the sake of Jesus.

It is most comforting to know that God listens to the prayer of a sinner, a sinner who trusts that God will answer, not on the basis of anything meritorious in him or in himself, but on the basis of the merits won by Christ on his behalf. This again anchoring our prayers on the promise of God, or through faith in Christ. Answers to our prayer is again through faith and not by works.

The answer to our prayer is also extra nos, outside of us.

God is glorified when we realize that our prayers, which he answers, have nothing to do with us but all have to do with what Jesus has done. They are answered for the sake of Christ who has won this favor from God on our behalf. This is most comforting and heart warming indeed so we can come with boldness to God. Because we do not stand on our own righteousness but of the righteousness freely given by Christ to us, his righteousness, there is all the confidence in the world we could ever need.

How quickly faith is turned to works when we end our prayers with - "we will do this and that etc etc". It is like bargaining with God or playing tit for tat, a kind of "God, you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" deal. Again, this becomes of works and not of faith. Those words sound pious but insulting to the grace of God.

Luther is sometimes shocking but when he says - God should save us from our good works, we can appreciate why he said that.

Heb 4:16(A) Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Dear friend, know and believe that God answers your prayer because Christ has paid for your sins, you got nothing to give to God that he should listen to you, stop doing what has been done, rest and trust rather on what has been provided by God in Christ - for you. Rest your prayer on someone else's righteousness - that of Christ, you will be comforted to know God hears it.

The time when you can still ask a girl to dance

Just bring'n some lovin today...


When I was a teen ager, the way they sponsor a dance was in a public or town basketball court. The court would be decorated all around and us guys would be sitting in one end of the court and the girls to the opposite side of the court. It was a great stress when I had to walk accross the court to invite a girl, who happened to be a stranger, to dance with me. When a girl happened to be tired, you walk back to your seat dejected.

The songs of these guys would permeate the dance court. Boy, did they have the grove. My buddies had lots of fun singing and copying those moves. Their song "you make me feel brand new", makes me feel very old. Here is one more..

Ah, yes, they don't do those moves anymore.

It is between me and ____

Individualism - that attitude of independence, self-reliance, liberty and responsibility, is also present amongst Christians. How do you detect this? Normally you detect this in statements like "it is between me and ____". You can fill in the blank. The blank may stand for "God" or may stand for another individual - a wife, a son, a husband, daughter and what have you.

Christians are into this, absolutely. Tell a Christian about a behavior that needs repenting and they can say - it is between me and God. Or maybe they need to stop treating their relations badly and they can say - it is between me and my wife.

What does it imply when someone says "it is between me and ___"? It means, bugger off, you are not involve here, it is none of your business and so shut up. There are incidences that this is true, indeed it may be none of our business. But if this individualism is allowed to stand, society will turn to anarchy. Individualism breeds anarchy, actually, it also builds confusion.

I tell you why individualism does not work, even on a human level. Let us assume that someone just killed or murdered somebody. If we respect individualism, the criminal can say -- bugger off, it is between me and him (the victim). I want to know what the police might say or do to such a person who is guilty of that offense? Will they say - "right, it is none of our business, off you go"?

A decent society, if it is still decent that is, will not accept, the philosophy - it is none of your business. The police intrudes and prosecutes. It is not the relations of the victim that does this prosecuting, it is the police. Decent societies do not allow you to say -- it is none of your business. No, rather, decent societies make injustice and oppression their business.

Genesis 4:

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not
know. Am I my brother’s keeper ?

All too easy

It is often amazing how easy it is to be a preacher or pastor in a non-denominational church.

Last week I was at a birthday party and we met a couple who had moved to another suburb. We got to talk about church topics and the wife inquired about a preacher who has been enjoining them to become a member of his congregation. It so happens I know the gentleman but not as a pastor at that time and I let her know of my aquaintance with the preacher. So she asked me what I thought. Well I did not beat around the bush and I just let her know of my amazement as to how easy it is for a person in a non-denominational church to become a pastor. I told her that I would rather come under the teaching/preaching of a man I knew who has studied and has the reputation of being a student of God's Word. I also said that pastoring is a dangerous business because souls are at stake, people's mental/emotional and most of all their spiritual well being are affected by what goes on in the pulpit. So I felt it immoral not to tell the truth of my opinion when I got asked. It would be so unfair to play politics at this stage. In fact the said gentleman had nothing but congenial relations with me in the past, but that is not the point, the issue is doctrine/belief and competence.

It is astounding today how one can set up shop, hire a hall, a function room or get a vacant warehouse and turn it into a church. It is thoroughly amazing how one could get a people together and self elect one's self to be their spiritual leader (hence, pastor) and the remarkable thing is --- people go and become part of that congregation!

We would not go to a doctor who had not been properly trained in medicine and take prescription from them, would we? Yet people go to would be - pastors who had no training except the boast that they have the gifts of the Spirit and annointed by God to preach. We go to people whose authority is nothing but their own testimony! It is only in evangelical Christianity that one can stand in an office of preacher without proper qualifications. Goodness, if you practice law without a license from the bar, you would be jailed, but this does not happen in Christianity. This is way too easy! As Jesus said -- broad is the way to you know where.

Hides, but no, it reveals

It has been said that vestments were worn by preachers in the good old days to hide them, so that the people do not get to focus on them while they preached. That is, so that they do not attract attention to themselves.

Hmmm, tell me if a vestment so elaborate will not gain attention. Look at the sample here, look at the gold and glits.

Actually vestments may not hide the preacher, rather it reveals his character, it invariably speaks of his personality. When a preacher is more interested in what he should wear on Sunday, (s most high church nuts are like that) rather than what he is supposed to say, it does not hide his character, it actually reveals it.

Take the cue from Balaam's ass. The smelly ass had more sense and truth to say compared to the falsehood spewed out by the prophet.

I am glad PB (you know who you are) is not obsessed with what he should wear but worries more as to what he should say. God bless you bro.

Just another self-absorbed boomer

Hagibis - the Filipino word for being rapid or swift. When I got this machine last Saturday, that is what the missus called the whole affair. The machine gave me a good enjoyable ride, it was swift yet smooth. However, the process of buying this machine revealed certain things about me. I am not so sure if what I have found is something I am happy about, I got the word "idolatry" spinning in my brain. The whole process showed things that went inside my heart, what went on inside me.

For starters, it confirmed to me that I am a self absorbed baby-boomer, I am still intent on re-living or realizing some old teen-age dreams. What's up with us baby-boomers, why are we like that? They say what separates men from boys is the cost of their toys.

After taking this bike home, I sat down that night to reflect on what has just happened. What kind of example have I just given my kids? I felt so ashamed of this. How could I do this when I know there are folk around the world, my neighbor, who do not even have something to eat. I just insulted them. The brat is still alive and well and as I grow older, it reveals itself to me, and I wish it would die. Yesterday, I felt like returning the bike to the dealer. If I was not locked in legally, I would have asked them to take it back; of course, they would not return my deposit. Boomers are into symbols - this one is now a symbol of my shame. I was mumbling - I am so sorry, God, forgive me. How could I be like that? I am so sorry for my example, deeply sorry. Lord, have mercy on me.

Funny part

The last few posts have been controversial so I got back to reading the Smalcald articles. A few days ago, I got to this portion of Article IV…

16] For in the Council we will stand not before the Emperor or the political
magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published a most gracious edict, and caused matters to be heard kindly [and dispassionately]), but [we will appear] before the Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merely [when the case has been publicly announced] to condemn, to murder and to force us to idolatry. Therefore we ought not here to kiss his feet, or to say: Thou art my gracious lord, but as the angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan: The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.

I cracked up laughing when I read the quote from Zechariah. I mean, the irony, if that is what you can call it is so funny. Luther has a way with words. Tappert had a footnote that there was an addition in some versions wherein Luther added– shame on you.

I am sure you do not share my dry, weird and sick sense of humor but I could not wipe off the grin from my face each time I recall this quote… sorry, I meant no offense, I just found this part of Luther’s Smalcald cleverly devised, really funny...

Kathlic, what Walther wrote.

To some Lutherites the word 'kathlic' is so precious, so much so that papists ministers play on this word to say that they have more things in common with Rome than anyone else. "Common" is a relative term, as in the phrase "common sense". Frankly "common sense", is not as common as some people think it is. The poor sheep is led to believe because they (the Lutherites and Catholic) look the same, and sound the same (say in worship), that their words must mean the same!

Here is what Walther said about Lutherans being 'kathlic'. You can check the full article here.

Now perhaps others will say: "So you don't want that! Fine, then call yourselves Catholic. But to this suggestion we say: God forbid! Indeed the laughable accusation is often made against Lutherans that they are very much like the Catholics. but who was it that first in public writings truly attacked the Roman papacy as the chair of the antichrist. revealed it to all the world, mortally wounded and killed it? Was it Zwingli? Was it Calvin? Was it Wesley? Wasn't it our Luther? Did not all other true and supposed reformers continue the attack on the enemy from within the fortress which Luther had taken in the heat of battle? How could Lutherans call themselves "Catholic" when the archenemy of the Lutheran church calls himself by this name so that with this beautiful name he might hold captive the consciences of the souls freed by Christ? For indeed the name "Catholic" is a glorious name for it means the universal Christian church which was established by the apostles and spread out upon all the earth outside of which there is no salvation. Obviously no one can be a Christian who would not confess himself as belonging to the church which is catholic or universal in the truth. And there was a time when the true church used this name and with this name separated herself from all false doctrines and their sects. And it has a glorious sound. How wonderful the name catholic sounds. For example, in the mouth of Athenasius or Augustine when they use it against the sects of the Arian, the Donatists and others. How glorious the name rings in the time of the Roman bishop Gregory the Great who completely rejected the title of the universal bishop of Christianity. Gregory wrote to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria among other things: "You allowed a haughty designation in the title
of your letter in that you grant me the title of the universal pope. I ask that hence forth you do no such thing." (L. VIII. ep. 30). In another place this Roman bishop (who died in 604 AD) wrote that until his time no Roman bishops had been willing to carry this title for fear that the true faith would be lost and a bishop would become the forerunner of the antichrist. While the bishops of Rome still wrote in this manner and were appalled that by accepting the title of universal bishop over all Christianity Christ, who is the true head of the entire church, would be robbed of his honor - at that time there was still a true church which called itself the catholic or universal church. But what is the meaning of the word "Catholic Church" now? It is the fellowship of those who recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the church, as standing in the place of Christ and God himself. They recognize him as infallible and give his commands unconditional obedience. They must therefore worship all the unquestionable errors of the papacy such as: the sacrifice of the Mass, praying to the saints, purgatory, the worship of images and relics, the pope's indulgence, human works unto salvation and self chosen works, the forbidding of the bible and marriage, tradition or the unwritten Word of God, compulsory fasts etc. etc. which all the confessions and catechisms of the new Roman Catholic Church teach along with the explicit explanation that outside of this faith no one can be saved. (Prof. fid. cath. e Conc. Trid. a S.P. Pio IV extracta, No. 28) Since from this it is now clear that the name "Catholic" has a new meaning, namely the Roman papacy with all its atrocities and in no way the universal Christian Church, and thus indicates a sect, obviously no one who recognizes the Word of God as the true rule of the Christian faith can trouble us to use this name.

This is one of Walther's best comments. I have his Law and Gospel book and I find very little success in testing my scepticism on what he wrote there. My skepticism often goes home, licked. I am sure I will find something I can disagree with, I have one but this is not one of them.

Here is my observation. Poping groups will first stress that you are a small c "catholic". Since they have the sophistic mentality already in place, it won't be long until the small c gets played up in the discussion and with a slight of word usage, you are now no longer talking about being small c "catholic", you are now transitioned to the big C, "Catholic". If that word is so precious to you and you idolized that word such that you must have it, well, I can only say, you are on your way to home sweet Rome.

I like what Pr. Mark said to me (one of our LCA pastors) on this blog and what Pr. Brett (my pastor) said in discussion: one day, they may even deny us the name Lutheran, and we would not even be shocked or awed or sorry for it. Why? Because we are not into a name, we are into the Gospel, it does not matter what they call or do not call us. When people are into JBFA i.e. the Gospel, they do not quibble about their labels, they are just convenient terms for quick positional identification and location.

It is not the name that counts but the meaning of what is behind it. That is the question.

Work the middle

Speaking of a theological middle ground, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity said this

Hostility [towards himself] has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is a something or a Someone, who against all divergencies of belief, all differences of
temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

I find that statement rich in observation and experience. I see what Lewis said applies to any denomination. When the middle position is thin, when on the right you have the fundamentalist fanatics and on the left you have libertine liberals, it is just a matter of time before a major split happens.

Speaking of my denomination, I like what Dr. Ichabod said one time in his post. He said, he wished the crypto-papists and the church growthers would simply leave, and leave behind, the Concordians in peace. In truth as Augustinian Successor said, the former is more potent and dangerous than the latter. The latter is easily detected, but the former hides under the banner -"confessional", they can easily pull the wool over your eyes, specially if you are not familiar with Scripture and do not have time to check with the BoC.

Irenics, so few and far between

Many people attribute this quote wrongly to Augustine or to John Wesley:

In essntials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity

Actually it was from Peter Medeirlin, a Lutheran pastor of the 17th Century.

Some historians admire the irenic attitude of Medeirlin. That saying of his seems so wise to me. In Concordia land specially in the US, there are only two poles you can be in, either you be in polemics or you be in apologetics, irenics is not that well known.

Irenics came into my mind while I was reading a blog by an LC-MS member who happened to be so critical (even severe) of the way the said Synod is heading. Right now, there are so many folk un-happy about their Synod president, about their Synod's programs and so forth. It seems that their Synod officials can never do anything right, either they have become Seeker Sensitive or has sold out to Church Growth Agenda etc. etc.

I am not LC-MS (perhaps I should be happy I am not) and looking at these bloggers, I wonder if I were in the US how I would feel about this, that is, if I were a member of LC-MS. I have a policy that I do not discuss Synod matters, because in my belief, the real action that concerns me is what happens in my local church. Because if I were handling a congregation, I would rather worry about my flock and my doctrine, I'd rather nose around my business that that of others.

I have no concern for Synod ideals or un-ideals. Whatever they may be, they do not necessarily translate down to where my pew is. At any rate, the way these angry bloggers (angry at their Synod officials) are carrying on, you can not help but wonder of if the LC-MS has become, the LC-M-ess.

At the point of means

I could probably say at the point of Grace. I have in mind the confession of St. Paul in Gal 2:20-21
20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

When did Paul's crucifixion with Christ happen? At the Cross? On the road to Damascus? Or at Damascus when Ananias baptized him (or in our language when God baptized him)?

I cast my vote for the last one because of what he wrote in Romans 6:1-6. I am fairly convinced of this, that it happened at Damascus with Ananias. What about you?

I would have agreed or asserted this probably 3-4 years ago, but one thing I learned with Concordians is that they simply say what Scripture says without excuse or rational summersaults.

In/Out or what is it all about

To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Col 1:27

How often have we heard this exposited? Many times, I am sure. It has been emphasized to no end. From its face value, this text has been used by the moderns to point out the importance of the Jesus that is inside you. It kinda makes others feel insecure, you start wondering or looking for the Jesus within. What is it suppose to be like to have Jesus living in your heart? How does he get there, Oh, I know the answer to that, you pray the sinners prayer and invite Jesus to come in. This is so important because if he ain't in, you are out, you ain't saved.

Back in those days, I was so deep into this. In fact I would lead the people to singing this chorus

"into my heart, into my heart, come in to my heart Lord Jesus, come in today,
come in to stay, come into my heart, Lord Jesus".

OK, choir, sing with feelings this time...

Think a bit deeper now. This is mysticality at its best, because how is it like that Jesus is inside? Quite a subjective state of affairs is it not? So you get to hear voices of Jesus or impressions of some sort. Little did I know that the ancients called this mysticism or as the Reformers called this - "enthusiasm". Holy guacamole, I now realize this to be Christian gnosticism, a deadly heretical understanding of how Christian life operates.

How do you properly handle that verse? I have to rely on the Greek, the English is so subject to manipulation by well meaning but misguided pastors/teachers. Don't be like me, I took their word for it because these folk wanted to emphasize the inward internal goings on of a Jesus reality within.

The Greek "you" in that verse is plural. It is not singular. That is significant because it is saying what the preposition "in" means. Looking at the context, this is not referring to the Jesus in you as individual, it refers to Christ "in you" meaning in your midst, in the midst of you Gentile believers. I suggest this is what Paul meant in that passage. Look at the whole chapter's context, it is king.

Let me cut the cheese to the quick, my suggestion is this, to find out if Christ is in you, find out if you are in Christ. Have you been baptized into Christ? In our baptism we were baptized in or into the name of Jesus too. Do you trust the promise that for Christ's sake God is forgiving you of your sins? Then you are in Christ and Christ is in you, not in a mystical experiencial goose bump way, but in the way also promised by God, by faith. The Word says that so that must be true.

The truth is this --- the "in" preposition is not the operational word, it is the "for" preposition. It is the FOR YOU, that determines the IN YOU. More importantly "in" in the sense that he is in your presence, in your midst, not in the sense that he is in there, dangling in you heart.

The trusting of the promise that Christ is FOR YOU, implies, you are in Christ, and Christ is in you. So don't start looking IN, always look OUT.

(The White Horse Inn in yesterdays broadcast has just discussed - The Gospel of Personal Relationship)

Bring Back Sin in the Church

"You must make it palatable to your hearers". This was the advice given to me by a pastor a few years my senior when I was in my early years in ministry. I won't name the denomination of that pastor but you can guess if you have been visiting this blog. I almost choked when I heard that comment, living me speechless for a few minutes, I could not believe my ears.

"Relativize". That seems to be the cause of anxiety now a days. How does one make Christianity relevant to pop culture? In this post-Christian age, people are no longer into religion as once known, they are now into spirituality. People's problems center around what is seen, heard or felt. For example, their problem is not having money, not having relationships, not having _______ (you can fill in the blank).

So do we talk to them about those surface level things hoping we can get them to listen about the main thing, their lost relationship with God?

Today's pop culture is not even exactly angry at the Church, it is indifferent. They look at Christians as like looking at a museum. Just old artifacts of history gone by.

Jesus said "they will hate you because of me". In the Western world, we are not exactly hated, and when we are hated, it is not because of Jesus. It is because of the foul things we have done, the scandalous actions and not because of the message of Jesus, no sir ree.

There is always something that the Church has that will never be found anywhere else in the world. Forgiveness of sins. Notice, in todays language there really is no such thing as sin. People are not really Law breakers, they are just making bad choices. People generally think they are quite ok with God. They got a good heart. The Church is by default agreeing with this when it allows itself to be side tracked and go along with pop culture's conversations.

When the Church stops discussing sin, it will stop giving the answer for it, the needed forgiveness that can only be found in Christ's death and resurrection.

Who said this

[HT: Jim P.]

Your Baptism does you no good if you don’t have faith in Jesus.

Who could have said this? You only have 2 choices.

a.) A Lutheran pastor said this.
b.) A non-Lutheran pastor said this.

Discuss your answer. Why is the statement true/not true?

It will be good, one day

we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

I have been reading FC, Epitome on Original Sin. Here is what it says...

6] In like manner Christ has also redeemed it (human nature) as His work,
sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as
His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified;
nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the
(blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.

It will all be good one day. When I see the effects of my sin to myself and to others and I see their sin's effects on me, I do want to recall what we have in the creed about the resurrection...at the resurrection, sin will be no more. When life here is not the way it should be, it is amazing how the heart hopes and becomes eager for that day, when tears and sorrows he will wipe away. Sin is the cause of these sad days, I mean in the ultimate sense. But what a day will it be when it is no more...one day, it will be no more.

Romans 6:5 (New King James Version)
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Abusive Churches

I encountered this book many years ago. In the last post, we mentioned that you can really get hurt in the least expected place, in church. Often, abuse happens from the top leaders of a church.

BTW, sometimes, also, in well meaning environments, the one that gets abused is the pastor itself, and the pastor's wife feels this more than we can ever appreciate. Just be aware of that, that they do get abused too.

In Enroth's book, as I recall in reading it, one will find characteristics of churches that abuse. One example I can think of is when a member leaves. In the circle I was in, shunning either explicitly or implied happens. That is, the withdrawing of friendship or good will. Some church groups consider it a personal insult to them, that you are leaving them for another church. The puzzling thing is that when one leaves a church and transfers to even the same denomination, I have seen shunning still happens! This is just an example of an abuse in the social direction.

Enroth mentions cult like behavior in some churches. IMHO, some cultic churches are masking inside mainstream evangelical denominations. In other words, they are really cultic in behavior and belief but they go undetected simply because they belong to a mainstream denomination. In my observation, local churches can be cultic even though they reject cultic beliefs. Sure they may affirm the Trinity , affirm the Scripture, affirm all the nice points and appear even orthodox, but in the social aspect, they really are operating as a cult. One example is the way they handle dissent.

How a translation can screw you up.

John 10:10 The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I
came that they may have and enjoy
life, and have it in abundance (to the full, till it [a]overflows).

Amplified Bible

Compare with...

John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to
destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more
abundantly.

NKJV

Discuss...

You can get hurt in church, that is true

The irony is that, the very vehicle of healing for repentant sinners is the very instrument of stumbling too. That is right, as much as the church provides the blessings of having a family, a place you can belong and be treated as part of a larger whole, it too is a place where injuries are inflicted. Sometimes, there is so much fun in church fellowship and you get a drop of heaven, but wait till a crisis happens, it can be hell too. Take the story below as a case study. We can cite a lot more.

Think of the hospital. We bring our sick there to get cured. Sometimes, the cure does not happen, instead the situation gets even worst. Like, the time I heard a surgeon left a scissor in one of his patients after the operation. He was doing a procedure to fix something but instead, he left a new problem. For months it was tucked in the patient's abdomen, left accidentally by the surgeon, it was only revealed by x-ray the bizarre truth, the patient was carrying a foreign object. The real problem was fixed but a new and different one needs fixing too.

So what do you do when bad things happen to you, in church. Well, what should the patient do in that story? Where does he go but to a hospital again, no matter what. Perhaps he might go to a different hospital and get fixed by a different surgeon, but no one denies, he has to go back to 'a hospital'. Going to the fire station won't fix his problem.

Church, even though it does not purposely try to disappoint us, will disappoint us. That is the nature of being a sinner and saint in a grand scale. It happens, because it ain't The Messiah.

See: The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church, by R. Rosenbladt

An Un-Testimony - How a girl became happy not to be in church

[HT: C. Michael Patton]

Below is the un-testimony of a girl who be came an un-believer. You might say from being a Church-ian to being Un-Churched. It is a sad story worthy of our tears. This is the story of a girl who struggled with lesbian attraction. Her church background would have been irrelevant. I think this is what happens when people are hounded by the Law but no Gospel. How do you think we should respond to her? She could be listening, what would you say to her?

“I realized at an early age that something was very wrong with the Baptist church I went to. It was pretty bad when a eight year old child can tell a place is corrupt.

My first of many churches was in north Alabama, a very horrid and dim place where half the population cannot read or write. At the early age of four I was taught that homosexuality was wrong, and if you were you would go straight to hell. In fact, you would go straight to hell for lots of things it seemed.

If you read anything by Darwin, you were doomed.

If you talked back to your husband, then I hope you enjoy fire.

If you think about sex you are a dirty whore and you will go to hell.

The place was really more like a cult then anything. The people were brainwashed into believing that everything they did was evil.

Luckily we moved from there, not long after we found out that a small religious faction that had developed in the town was over throwing the pastor because his daughter was a lesbian.

We moved to Montgomery when I was ten, which was when the big topic of the 10 commandments being in the capitol building was being disputed, and I think that was the real start of my fall from faith. Not from the big deal that society was making out of religion, but from the new church that I had become a part of making such a huge deal.. I remember my preacher saying loudly at the top of his lungs one Sunday morning as I sat in the pew hanging on his every word, that the only reason that the people were protesting was because they were dirty, filthy atheist homosexuals. I thought to myself “Why would they care though? It’s not hurting anyone if it is or is not in there.”

As I grew older I began to learn new things about myself that worried me: I liked girls. I had always grown up learning that if I did like girls, I would go to hell and god wouldn’t love me anymore because I was an abomination. I struggled with the issue for a year before coming out to my best friend. She said she did not agree, but swore to never tell anyone. I felt better finally letting someone know that I am a lesbian. That Wednesday I went to church like I always had since I was eleven, and I walked over to the preacher who was a friend of mine and said “Hello.” and he would not speak to me. He looked through me like I was not even there.

I walked over to my best friend and sat down beside her, still hurt. To my surprise she got up, and everyone in my youth group followed her. I left, and went home crying. The next Sunday the preacher told us about the evils of homosexuality, and how no matter what you did you were no longer a child of god, but of Satan. My mother, being sympathetic looked over to me and offered to take me home. I shook my head refusing and stayed through the whole service. At the end I was close to tears, but I was filled with a new understanding. Something that I had never knew was in me before. Something that the people of the church could not see because they were blinded by their stupid convictions.

God failed. Not God himself, because he does not exist; he was just an idea started by some people who needed hope for something. But the idea of God failed. In the start God was made to give people hope and a reason to live a good life of humility and purity. But soon, those same people changed it. They turned it into something ugly and hateful, damning whatever they did not like, or fixing the words to make whatever they wanted it to say.

I went home and cried for three hours that day, and my mother thought I was sad because of what had happened at church. But I wasn’t. I was crying tears of joy, For the first time in my life I felt free. I felt like I was my own person, I felt free of burden or depression.

It has been four years since that day, and I can happily say that I have not stepped foot in a church since.

This is my fall from god I suppose, there is nothing remarkable about it. And there is nothing heart breaking about it. But it feels good to get it out in the open.”

“I realized at an early age that something was very wrong with the Baptist church I went to. It was pretty bad when a eight year old child can tell a place is corrupt.

My first of many churches was in north Alabama, a very horrid and dim place where half the population cannot read or write. At the early age of four I was taught that homosexuality was wrong, and if you were you would go straight to hell. In fact, you would go straight to hell for lots of things it seemed.

If you read anything by Darwin, you were doomed.

If you talked back to your husband, then I hope you enjoy fire.

If you think about sex you are a dirty whore and you will go to hell.

The place was really more like a cult then anything. The people were brainwashed into believing that everything they did was evil.

Luckily we moved from there, not long after we found out that a small religious faction that had developed in the town was over throwing the pastor because his daughter was a lesbian.

We moved to Montgomery when I was ten, which was when the big topic of the 10 commandments being in the capitol building was being disputed, and I think that was the real start of my fall from faith. Not from the big deal that society was making out of religion, but from the new church that I had become a part of making such a huge deal.. I remember my preacher saying loudly at the top of his lungs one Sunday morning as I sat in the pew hanging on his every word, that the only reason that the people were protesting was because they were dirty, filthy atheist homosexuals. I thought to myself “Why would they care though? It’s not hurting anyone if it is or is not in there.”

As I grew older I began to learn new things about myself that worried me: I liked girls. I had always grown up learning that if I did like girls, I would go to hell and god wouldn’t love me anymore because I was an abomination. I struggled with the issue for a year before coming out to my best friend. She said she did not agree, but swore to never tell anyone. I felt better finally letting someone know that I am a lesbian. That Wednesday I went to church like I always had since I was eleven, and I walked over to the preacher who was a friend of mine and said “Hello.” and he would not speak to me. He looked through me like I was not even there.

I walked over to my best friend and sat down beside her, still hurt. To my surprise she got up, and everyone in my youth group followed her. I left, and went home crying. The next Sunday the preacher told us about the evils of homosexuality, and how no matter what you did you were no longer a child of god, but of Satan. My mother, being sympathetic looked over to me and offered to take me home. I shook my head refusing and stayed through the whole service. At the end I was close to tears, but I was filled with a new understanding. Something that I had never knew was in me before. Something that the people of the church could not see because they were blinded by their stupid convictions.

God failed. Not God himself, because he does not exist; he was just an idea started by some people who needed hope for something. But the idea of God failed. In the start God was made to give people hope and a reason to live a good life of humility and purity. But soon, those same people changed it. They turned it into something ugly and hateful, damning whatever they did not like, or fixing the words to make whatever they wanted it to say.

I went home and cried for three hours that day, and my mother thought I was sad because of what had happened at church. But I wasn’t. I was crying tears of joy, For the first time in my life I felt free. I felt like I was my own person, I felt free of burden or depression.

It has been four years since that day, and I can happily say that I have not stepped foot in a church since.

This is my fall from god I suppose, there is nothing remarkable about it. And there is nothing heart breaking about it. But it feels good to get it out in the open.”

Low Fat, Low Salt, Low on Ethics of Caring...

[HT: The Missus]

www.spirituality.ucla.edu is a web site I will be setting my eyes on. It is part of UCLA and they conduct research on the spirituality of college students in USA.

The missus alerted me to one of their current research findings on the spiritual life of college students, mainly entering freshmen. You can read the details here. This study surveyed 112,232 entering first-year students from 236 diverse colleges and universities. It hopes to track the spiritual development of these students as they go through courses.

I like to draw their findings on students who identified themselves to be Lutheran. Here is what the reports says...

Lutherans also receive below average scores on four
measures: Religious Skepticism, Religious Struggle,
Spiritual Quest, and Ethic of Caring (their average
scores on these last two measures are the lowest of
all groups).

* Low on Religious Skepticism - this means they are less skeptical about the truthfulness of religion or less skeptical about their faith. Well done.
* Low on Religious Struggle - this means they rank low when it comes to, say crisis of faith, they are stable. Well done.
* Low on Spiritual Quest - This means they are not searching anymore, perhaps they found the answer, they are settled. Well done.
* Low on Ethic of Caring - This means they careless. They should get an F - i.e. Fail on this one.

The Ethic of Caring stands for the commitment to values such as helping others in difficulty, reducing pain and suffering in the world, and making the world a better place.

You know there is another way of reading the good results of the first 3 categories. Perhaps they scored low there because in the first place, they have been indifferent.

When I read the last comment of that quote, I am reminded of a t-shirt print ..."Low on Sanctification". If that means I do not use good works to gain merit, I am happy to wear such a t-shirt. But if it means, what this score means, I will hide it under my jacket and not parade it to the world. It will be one of those left in the closet.

To whom much is given, much is required.

A Confession, not a Denomination

Find more videos like this on The Wittenberg Trail

1 John 4:15
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God

A Christian without a confession is like a ship in the ocean, without rudder and without sail. To be a Christian is to confess the Gospel. To believe is to confess, to confess is to believe.