Hey Dan! Let me clear some points and loose ends

Hey Dan! Let me clear up some points and loose ends


Dan and I have been going at logger heads for some time… he is really a pest… LOL! Just joking!!!!

Actually, I really enjoy Dan’s input on my posts. I have even pulled the comments out to a new post as I think his comments of great value. I consider Dan a friend and though he needs to post more on his blog I think he has some interesting thought there.

Here is the comment on the last post that I was reviewing “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity”. Though in a way I think the main point of the last post was that I agree with Spencer Burke on much of the topics of he book, I wanted to expound on some of the things Dan has brought up.



A couple counterpoints iggy,

First of all, looking at scripture collectively we see that baptism is a means of salvation (although not necessarily the only way). This is attested to by Christ when he says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Some people get hung up on the ordering of believe and baptized, but my point is that in this verse and numerous others baptism and salvation are linked. The most specific verse attesting to the salvific nature of baptism would be 1Peter 3:20-21 which states:

"God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That states it pretty clearly.

Throw into the mix that the vast majority of the early church leaders performed infant baptism and that the first case of a child being intentionally withheld from baptism doesn't appear until the 4th century and i think you have a pretty good case for salvific infant baptism.

Secondly, it seems strange that you would throw out the idea of salvific baptism for lack of biblical evidence but then claim a sort of "age of accountability" based upon cognitive ability which has even less in the way of direct Biblical support. I also am a bit perplexed that someone who has spent so much time rallying against the dangers of propositional truth would then base so much of our salvation upon a narrow definition of reasoning (not to mention that asserting that the developmentally disabled are unable to be depraved is insulting and paints the disabled as the cherubim imbeciles, an image that disability rights groups have been trying to eliminate for years. Trust me, developmentally disabled people can be just as depraved as you or I). Let me put it this way. An infant does not cognitively understand love, but would you say that your child does not know that you love them? A gentleman by the name of Hoffman puts it this way, "The child is capable of a “primal trust,” and, where this is not developed but held back, it sustains severe personality damage. This “primal trust” is not first developed through heard or understood articulated words, but in a personal mode which is other than verbal and which can indeed dispense with the verbal dimension. A child “knows”

Anyways, that's all for now.

Dan

P.S. I wrote an paper on infant baptism that lays out my beliefs pretty well and give a bunch more evidence for it. If you'd like I could send you a copy.





Hey Dan!

I want to clear up something about “propositional truth”. I aint against it… in fact I went back and put a disclaimer to that post as I think the title is misleading in regard to what I wrote. It set the wrong tone.

I do not think we are to base our understanding on “man’s reasoning” and I do not think man can reason his way to God at least without the “wooing” of the Holy Spirit.

I see that propositional truth must be in “right” relation to Jesus or it is really of no use.

1. Jesus is THE TRUTH. (One can say He is TRUTH ABSOLUTE)


2. Jesus is the source of All Truth. (One can say Jesus is the source of All Absolute Truth).


3. All Truth comes from the source or it is not pure Truth.


4. We receive this Truth from Jesus as revelation which is then confirmed by Jesus revealing Who He is in the Scripture.


5. We understand scripture and its truths which are often “propositional” by our relationship with Jesus.


6. We test this by our experience and by our fellowship with one another to test and prove these Truths with each other.


7. We live our lives in and through these truths with each other.


8. These Truths must be universally true or they are not true…

I admit whole hardily that this is not a formula, but rather what I have come to understand from scripture and my relationship with Jesus over the years.

Secondly, I am not perfect, so I may not be right on some things. Somewhere I realized in my walk that God is perfect and that is His job, not mine. Mine is to be the imperfect creation that is loved by Him.

In that I am always looking at my faith and beliefs to see if they square with what I hear God teaching me. Though you and I may not agree with some things, I truly respect your beliefs and know you have not just accepted things, but do challenge teachings. I do not take it personally when you do disagree as I know you realize we both are growing. (I must at least make you think cuz you keep coming back to read my silly posts LOL!).



The funny thing is as I was writing the paragraph on infant baptism, I thought about you for a moment as I know that the Lutherans are not too far off on the Catholic view of infant baptism.

I view the scripture as talking about two specific “baptisms”

1. John’s Baptism (a precursor and one of remission of sins)


2. Being immersed in the Blood of Jesus or being baptized into Christ.

#1 was not a permanent solution as it was temporary as the sacrificial system… John even said it was for the “remission of sins” as Jesus was the “Lamb Who would take away the sins of the world”. That was and is the permanent e solution.

I see that other than that, there is no “baptism” that is for salvation as even Paul said that if anyone preaches a Gospel different from himself, let him be accursed. (Gal 1) So, then if the “Gospel of your salvation” (Eph1:13) was preached by Paul… and anyone who preached contrary was to be eternally cursed, why does Paul sound so lackadaisical over baptism?

1 Cor 1: 11. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ."
13. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14. I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15. so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (NIV)

To me then if Paul who was so strong on defending the “Gospel” that saves us was not so strong on Baptism, I think that we then can see that baptism was not part of the “salvation equation”.

In fact I have for sometime noticed that as the Revelation of Jesus increased in scripture, the teaching of baptism progressively diminishes. There is either a contradiction or there is a progression as one scripture tell us we have only “One Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) then in Hebrews we have the verse that says, “Hebrews 6:1. Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2. instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.


So we must conclude that there is One Baptism… and one is symbolic of THAT BAPTISM. (1 Peter 3:21) There is one baptism and that is in Christ… as we are baptized into His Life… His resurrected Life. 1 Peter 3: 18. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19. through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20. who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21. and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22. who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (NIV with my emphasis). I see it as not the water, but the Resurrection of Jesus that saves us. And that we now are baptized in Christ… or placed into Jesus… 1 Cor 12: 13. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. (NIV) personally I remember pastor Farina doing the dunking… not the Holy Spirit… as far as “water”. But, I do know that the Holy Spirit has baptized me in Jesus. Ephesians 1 explains how we are immersed in Christ… “22. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23. which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (NIV)

Notice we are placed under Christ… just as one is placed under the water at baptism. We are baptized in Christ. This is backed up more if one does a study of being the body of Christ. I do not think Paul was talking of water baptism in Rom 6: 1. What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2. By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3. Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Rather I see he is saying that since we are now dead to sin, we are now being dead, have Jesus’ death in place of our own. With that as we are immersed in His death, we also will be raised from the dead, and will live a new life. Our sin was taken away, or put to death, so we too can partake in the resurrection of Christ.


Even through I do not see baptism as an essential, I do not see harm in child dedications, though I see this as more of a community of believer that are vowing together to help raise the child in a Godly way. Most the time it is a rather meaningless ritual.

I know the arguments of “the whole household was baptized”… and such, yet again, this is the “symbol” of what now saves us… the water does not do much but get us wet and shows what Christ has done on the inside of a believer.

My main point is that most reformed theologians and Calvinist do not believe child baptism, so deny Calvinism in its purity as Calvin would have taught it. Again, I thought of Luther, then you, and wondered how you would respond.

I am interested in your paper… I would really like to read what you have considered and discovered… I may be missing something.

The main point of the “developmentally disabled” is not that some can not grasp right and wrong, but many cannot understand even some basic teachings of the faith. In that if a child is mute and cannot “confess with their mouth”… or if one is deaf. How can they “hear the message”. I am thinking of my cousins which one is in her 40’s and is mentally still about 5 years old… another has down syndrome and just did a dance routine to “Little Willy, Willy” by Sweet in which she did a rather shocking hip swivel to the embarrassment of her family. I do not think she understood what she was doing… as I do not think she realized that the seductive hip swivel was not appropriate for the family reunion… though it was a bit fun to what my very religious cousins get shocked a bit by it. Both are more than capable of doing bad things, yet there is an innocence still there that is not present in adults. My main thought was not that these do not ever do anything that can be considered sinful, but that God’s grace covers them. In a sense it is like when Paul states, “And where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:15) These who cannot understand transgressions, are not held to account of transgressions. They are innocent of transgressions, that is until they come to a point that they do realize they are transgressing against someone else, or God. After that if they continue, God turns them over to a depraved mind… but until then they do not have a depraved mind .

Blessings,
iggy

Review: Heretics Guide to Eternity (pt 2)

Heretics Guide to Eternity (pt 2)

Really I have not come across too much that is that controversial… though I had to put down the book as I read about Spencer’s daughter Grace. I had dealt with the loss of a child a few years back (We had a miscarrage then this year I was present when we found Kyler along with his father)… That is partly why I am not a Calvinist. As to me, in its purity, with Calvinism, one would not have any real comfort over a loss of a child unless one subscribes to infant baptism as part of the "formula" for salvation... which I see not one scripture that teaches that.

Really I subscribe to the “innocent until one sins” view. In that way one has to be conscience of the action… as opposed to an infant or developmentally disabled person. The scripture does not say man is “totally depraved” but it does say, “all have sinned” and that it is by “grace we are saved”. In fact I see that “total depravity" cuts across many doctrines… like the Incarnation… God became a man… from a woman… who if “totally depraved” from birth would have corrupted Jesus as a man… (1 Cor 15: 21) I also do nto see that the scripture teaches “total depravity”. On the contrary it teaches that God “turns them over to a depraved mind.” So a child would not have a depraved mind, nor hopefully some one who is developmentally disabled as they can not grasp the concept of even being depraved.
(I know the argument against this, but it still does not hold water as if Jesus was not, for the Bible speaks more times of Jesus being “a man”, then it does about Jesus being God… it never says Jesus was the “God-man” that so many teach.)

I think if one reads and carefully tries to grasp the different types of “heretics” one will find that not all are bad, in fact if some of the “heretics” of our history did not stand against what was taught, we would not have many of the Reformers of old, let alone, the theologies many hold to today.

Thinking of a Christianity beyond religion is not a new thing… in fact many have been saying for years, “it is not a religion, but a relationship”, which is true, yet still falls short of the “moving beyond”. I see it as the difference of clothing ourselves with our denomination, or institution, or as Spencer calls it, “consensual illusion”. This is where we delude ourselves with what we “think” our faith/religion/God/relationship… (Oh, you can add any number of things to this) is THE REALITY.

In the end it is still just that, an illusion. Not based on reality. Simply a lie.

I sometimes wonder if we have replaced Jesus with a pseudo-religion that claims Him as God, yet really has nothing to do with Him.

I like the example of Copernicus as he spoke against the church of that day teaching that the earth was static… I see a direct correlation with what is happening today. There is a great shift in thought, the paradigm many speak of. Many do not see it has already happened. I am one who does not see God as static… never changing. I see His character never changes and that God is not like men who say something then go back on their word… I do see that God in a sense changes… (Though, if even in our perspective, that in a way is God changing as we gain revelation as He reveals Who He is. I see that God in a sense is ever expanding… as the Kingdom He is spreading expands.) He changed as he created matter; He changed as He engaged man. He changed as he became a man and “learned obedience” (Jesus was God… in flesh… though self limited, Jesus still was God and “learned obedience” as Hebrews 5:8 tells us… that is God changing rather radically to me). So, if God is static, the Father would not have sent the Son, Who was God in flesh and would not have been able to “learn obedience”.

So, if God is not static His Kingdom is not static; then a static religion would not be able to keep this God under control. To me that is what religion is... and attempt to control and contain God in a way that allows man to be in control and then our man made institutions will be as Spencer stated, “the center of the Christian Universe”.

If man, and our religion is no longer the center of the Universe… be it our own illusion, or created reality… then it is imperative to move beyond this non reality into the TRUE REALITY…

So far I am enjoying the book. Again, some things I have already considered before, yet if one is looking for a good primer I would so far highly recommend this one.

Blessings,
iggy

Mark Driscoll: Manly Men and the Point being Missed

Mark Driscoll: Manly Men and the Point being missed.

Remember this quote?

"The problem in the church today is just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickafied church boys. 60% of Christians are chicks and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of…chicks. It’s just sad. We’re looking around going, How come we’re not innovative?Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football or they’re out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck. They look at the church like that’s a nice thing for women and children. So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church.

One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing."


Now, notice the phrases mark used…

1. “chickafied church boys”


2. “They look at the church”


3. “All this nonsense on how to grow the church.”

The thing that is missing is Jesus… I see Him no where in the quote… If you want to get “young men” to church… you need to live life with them… and show them “Christ in you”.

The real issue to me and the thing that has been bothering me is Mark is out to grow a “manly church”. Good for him… go for it!! Yet, while he does this… I see that real men realize they need Jesus. That is the question Mark should be asking… not:
“ So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church.”

So Mark, be real… and admit you are just out to “market your church”… and may need to refocus on Living Christ’s Life through you. I see that so many are so focused on “church growth” that they lose sight that many might be interested in Jesus, yet not on “church” as they see it and we let them slide straight to hell.

How do we live our lives in a way that will bring “manly men” to Christ? To me Mark is still failing to see and is falling into the trap of being “chickified” if his focus is on church growth. The focus is reaching these young men… with Jesus, then seeing the innovation Mark is asking for. He is putting the cart before the horse.

So what do we do… hire John Jacobs and his Power Team crew to break a few bricks with their heads, (which is pretty cool btw). Do we organize Christian Hunting ministries? How about we have a Christian Monster truck rally? I mean how much more manly is that!?!?

Really maybe we should live our lives and as we do share our faith, values and lives with our “manly men” friends… in that they can see something genuine that will not be taken as “chickified” or worse as just something of being another number in you church growth chart…

Manly men truly care for their families… they work hard… they address real issues… Really, I see that some of the things Mark described are “escapes” from the empty life they really lead. Manly men desire to be a hero… to live their lives in a way that would allow them to be a hero… and the Greatest Hero in History is Jesus…

So manly men, lets go out and introduce more manly men to Jesus… who gave His Life for us, to give His Live to us, to Live His Life through us… to be heroes with our family and communities… then let’s worry about how big our churches are.

Blessings,
iggy

Universalism: Why I do not agree

Universalism: Why I do not agree

Universalism has become a major topic… as with hell. The idea of Universalism is I believe based on great compassion. Traditionally and historically that was the origin of universalism in the Christian church.

Though that is commendable… that some taught that we “Saints” had (or will have) such great compassion as to move the heart of God that He decides to purify and bring the unrepentant back to salvation, I see that there is some grave error.

For some brief historical background I recommend that one might look at some of these links ( I may not agree with everything from these websites though I thought some of these pages of interest):

HISTORY OF OPINIONS ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE
OF RETRIBUTION BY EDWARD BEECHER, D. D.

Universalism?

Origen of Alexandria (c.185 - c.254)

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


I have personally come across Universalism in the Apocalypse of Peter in which Jesus is showing Peter hell… and at one point seems to insinuate that those in hell will suffer for a time… and be saved after being purified by the fire.

Again, compassion is a great thing. Yet if it is based on error, then it can not lead us in TRUTH.

The issue is to me in 1 Cor 15: 22. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (NIV)


Now, notice a couple of things here:
1. This is concerning the “end” after Jesus has destroyed “ALL dominion” … in that all kingdoms that are not part of God’s Kingdom… will be destroyed. Yet, even before this Paul is talking about… “so in Christ all will be made alive.”

2.This passage is concerned about those who are “in Christ” and will be raised at the resurrection. So, we must be careful not to take “all in all” to mean those who are not “in Christ”.

Colossians 1: 19. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20.
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I see here is one of the key issues. I believe that everything created has been reconciled back to Christ through all things were created. Yet, reconciliation… was by the cross and shed blood of Jesus. I have often expressed that forgiveness and salvation are not the same thing nor to be equated as such… so to say Forgiveness = Salvation is not true based on the teaching so scripture. As I have stated before this thought leads to two paths.

1. Universalism
2. Exclusivism

Neither of these are truly valid and correct in my view as they negate each other much as Armenianism and Calvinism does.

Forgiveness was inclusive and universal… for all! One can find the verses in numerous place… but the best known is John 3:16

Yet, salvation is based on one’s relationship with Jesus. Does one need to know the Name of Jesus to be saved… ahhh… that is another topic for later. In that I am not fully convince one need know “Jesus” as “The Name” as that sort of seems to lead to the error of Jehovah Witnesses.

The other error though is to think that because “all creation” has been redeemed, that included those outside of Christ.

Do I believe the earth, animals and such are redeemed? I do… very much, yet scripture teaches these things fell under the dominion of darkness because man fell… not because creation was evil in and of itself.


(A side note here, some seem to teach “flesh” is evil… and I see that is not true… some fleshly desires are corrupt. Yet, flesh is not evil in and of itself. In fact to believe so is to be more inline with the error of the Gnostics who taught Flesh as evil and Spirit as good. We tend to this in our modern teachings today… even some early church fathers confused this with the misunderstanding of “saved by penance and faith” (CCC 1470) instead of “by grace you have been saved, through faith”… In that we must subdue the flesh and then be justified… Which then nullifies the works of Christ).

Yet again, if one looks closer the verse is about those who are redeemed.


Col 1: 21. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- 23. if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (NIV)

In this passage, it says we once were “alienated from God and were enemies in our minds”… what this is talking about is the regenerated mind… the transforming of our minds… (Rom 12:2)

Yet, of those who are not being transformed… and stay in their corrupt state of mind…

Rom 1: 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (NIV)

(A side note: I think that anyone who intentionally does the things listed and justify it in their minds and call themselves “Christian” better with most certainly check their hearts and seek God. For in the Letters of John it is clear to “hate your brother” is a sign the TRUTH is not in you. I also see that there are some that justify their actions and commit slander, gossip and go out of their way to harm others… this to me cuts across the teaching of Christ to negate the works of the Cross and deny the Life of the power of the Resurrection. We must as believers in Jesus, seek to be as He described Himself in Matt 11:28-29 “I am gentle and humble in heart”).


To me there is a big difference in those who are growing in the Grace and Knowledge of Christ and having the minds renewed by the Holy Spirit, and those who desire to not accept the gift of Life, let alone the forgiveness at the cross.

In that God is just… and merciful. Yet, when one does not desire mercy, nor grace, God will not force it on them. In many ways He gives them the desire of their heart… or rather “He gave them over to a depraved mind”.

Not a great note to leave on, yet I hope that the TRUTH will set you free to seek God in a richer and deeper way… desiring the heart and mind of God.

Blessings,
iggy

An Episode WBCL's of Mid-Morning program - Topic of Homosexuality

Subscribe Free  Add to my Page



I have the privilege to be able to play this for you. A good friend is on this show. This will be broadcasted on iggyROCKS! soon. This was originally broadcasted on WBCL on the "Mid-Morning" show. www.wbcl.org

This is over an hour long... just to warn you.


Blessings,
iggy

I am on a Journey...

Jauhara said...
I haven't lived in Billings for nearly 20 years, since my twins were born at St. Vincent's hospital in 87. Sort of just stumbled on your blog, and not sure where you are going. I sort of walked out of church on 9/16/2001, when, instead of making some relevent sense about the preceding events of Tuesday, he simply gave us an investment speech on the Christian Themed Water Park in Hungary. I have no updates on that spiritual endeavour. I feel parched in a barren land.



Jauhara,

We are all on a journey... some stumble from the start... some never get started... some grow and move on…  

I am on a journey to find Jesus beyond to bondage of the legalistic, commercialize, Americanized, imperialistic, religious, Pharisee (Pharisitic), Gospel, which is not THE GOSPEL.

I am on a journey to go beyond man’s vain religious imagination…

I am on a journey to destroy my own kingdom, to gain God’s.

I am on a journey to exchange my life for His eternal LIFE.

I am on a journey to redeem my faith, to hold to Jesus as THE TRUTH, to find my reality not in this fallen world, but rather in the Kingdom of God.

I am on a journey to free myself from Religion to gain True faith.

I am on a journey of peace… finding True Love form our Creator.

I am on a journey to not be content in this world, but to be content in Christ.

I am on a journey to know TRUTH as a Person… to fall at His feet… to Live the Life of Christ in and through me in my daily living.
I am on a journey to redeem the Church from being an institution to being a living organism.

I am on a journey to separate my faith from man’s vain philosophies, and imaginations.


I am on a journey to… find the Reality which is in Christ Jesus Himself and drink of the Living Waters…

Blessings,
iggy

More on Manly Men... (repost and timely best of...)

Check this out...
Are you a manly man?



check out relevant magazine also.

Blessings,

iggy

Mark Driscoll and "Manly Men"...

Mark Driscoll comments rather bother me as they are un-biblical!!!

Mark said: ( here the source, or the quote) Steve McCoy

"The problem in the church today is just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickafied church boys. 60% of Christians are chicks and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of…chicks. It’s just sad. We’re looking around going, How come we’re not innovative?

Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football or they’re out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck. They look at the church like that’s a nice thing for women and children. So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church.

One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing."


Now here is the rest of the story…

Often God chooses boys… Think King David when he is anointed by Samuel.

Often God does not choose the “manly men” …

Genesis 25: 27. The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents. 28. Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob. 29. Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30. He said to Jacob, "Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!" (That is why he was also called Edom. ) 31. Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright." 32. "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?" 33. But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob. 34. Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left. So Esau despised his birthright.


Notice the manly man would go and hunt and was favored by his earthly father… Yet God chose Jacob… the guy who hung out at the tents and COOKED!!!!!


Now, I am neither against hunting, nor “manly men” and to me this whole thing can be summed up as marketing. To me, though some would disagree, I do not see Mark as an Emergent, or really out to reach the Postmodernist… mostly I see he is caught between what he sees as the emerging church he claims, and being a Calvinist. I

recently left this comment on Bob Hyatt’s blog:


“I was a biker... rode a Harley...1990 evo with a shovelhead 4 speed transmission, rigid Santee frame... wide glide front end.... It had a flaming boars head on the front and the license plate that said, "evol hog"... I wore leather and would go bar hopping with the guys, passing cars in the middle of the highway with on coming traffic...Some of my friends died in head on accidents, some went on and joined the Hell's Angels...

I said all that because I was a putz, not a real man, who would face who I was and who I was becoming...

I read Wild at Heart and loved it... some of my friends (now) did not even get through it...

I found a real man can be as Driscoll stated, yet also must grow beyond the selfishness that he is actually describing as being a real man...Driscoll is only talking about some of these men who really are half the people they should be… IMHO.

He is alienated those of us who have decided to really live our values… without realizing he has done this. A real man realizes there is something more… that he is not the beginning and end of the universe… It is a real man who instead of sitting in front of the TV watching football and talking stats, gets off his butt and pursues God, even if it is uncomfortable. I am a man… who has taught Sunday school, and is willing to give up a fishing trip with the guys to be with my family. Am I feminized? I think I am more of a whole person now… then when I worshipped at the alter of Harley Davidson.

Now excuse me I need to go and scratch myself...”


Now, really do we want to be “manly men” or men after God’s own heart?

I found more freedom in Christ then I ever did on a Harley…

Blessings,
iggy

---

Technorati tags:
"Carlos Shelton", beyond emerging church, beyond emerging thought, Bible, Billings Mt, Can of Driscoll , Christian, Christianity, Church, Control freak, Emerging church, Emerging thought, foolishness, God, iggy, iggynation, Jesus, manly men, Mark Driscoll, misc. , missing the point, Pastor, Thoughts , Values, Word of Mouth Ministries

Pat Robertson is a new convert to...

Pat Robertson is a new convert to….


Global warming? (I had the wrong link up earlier... sorry).

Just thought this was too good not to share…

Blessings,
iggy

Inspired thought? Maybe to some.

Inspired thought? Maybe to some.

I had a thought here a moment ago…

You see I was reading over a link that Andrew Jones (TallSkinnyKiwi) in which he pointed to an excellent article about inerrancy of Scripture. (I had for some reason originally called Andrew, Tony... in that I apologize.) : )

I personally never had issue with it until about 4 or 5 years ago when I noticed that there was just no way to honestly say, that the Bible is inerrant and infallible without the original texts to look at. I think that one must be honest in this matter as to truly have integrity.

I believed and in many ways still do believe “inerrancy”. I do not subscribe to the view that a translation, in anyway is anointed or inerrant. Yet, when I read this article I thought it was very good at making the distinction between believing something because it is stated in the Bible, and not believing something that is not stated in the Bible. When we add to the Bible something that is not in it… we must be very careful that we are not adding teachings that where not intended by the author, be it man inspired by God or God writing in some automatic writing hyper spiritual way (I do not see that last one as true though some teach this without realizing it).

Then I had this thought. Why are we more worried about something that is not in the Bible… yet taught and believed, and less worried about something that is clearly taught? My point is over simplified as usual, yet, take Grace for instance.

Paul clearly taught about grace…that we are saved by grace through faith. Yet many in the school of Arminius, seem to cut across the teaching of Paul… Take for example Paul’s very clear statement in 2 Cor 12: 9. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (NIV)

"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

My grace is sufficient for you. Yet, one will in their actions deny this… by teaching that one must “maintain” their own salvation or be lost.

Now, some will say that we need the Bible to be inerrant, to show that it is infallible… so that we can prove that the propositions we base our faith on are true, so that we can prove Jesus was truly God and our Messiah, and…. Without the Bible as our standard, we will not be able to prove these things.
Yet, if something is not in the scripture, or we twist something that is to be something else… so we won’t look “wrong, inadequate, stupid, without proof… etc” then I think we are lacking integrity and honesty… which to me flies defiantly against the truth we are putting forth, let alone defiles the very teachings the Bible contains… and worse… is saying God is not sufficient to be able to carry out His plan without our being able to “prove” Him to others. (Take some time to think about that before you go off and write how far off the mark I am).

If Jesus is THE TRUTH and we are to stand on Truth, I see we must place our faith and be the blessed “who do not see, yet love”, and be content that that is what God desires. I wonder if we hinder the works of God by our attempts to “prove” the Bible, and in essence “prove” God Himself… Lest we fall prey to the arrogance of the Angels that fell for they did “see God face to face and did not love Him”.

Do I believe in inerrancy…? I have faith in the God who inspired the Bible… I have faith in the men God called in the OT and Jesus discipled in the NT… I have faith that God’s power, which is in His Word, is “perfect in weakness”. I would rather be wrong on inerrancy and be weak, than be strong and miss what the power of God can truly do if we just get out of the way.


Blessings,
iggy

File this under WOW

File this under… WOW!

The Jill Carol kidnapping made news a few months back… I had asked my readers to pray about the situation. Now, here is the story. This to me was a miracle she was returned alive… and even more that the Arab world united in the call to release her.
Some even accused her of being part of a plot to and even have called her the new “Hanoi Jane”.  I saw it as a small glimmer of hope… and now more insight to the mind of terrorist we are dealing with.

Hostage: The Jill Carol Story.

Please be in prayer for the mothers and children still caught in all the hate, war, and death. Pray that Christ Jesus becomes the light to the Fathers… and to their families.

Blessings,
iggy

I have found a dear Brother in Christ

I have found a dear brother in Christ… He has brought up some great points to consider.


Iggy,
Thanks for your thoughts. I have been reading a lot, and as one of "the old guys" it has been a difficult thing to get my arms around this whole thing. I tell my youth pastor that I saw this in the 70's, but he insists that it's different. After more reading I would agree. The thing that is different is that now, along with the young adults wanting a genuine relationship with God we also have a battle over absolute truth woven into the debate, so there are multiple layers to deal with, and that has raised a number of red flags from my contempories. I understand that, but I am all for a genuine relationship with Christ pursued passionately based on the truth of the word of God. For all seeking that, I'm with you. If you are willing to sacrifice the truth of the word to get to an experience you can wave at me in your rear view mirror, because we are going in different directions. For all seeking Christ through his word, bless you. I am praying for you. For those who are willing to compromise truth for an experience, I am praying for you, you will find at the end of your journey that you somehow got lost.Iggy, thanks for your thoughts, and help. I enjoy reading your work.I will be praying for you as well.



Mike,

I agree with you that one must be cautious and not just “be so open minded that our brains seep out”. Yet, in some ways I see the journey in following Jesus a way to weed out those who will follow and persevere and those who will follow then veer off the path, yet both will have a chance to grow and best tested as truly righteous followers then those who have decided to let their faith stagnate in their “faith in doctrine”.

I am accused by some to be against doctrine, yet it is not “doctrine” but “bad doctrine” that I am opposed to. And that to me is any that says we have arrived, and in some elitist way assumes that we are pleasing God in our own way… and that can be bad from modernism, and postmodernism.

The reason I love the Emerging thought is that it is the challenge to find faith in a world that is losing faith in institutions… like science, education, (I know some highly educated professionals leaving to work at convenience stores because they pay better!) politics and gov’t… and yes even the church… and worse… God Himself… as Brian McLaren pointed out… somewhere we have placed Jesus in the doorway to heaven to keep people out, instead of being the door that let’s people in… in fact even when we have done that right, we then take turns in that very doorway, keeping out who we see undesirable…we preach, “whosoever will”, yet our actions are, “but not liberals, or gays or (name your modern day leper).

In a way Brian is like Chuck Smith, who at a time saw that these unclean hippies needed a place, so he opened his church to them… the sad thing is I know of no Calvary Chapel who still lives by this philosophy… I even attended one who would not let children in the sanctuary and defiantly no food or drink… what would they do with someone who has not bathed in quite awhile?

Many of us are disillusioned by what we have seen, many are just seeking and found people that are asking the same questions, yet seek the answer in Jesus… in that I see great hope. I do, see that we must be cautious with looking at universalism and other things that have come up… yet, I am confident, that though some will travel off the path, many of us will come to a deeper appreciation of the “sound doctrine” that has been handed down.

Yet, there must always be that possibility that some will fail to see, if love is to prevail that those who seek THE TRUTH, Who is Christ Jesus Himself, will find truth in Him and Truth will live in them. In that we will be set free by His glorious grace.

What a vision though that you stated… that some will depart from the truth, be that emerging or not, and I too pray for them as “they wave back through the rearview mirror”.

That is why I am a part of the Emerging church… to take the heat, to preach the Gospel and love the “lepers’ of today. To gently bring those who do not even know light exists or can in their own heart, and introduce them to the Living Risen Jesus.

Blessings,
iggy

A Heretics Guide to Eternity ~ A Review (part 1)

A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity ~ A review (part 1)



When I first received this email I was about to delete it as I did not recognize the name… (Sorry Mike). But then I saw the http://theOoze.com  and thought I might look at it anyway. My jaw about hit the floor as I read it and even then thought it might be a joke… LOL!


Dear Iggy,

Hello!  This is Mike Morrell, editor with http://theOoze.com.  I wanted to drop you a line today because yours is a blog we keep an eye on.  Spencer Burke (the founder of The Ooze) and Barry Taylor (musician and Fuller Seminary professor) have just written a book that I think you’ll be interested in:  A Heretic’s Guide To Eternity.  We’d like to send you a free limited edition press run copy for review.  Would you be interested?

Here’s what Heretic’s Guide is about in a nutshell:  Following Jesus outside of religion.  What does it mean to be truly connected with God?  Can this happen outside of traditional religious boundaries?  Do our dogmatic views as to who’s “in” and “out” of God’s habitat have more to do with our prejudices and less to do with Holy Writ and divine compassion?  These are the kinds of things explored in the book that Brian McLaren describes as “far better than either beer or religion.”

Curious?  Then let me send a copy to you, on us.  The book is yours, and all we ask is that you blog about it sometime in the next several weeks.  You don’t have to agree with Spencer and Barry’s controversial trajectories on life and spirituality—we just want your honest take. 

If you’d like a copy of A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, just email me back with your name and street mailing address (I’m sending the books out UPS—not PO boxes please).  That’s it.

Thanks so much,

Mike Morrell


PS:  For more about the book, check this out: http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1453 



So, I replied and sent my mailing address.  I was still a bit skeptical and figured, “we’ll see when or if it gets here”. I then saw that Steven Shields had some critics that Scot McKnight had written on the book… I tried my best to not read; though I do admit what I did read, worried me a bit.

Now, some of my readers would most probably think, “iggy should know a lot about the topic of being a heretic, he should relate to that book!” LOL! And that might be true.

The word heretic is thrown around Christian circles like a “four letter word” on a construction zone. Funny thing is to me, that some of the most influential people in our faith were “heretics”, from Martin Luther, to Guttenberg and his bible, to recent people like Brian McLaren, to Jesus Himself. So it would seem that to be a heretic may not always be a “bad” thing in and of itself.

Brian McLaren does a nice write up in the foreword of the book, and that may in and of itself be reason to pick up the book (if not buy it) and read what he has to say about “heretics”… the best thought to me was in using “heretic in the title:

“Maybe the risk they are taking won’t be worth it, as scores of serious, concerned people try to take the logs out of the author’s eyes unaware that they might even have a tiny metal shaving in their own. But maybe their risk will pay off – especially if some people do more than react to the scandalous title and actually read this book and realize, not what’s so wrong with heresy (which is obvious to almost everybody), but what’s so often wrong with religion, including “our” religion (which ever that might be).

The serious and concerned religious folks who would be most prone to attack Spencer and Barry for their title should, perhaps, realize that they are doing them a great favor, an act of courage and charity. They are showing those religious folks what about them is turning off and driving away millions of people… often including their own children and grand children. Those being turned off won’t tell them these things because… because they’ve tried it in the past and the results weren’t good. Instead, they just keep their distance and try to be polite, even though they’re usually somewhere between disappointed and disgusted and terrified.”

I am very excited to have been asked to review this book I hope that I am truly up to the task and ask for prayer and wisdom to critic it fairly, and to represent sound doctrine while being open to new ideas.


Blessings,
iggy

What is redeeming of the modern Church?

What is redeeming of the modern church?

RC of http://strangeculture.blogspot.com/ asked that question on the post “Emerging Church Asks Questions the Modern Church Ignores”


Good question.

If Christ is the center, then that is redeeming of any church or organization. One can have a traditional Sunday school and God will honor it if it is Christ centered. The idea though is not a matter of right versus wrong, but rather of values.

Many of the values are different between the modern church and the postmodern church as the needs of people in some ways have never changed, yet in some ways have changed greatly.

I think it is not a matter of what is redeeming, for just as the world changes to a child to a teenager, from a teenager to and adult, our perspectives and needs and values change with us. We take much with us from each stage, yet like a teenager who realizes he needs more freedom to make his own choices, he also knows he is not ready to move out and live on his own. In a sense that is where we are now. We are like that teen who is wanting to grow more in Christ, yet sees some things of value in the modern church, yet wonders of the things that we were taught if they are necessary or if something is being missed.

We read the bible from a different world view and see it in that context. Moderns did the same thing and as modernism grew many fought it tooth and nail… for example the Scopes monkey trials in the 1920’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial was about the modern view asserting itself over the pre-modern view of scripture. Does that mean that the pre-moderns were right and the moderns were wrong? In fact I see that modernism was very wrong and the pre-moderns stood up to it… though they lost. So this is not the first time we have gone through the change in values… some good and some bad. Moderns of today are doing it to post moderns. (I am not saying that we are all agreeing with evolution, yet moderns tend to throw out the baby and the bath water as micro evolution does happen... I personally do not see it on a macro level.)

We of the emerging church are basically the church emerging out of the postmodern age, with its similar issues like Darwinism in schools. Yet, we are looking more at things like, how to feed the hungry and how to treat our neighbor as Christ would. We want to participate in the activities of Christ, rather than just go to church and listen to a speech. We are looking at it from the view of what is really worth fighting for and should Jesus be attached to issues as we have done in the past? These things are not even considered by the modern view.

I know I have veered a bit off the question… but there is much “redeeming” of the modern church… but it must be centered on Christ, not man. It must be centered on humility, not on “man made traditions”. It must be doing the purpose of which it was designed, to go to the world and share the Good News and not in an imperialistic way. It must be truly equipping the saints to grow, and not just giving all the answers.


The only real issue I have with the modern church is that it needs to recognize that time are changing and people think different now than they did even a few years ago.

My point is like this for example.

How has your life changed since 9-11?

In some ways it is life as normal, yet if you witnessed the planes crashing into the buildings (I saw the second plane hit live on TV) it had an incredible impact. The word terrorism is now something that is real and here and not over there in some far away land.

Again, what is redeeming of the modern church? Christ if He is the center of it. As far as specifics to me it would have to be the tools of science that if used properly can bring great insight to the scripture, yet again, Christ is needed to understand scripture itself, because these same tools can be used to undermine scripture also.

I know that is most probably not the answer you were wanting and truthfully there are many things good about the modern view of church, but many of the values are just askew.

Blessings,
iggy

Sometimes I am proud (?) to be a Montanan

Sometimes I am proud (?) to be a Montanan…

In case you haven’t already heard there were some terrorists loose in America because of Montana State University Bozeman…. Now, it seems the 11 Egyptians were exchange students and may have gotten caught up in the little town of NYC after they got off the airplane.

I was slightly amused, then embarrassed over the comments that some of my fellow Montanans had to say in their blogs…

I really thought the comment by Jon was a bit… racist. I am not sure he is a Montanan.

“One of the terrorists has been found.”

He does add a link to an article that nowhere says the word that these were “terrorists” instead it says, “The missing students pose no terrorism threat, the agency said.”

Some people are a bit lazy minded if you ask me… sorry to be so blunt!

Wulfgar just runs through his post pillaging in his rant.  It is a bit rough, and sometimes he actually is a good read. Yet, often I am left thinking, “I am proud (?) to be a Montanan.”

I am glad that these students are safe. I hope that they are treated not as criminals but with respect.

BTW if one goes through the posts a bit you will find one on ole iggy here being represented in one of his not so finest moments… it was right during the “apology”… If you don’t understand just email me and I will fill you in, yet Wulfgar’s links should fill you in a bit.

Blessings,
iggy

Jesus was not just an objective truth

Jesus was not just an objective truth… He is a person. He is the One in which all Truth came and comes from. One can call this Absolute Truth, yet I prefer simply to call Him Jesus as that is His name.

Jesus taught truth, plain and simple… it is man who then needs to label and then dissect it into a category. Sometimes it is to understand it, which is fine, but often it is then mistaken in it’s many parts that the parts itself are the whole… yet that is not truth. It is then diminished as truth as it is not connected to the whole… or as the Bible says, the Head. The body is the illustration that is used… it has many parts, but it needs to be connected to the Head (Jesus) to have its Life. To say that truth is objective negates the need or rather the ability to bring internally and understand it and live it in ones life… in that one must bring objective truth in to the realm of subjective internalization.

It is to me that Truth is like the River of Life that flows from the throne of God in the Book of Revelation. It flows from the Throne, onto God’s people who then drink it in. If it is just objective it is like a person who just looks at the stream yet does not drink… Jesus says to eat and drink…

That is the problem of the Law, as it is like a mirror that can say ones face is dirty, but do nothing to clean it. James says it like this:

James 1: 22. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24. and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he does. (NIV)

We are to internalize it and do it… that is the progression. Jesus told of the story of two sons…


Matt 21: 28…There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, `Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29. "`I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30. "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, `I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31. "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

If we view the Truth of Jesus as just objective truth and not internalize it we are like the first son who said, “I will, sir” but did nothing as we have not let the Truth into our life.

John says it so many times that Truth must be within us… Just a superficial look at 1 John will prove that it truth is relational as it must dwell in us… in the person of Jesus. To deny this is to deny scripture.

It pains me to argue with someone over this. To see that one has reduce the Life of Christ to a system of theology… as if they think they can contain God… in hopes to control Him and understand Him… it is as if we think if we can understand God, We can master Him. This is most often not even realized or thought of by so many who are just taught traditions like Calvinism or Wesleyan theology even in Roman Catholicism (just to name a few as there are many who embrace systems without even calling them a system). This is not to be confused with a system of study…

My point though is in the oft taught idea that context means everything… Hermeneutics is a great way to learn scripture yet then God throws out a curve ball! My point is this… early in my walk it was hammered, “Context! Context! Context!” which is not a bad rule, yet then I read Matthew… and he throws that idea out the window as he tells us that “this was done to fulfill the scripture”. He will seem to just use a verse at random in the OT and say it is fulfilled! And I then say, so much for that system!

We need to be open that our ways are not God’s ways and that we can be so set in our own “version” of understanding that we may actually stop growing. We are not to ever stop growing! That is what emerging is when broken down to its most basic understanding is… to grow… to emerge like a infant, to a toddler… from a toddler to a preteen… from preteen to teen… from teen to young adult… you get my point.

If we stop growing we can not achieve maturity in the faith. To say we have “THE SYSTEM” is to say we have arrived… if we arrived then there is not need to continue in our going further on our journey… or in the case of our faith, we no longer need to follow Jesus if we have already arrived. I see though that Jesus is not static, but every calling us deeper in to Himself. In fact I see that we may never fully know the fullness of His love nor its width, depth or height.

It takes true humility to admit one does not “know”… and true faith to continue to trust in spite of not seeing or knowing. So I challenge the reader with this question, do you worship a system? Or do you worship the LIVING CHRIST? No system will save you from hell… Only Jesus is the answer for you salvation.

Blessings,
iggy

By Golly This Guy Gets It! From the Mouth of Dr. Frank Page, The President of the SBC

By Golly This Guy Gets It: Being Missional

I am not a Southern Baptist though some of my good friends are. One friend was pushing me to go to be ordained through the SBC yet I found my theology and theirs a bit different enough that I did not think I would feel comfortable in that denomination. (My friend Dr. Powell said he' write a letter of recommendation for me if I had decided to pursue ordination through the SBC). I am out of a bit of a Pentecostal background so "Baptist" is a bit, well non-charismatic by tradition. (I say that yet I have found some that are some who practice the gifts and do share a fuller knowledge of the gifts of the Spirit).

So because I have some friends who are SBC I look at what is going on from time to time and as of right now find the new President interview from Pastor Tad's "Total Truth" blog:


"Dr. Frank Page: The term "missional" means an intentional strategy or set of directives which would lead a person and/or group toward the accomplishment of a particular goal. To me, in our church and in our denomination, this indicates a mindset that constantly keeps the lost as a primary focus so that our mission work and ministry endeavors do not lose the vision for which they were created. Unfortunately, many bureaucracies get caught up in the institution and forget the missional objective."


I agree whole heartedly as Jesus taught we should make plans and lay strategy... to not look foolish! (Luke 14:28-32)


(I know that the scripture is teaching that we must count the cost of following Jesus... that it is to give up everything we have to be a true disciple... that is the main context of the verse in Luke, yet within that context Jesus teaches the principle that we are to consider our actions before we do them... as in making a strategy to do evangelism and outreach as effective as we can. In a way many of the so called "tried and true" methods are not as effective as they could be. (Door to door for example). To me much of it is casting pearls before swine. It is a loss of productivity and wasted time that we don't have as we are to reach a fallen world. We should never be afraid of changing and attempting to streamline and make better anything if it can bring more to Jesus. This is of course all to be under "sound doctrine" and not some "new fad". To confuse Emergent with the latest fad is to really, really, really, miss the point! And that is what many of the Mega Churchs who are trying to be "Emergent" are truly missing as they are using it as a fad to bring people in).


I highly recommend reading this interview as, especially if someone is "anti-missional", I think they are not catching the concept. In fact I see they are throwing out the baby the bathwater and the tub... just to say that Emergent's are wrong!


The real question is this: If the President of the SBC is Emergent friendly... where does that place those who are in the SBC? If Emergent’s are wrong, and your denomination now accepts them... by the very words of your president... you have a choice to:

• Accept it also.


• Fight your president as an apostate.


• Or live by your convictions and leave your denomination.

I believe one should really consider that maybe there may be more than D.A. Carson's misunderstandings of Emergent and consider that one may be "way wrong".

My sincerest prayers are with you in the SBC who have aligned against Emergent as this must be a truly troubling dilemma of integrity for you.

Blessings,
iggy

The Church of Little Hope

The Church of Little Hope...

Just thought we needed a laugh.


Blessings,

iggy

Who is your Neighbor?

Who is your Neighbor?


Luke 10: 25.  On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26.  "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27.  He answered: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, `Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
28.  "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." 29.  But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30.  In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31.  A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32.  So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33.  But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.  34.  He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35.  The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. `Look after him,' he said, `and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36.  "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" 37.  The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."   Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." (NIV)

As you read this story I hope one thing stood out…

How we treat people, matters.

Jesus was not just saying a nice story here, but that we should listen, take to heart, then go and do likewise.

Have you ever wondered who your neighbor is? I know… not that ugly one next door… or the one with too many kids that run wild… or that strange old man/woman who sits outside everyday watching the world pass… no… it must be that nice looking couple, you know clean cut, and votes republican… the one you hear listening to Rush Limpaw.
Yep, if I was to choose a neighbor … that would be the one.

I hope you get my point out of my sarcasm… that we are not to choose our neighbor but realize, just as Good Sam in the story did, that often our neighbors choose us… and we must be available to love them and serve them… even at our own expense.

I hope you consider this…”let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

Blessings,
Galatians 6:9-10
iggy

Some thoughts about Homosexuality

Some thoughts about Homosexuality

I find it interesting that most Christians are fixated on the "sin" of a homosexual .... And not fixated on introducing them to the PERSON of Christ Jesus....

(It is sin, yet who of us was without sin before we came to Christ, let alone who of us has stopped after one has come to Christ? To deny we sin, is to call Jesus a liar and not have the Truth in us, yet as we live in Christ, we are without sin as His blood has covered, or rather taken sin away... this is not our doing so none should boast, let alone judge someone else!)

It is like we as Christians think, “Jesus rose and then just left us...but we got this book of rules to abuse others with until He gets around to coming back”.

Gays, Lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, are no more sinners than the rest of us....

Didn't Jesus say if someone LOOKS at a woman with lust, he committed adultery? Or if someone hates someone else in his heart, he has committed murder? We are all lying thieving adulterers who murder.... every single day in our hearts, yet we seem content with bashing "those HOMOS"!

Many of the issues I see in the gay community are not about having true rights... or being "equal" but having HEALTH BENEFITS. This is a whole other issue. The real issue is when was the last time WE invited someone gay over for supper...as a friendly gesture... without an "agenda"? When was the last time we thought of them as not sinners, but loved of Jesus and/or at least our neighbors?

WE HAVE AN AGENDA...and we deceive ourselves with it. That is thinking WE CAN CHANGE SOMEONE.WE CAN'T... but JESUS can! MORE, Jesus can transform them! Jesus changed people by just hanging with them... By the power of Who He is. If we believe HE LIVES... then why are we afraid to say to someone "this is my best friend Jesus". Jesus said, "If you lift Me up I will draw all men unto me." (John 12 31-33) Gays are just people, Jesus loves people... we need to lead them to Christ not bash them with hate filled doctrine.

Get to know them as "people" and introduce them to Jesus as a friend.

Now, before someone accuses me a being soft on sin... remember this...

Romans 5: 6. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10. For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (NIV)

So, was God being soft on sin.. because he loved the sinner?

Blessings,
iggy

In reading a Generous Orthodoxy I have Found

In reading a Generous Orthodoxy I found...

I have said a few times that Brian McLaren makes me think... sometimes I have considered what he says and disagree (surprise!)Yet more often I agree. That is the case with this latest thought.

I was reading a Generous Orthodoxy in which he makes the statement on page 262:


'According to Bosch: "We cannot point to any other way off salvation than Jesus Christ; at the same time, we cannot set limits to the saving power of God... We appreciate this tension, and do not attempt to resolve it." This means that anathemas and damnation can be invoked rarely if at all, which will disappoint all who have grown accustomed to resolving the above paradox by means of their invocation. (This ingrained fire-and-brimstone rhetoric so characteristic of Euro-American revivalism persist stubbornly where it has been exported, and will probably come back to haunt us.)

For the rest of us, rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on (as Jesus told his disciples to do), giving all the respect and honor due those who are not convinced by our message (with the meekness Jesus taught), rather than calling down fire from heaven on them (as Jesus told his disciple not to do)."

I agreed with the thought, yet did not remember when Jesus has said not to call down fire from heaven. This intrigued me as I hear often and even on this blog people have questioned my teachings and well whatever else they decide to... I guess.

I took some time to search out the scripture that Brian had referred to and found it.

Luke 9: 49. "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."
50. "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."
51. As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53.but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem.
54. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55. But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56.and they went to another village. (NIV)


Here we have someone casting out demons in Jesus name... John was a bit upset (?) I mean, "He is not one of us!"

It seems he was concerned on at least to levels:

1. This person was casting out demons in Jesus name. This person had power. This is a bit like when Jesus had sent out the Seventy two in Luke 10... They were given power by Jesus. I see the first issue would be for John... How did this person get power?


2. This leads us to the second issue... "He is not one of us!" John seems concerned that this person is not one of the elite... the top 12... yet has power, which would only come by Jesus if Jesus gave it to him!

Notice one thing also; Jesus is in a time crunch... He is looking at what is urgent and what is important. I do believe there are times to directly address an issue such as Paul did with the girl with the familiar spirit in Acts 16, (which is really another interesting topic in itself as this "fortune teller" , proclaimed "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved... Which leads to the question, why was this demon possess girl proclaiming Jesus as the way of salvation, but, like I said, another topic for another time.

The time crunch was that it was time to get to Jerusalem... the thing is he sent delegates ahead... like in the parable in Matt 22, and also Matt 25. Jesus is going to go to a Samaritan village but he finds out, they don't want him there as they hear he is going to Jerusalem. You see, Jews and Samaritans did not like each other. In fact there was much hatred for each other. This angered the disciples... they wanted to get back at the Samaritans, for, "they are just dogs... less than human... those half breeds!" I can imagine them thinking. "Let's call down fire from heaven and get them!!!!"

First off did you notice that James and John say to Jesus, (forgive me for smiling and laughing a bit inwardly, I am sure I have fallen for this many times myself, possibly even very recently! LOL!) James and John say. "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" Did you see it? Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?”

Power had gone to their head! LOL! They forgot where their own power came from... and how quickly they did that... on one hand John is pondering how this guy get power from Jesus to cast out demons, ( I know I am inserting my own thoughts here, yet I think that is the gist of the thought that is expressed), then the next moment... think the power is from himself and James!


But, here is the kicker...

Jesus turns and rebukes them! And Jesus just bypassed the village.

I see at least three things here in play.

1. A power struggle. Where does this power come from? The disciples often forgot it was Jesus.
2. Jesus rebuked the disciples.
3. Jesus does not confront but bypasses the village but without rebuking the people of the village.

Now I am not a Greek scholar nor have I ever said I was... In fact I have said I was not... LOL! I do have a trusty old Strong's Concordance and a good understanding of language and words. With that God has blessed me much... often if I think I need further insight or need or more confirmation that my "hunch" on a word is right, I go to my friends who are Greek scholars. Here is my hunch...

I looked up the word rebuke. I see this word thrown around a bit yet, it has been a while since I looked it up. This is from Strong's:

Strong's Ref. # 2008
Romanized epitimao
Pronounced ep-ee-tee-mah'-o
from GSN1909 and GSN5091; to tax upon, i.e. censure or admonish; by implication, forbid:
KJV--(straitly) charge, rebuke.


When Jesus "rebuked" them it was strong language. It was in a way saying, "SHUT UP! YOU ARE NOT EVEN TO GO THERE!"

Meaning... simply... that they were infringing on God's territory of judgment. They seemed to miss the mission (as I often wonder if many of us have today), and as stated by Jesus Himself; Luke 6:37. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven... and also in John chapter 3: 16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (NIV)


John goes on to say this about the Father and judging...

John 5: 22. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23. that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. (NIV)

So the Father judges no one but has said that Jesus will judge all yet, Jesus says right after this in chapter 8: 15.You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. (NIV)

You see, we must be careful as we are human and judge by human standards... which is not always just... yet there is one who will judge, yet at this time does not, yet when he does it will be just. The mission of Jesus was to save mankind... and that is our mission even now!

(Now, if you feel like I am railing against you personally I am not, it is that other self righteous person that I am speaking out against, so unless the Holy Spirit is speaking to you and you sense that you are judgmental and condemning of others... then listen to the Spirit. If you think I am railing against "you" on a personal level, chances are I don't even know you, so just think it is about someone else for now... LOL!)

I believe the judgment happened at the cross. At the cross we were at the mercy of Christ who could have just called down angels from heaven, gone home then sent fire and destroyed us! Yet, he hung on that cross to take on the judgment of God, and justify mankind so that we can be saved! Be careful with what I said there as I know some will attempt to twist it. I am not saying all were saved at the cross, but we were justified and redeemed. Yet, until one comes to Jesus, as David Bosch stated, one will not be saved.

It is counter productive to condemn and cast judgment (since we are told not to by Jesus) and then think we have done the work of the Father... we only deceive ourselves in to thinking we are ministers of peace and mercy and grace, yet we are just self righteous idiots who forget where our power comes from, and think we are the ones doing the work of the FatherÂ… not Jesus in us doing it. We even seem to think we are better and greater that Jesus as He said of himself in John 5: "19. Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these." (NIV)


We need to be humble and realize we are to totally depend on the Father as Jesus did and God will do great things in us... through Jesus who lives in us! We can do nothing by our self, unless we see Jesus doing it.

We are to treat others with respect... We are to not judge for ourselves about others spiritual destiny... for we should know our God is faithful and is doing more than we could ever know to save that person. I pray we don't get in the way and stop that from happening by our own selfish desire to "be like God." (Gen 3:5)

Blessings,
Galations 6:9-10
iggy

As Israel and Hezbollah duke it out

As Israel and Hezbollah duke it out…

As Israel and Hezbollah duke it out… there are those who are caught in the middle that need our help…


Here is a way to be part of the solution.

Blessings,
iggy

One.org Success Stories

I was looking over one.org... Probably the only thing Pat Robertson and I would agree on supporting... LOL!

I found that this article has some things to say on their success.

It is getting the word out and making a difference.

Blessngs,
iggy