|
hard
questions : various topics:
christianity,
gifts:
june
30, 2001 - what about the gift of tongues?
no
single issue has ever divided the church then the issue of speaking in tongues.
denominations have been formed around the issue and churches have split
because of the issue. each side declaring it's side was on the
side of right. churches have fallen apart because of the
issue. yet, it is the most misunderstood and misquoted issue in
scripture. while I am a realist, in the reality that I will not
solve anything by answering this question, I was asked the question by a
new friend in Christ, and felt it important to answer.
let
me start by saying that the only person in scripture who says they had
had an experience with tongues is paul. none of the other disciple
had ever written they had experienced this wonder. keeping this in
mind we can not say that tongues is required as absolute proof of
baptism of the Holy Spirit - let's examine some scripture:
1
corinthians 14:39 - we should not forbid people from speaking in
tongues; 1 corinthians 14:13 - tongues has it's place in the church; 1
corinthians 14:8 - if tongues has ended as a gift of the spirit, so has prophesy
and wisdom; keep in mind - for all those who claim that tongues is a
required as proof of baptism of the Holy Spirit - that prophesy is a
gift that is better and higher on the scale of gifts given by the Spirit
(1 cor. 14:5)
tongues
is a gift, but it is not the end all of end all. if we see it as
the only evidence of a rebirth in Christ we are missing out on the gifts
other posses. paul reminds us that tongues is a powerful way for
us to be in communication with God. since God is not the author of
confusion, when the gift of tongues causes confuses we need to ask - it
the confusion from God, or some place else.
christianity,
new age:
january
06, 2002 - "do all christians accept or reject 'new
age' teachings?"
i
think the operative word is "all." i could never
say "all" of any group will or will not do a certain thing
or another. as a whole, the "new age" movement
sounds good, and has some good qualities, but when we examine
some of the particulars we see that it is not a christian
teaching. here is a quote from john dymphy - a leader in
the new age movement:
"the
battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the
school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role
as the proselytizers of a new faith. the classroom must
and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new
- the rotting corpse of christianity and the new faith of
humanism."
interesting,
"new agers" who claim to be open, loving and accepting
refuse to even acknowledge the reality of the christian faith,
at any level. what i find interesting about the "new
age" is that the "new age" is not new at all; it
is a "pre-historic" religion that dates back to when
humanity tried to understand it's world and assigned the concept
of "god" to all we did not understand. this view
is called "pantheism."
pantheism
is the belief that god is in everything everything, both living
and non-living. this view claims that because god is in
all, all is sacred, all is holy. the problem with this is
it does not separate the creator from the created. it says
that both are forever joined - so, eating meat is killing god,
and destroying the land, is destroying god - the condition is
endless. the problem is, a very logical one, "if
everything contains the spirit of god, and killing anything with
the spirit of god is killing god" - what can you eat?
what can you do? you can not wash, because it kills germs
- which is life that contains god. no driving, could kill
a bug - no drinking water, because it contains microscopic life.
christians
maintain a theist view - one God, creator or all. new age
salvation is a "self-salvation." while we in the
christian faith depend on the God who created us for
salvation. new age forgiveness is a
"self-forgiveness." it's when you feel good
about that bad thing you did, then you are forgiven. while
a christian depends on forgiveness on two levels - God, the
ultimate and the one we wrong. new age is individual,
while christianity id communal.
it
is because of these, and more, that i believe "most" christians
would reject a "new age" thought.
devil:
november
24, 2001 - "is the devil real?"
yes!
the word "satan" is hebrew for "adversary;"
while the word "devil" comes from the greek word, diabolos,
meaning "accuser" or "slanderer."
between the two words, they appear about 40 times in the new testament.
people who claim that there is no such thing as a
"devil" tent to operate under the assumption that
"people are basically all nice, and desire to do
good." but history has proven that to be far from the
truth. while this week punk monkey deals with his
impressions of "people being good" all i desire to say
here is that it's not the case. we all want to think that
way, but we need to be honest - "goodness" is not part
of human nature.
in
scripture the "devil" is called many things - the
accuser, the great dragon, accident serpent, belial, the evil
one, prince of the world, ruler of the kingdom of the air.
the devil is real, the trick is understanding that he does not
want us to think he is real.
faith:
august
01, 2002 - i tend to doubt, while others have a
strong faith, is that bad?
honestly,
we all doubt, that is why it's call faith.
everyone who is a believer has gone through times of
doubt and concern. if any person tells you that
they never had any doubts at any time in their lives -
they are lying to you. over time, the people i
know who have a strong and lasting faith are those who
questioned and had doubts. here is what i do when
i have doubts:
first,
i seek to find the reason i doubt. what is making
me doubt? bad teachings? misreading?
conflicts in other other standings? what is
causing me to doubt?
second,
i search myself and scripture to see if my doubt is
placed in me or in what others are telling me.
then
i spend time in meditation and speaking with other
christians and non-christians. i find this time to
be great and rewarding; because i spend time with God
and myself and i get to share faith with others.
doubt
in itself is not wrong. i see doubt as water to
help a healthy plant grow.
december
01, 2002 - I recently came across a book
called ‘The Lost Books of the Bible.’
I know all my evangelical friends say they
are ‘evil’ books.
Do these books have any value to the
current church?
Well, that all depends on how we define “value?”
I tend to think they have great value.
They show us how others viewed Christ and
how they saw his birth and life.
I personally like the book called “the
Infancy.” In
this book we get a picture of how one community of
faith viewed the tradition of the lost years of
Jesus – remember, there are some 20 years
missing in the life of Jesus.
Whether one agrees that this book is
actually inspired by God is open for discussion.
The value I place on these “books” is
one knowing the hearts of others in relationship
to how they were struggling with the reality of a
God who wants to interact with us on a regular
basis. I
try not judging the “truth” or “untruth”
of the books, because for those who wrote the
books they “are truth.”
Another
point we need to remember is that some 1,500 years
ago a group of men got together and decided that
only certain books would be “allowed in the
cannon” we call the bible. They
may not have had a copy of the other books to see
if they should be allowed in the cannon.
Maybe they had an agenda that these books
did not fit?
The possibilities are endless.
I recommend that people read the books and
see for themselves. But remember, to discuss them in community – that’s the
cool way of learning.
november
15, 2002 -
what does it mean to progress in our faith?
on
a modern level, it seems you can not call yourself
a christian until you are a conservative
republican. for me the process is this
- to rid ourselves of all the garbage in our lives
and move towards a love that is so deep we desire
to help others at all times (1 john 2:6). i
believe we are to move along a path that brings us
closer to being christ-like; loving, forgiving,
accepting and peaceful. by simply being a
polite person, we have changed nothing, and we are
called to change - period.
leadership:
july
07, 2001 - what is the role of women in ministry?
(a position paper)
july
14, 2001 - what are the qualities of a perfect
servant of christ?
to answer this question
I will turn to john 2:1-11 as a guiding scripture. most people see
this as simply the first miracle of Jesus - and it is, but it is so much
more. let us look at the role of the servants in this scripture
-
when mary tells the
servant to listen and do as Jesus says - they do, without question and
without fear. there was not disputing, or comments behind Jesus'
back -
look at verse 7 - Jesus
tells the servants to "fill the jars" and they fill them to
the brim. this is the first quality of a good servant of
Christ. do what Jesus asks, and do it to your best. the
servants could have filled the jars half way - but they were good
servants and listened.
the second thing we need
to keep in mind as a good servant is to not argue - in verse 8 when
Jesus tells the servants to "dip some out" they did.
they did not comment on how crazy it sounded - they acted by faith.
a good servant is one
that is willing to trust in God's word, and follow it without fear and
to the letter -
july
29, 2001 - what is the role of leadership?
(a position papaer)
war:
december
09, 2001 - "as a christian, how do i deal with war?"
well,
that's a tough one. personally, i have struggled with this
issue since 911 and i have come to the conclusion we must not
fight, we must not retaliate and we must not go to war. i
know this is not a popular view, but it is, i believe, a view
taught in scriptures by jesus himself and others. i will
openly admit that i got all the scripture to support this view
from the new testament and did start with the idea of absolute
peace. but i do believe that no one can ever find any
words in the new testament that allows any kind of retaliation,
fighting, or war - if you find them, let me know. here is
what i come away with when i read romans section 12 starting on
line 10:
love
from the center of who you are, do not fake it - just that
simple.
bless
your enemies, no cursing under your breath - this is a tough
one.
get
along with each other and make friends
don't
hit back - the old "turn the other cheek"
don't
insist on getting even - no tit for tat.
don't
let evil get the best of you - don't give in to the evil one.
i
know that retaliation is a popular view of reality. i know
that polls show that over 80-90% of the people favor retaliation
on the events of 911. in james (483) we are told not to be
governed by polls or popular opinion.
september
16, 2001 - "kill all muslims"
the
other day i was sitting with a group of teaches (i have been substituting
while waiting for a church), having lunch. soon the conversation
turned to the national day of prayer and remembrance becsue of the
horrid events at the WTC. one of the teachers stated that
"this whole church and God this is stupid - we need to just kill
all the muslims." he laughed at the need for church and for
God - one of the other teachers blamed the whole event on God - as he
told me when I mentioned that we need a spiritual center as this event
unfolds - "if it were not for your God we would not be in this
mess." he also added that, "believing in God is for the
stupid and the weak - we just need to kill all the muslims."
when i shared that a blanket statement of violence was wrong, i was
quickly informed that he had the right to his opinion and if i did not
like it, "we can take it outside." i said,
"having an opinion is fine, but that opinion can not include the genocide
of a people, and the insulting of a person religious beliefs, because
you have a different belief." earlier, as i was walking to
lunch, i needed to walk through another classroom where the teacher had
either drawn, or allowed the students to draw, a "wanted
poster" claiming - "bin laden, wanted dead - and 25,000,000
other"
anger,
coupled with narrowed minded thinking, is dangerous. this narrow
thinking becomes a blanket for hate, and in the case of public school
teachers in clark county, nevada - who support violent and massive
retaliation based on a people simply because of religion - is
acceptable. a hatred of all people based on the horrid actions of
some is wrong and out of place. when i approached the
administration, it was soon turned on me - i had the problem - i was the
one twisting the situation. i was told that the teacher had the
right to his own opinion, and that i had no right to question that
opinion. it was also explained to me that "students drew the
picture as a way of dealing with the problem."
i
firmly believe the boat was missed. we had the opportunity to
teach understanding and grace, and we replaced it with hatred.
when the irish bomb, do we "kill all the irish?" how
about the germans? the italians? i am reminded of something
i learned in seminary, and i do not remember (i think it was bart or
bonhoffer) who said it, "when they came for the jews, i did not
worry - i was not a jew. when they came for the catholics, i did
not worry - i was not catholic. when they came for me, there was
no one else to worry."
|
