Post Tinebrae Lux

My Son - Revisited

2009-03-10T19:10:00.000-07:00

My previous post about my son Patrick (9/06) relayed my deep and unflinching love for Patrick - but also the confusion and sometimes searing pain I felt in response to the direction he had taken. It is time, I think, to update my odes to my children - starting with my oldest.
I am so VERY proud to say that my son Patrick is now serving in the U.S. Army. It is improper and imprudent to live vicariously through your children, but he has had the opportunity to do that which his father was not allowed. I am not a little envious of my son - but even more proud. The young man who commands the deepest emotion his father is capable of feeling now commands the respect of his father as well.
It is one of a father's deepest desires, I think, to reach that point in life where his son becomes his equal. At least, it has been one of my deepest desires. To see my son mature into manhood - to be able to truly call him friend as well as son - is answer to prayer indeed.
The sleepless nights have passed - I no longer lay awake wondering if he's safe, praying he's not in harm's way. Although his journey is still far different than mine, it is now one that I understand. He and I still do not look at life through the same prism, but that is good. I have raised a man who is his own person - each day becoming more trustworthy, more dependable, more mature, more of a Godly man - but still his own person.
And oh the mighty love I still have - it catches my breath - my love for my son. The golden-haired boy God allowed me to raise is now a soldier's soldier - but still my son. I am eternally grateful to my God that He has allowed me to see Patrick grow into a man. The struggles continue - as they always will - but the peace of knowing he now has the tools to handle them is an abiding peace indeed.
I love you Patrick and no father has EVER been more proud of his son. Again, there is a passage which speaks to the relentless nature of God's love for His children; it is that, "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our lord." While I certainly am not God, inasmuch as I am physically, emotionally, and spiritually able, the same is true of my love for my son. There is NOTHING that can separate my son from my love.

2007-12-03T05:42:00.001-08:00

I have not blogged in several months - I must admit that I do not thave the passion to blog that I once had. A story I read this weekend, however, reignited a bit of that passion. It seems that a British teacher was jailed in Sudan for allowing her (predominantly Muslim) students to name a class teddy bear Muhammed - and this in spite of the fact that Muhammed is one of the most common names for men in Sudan. And, if that were not bad enough, the Sudanese government assented to a raucus demonstration by angry Muslims demanding that this teacher be executed for her actions. What evil we can excuse in the name of religion!
Islam is not to blame for the blatant ignorance and intolerance displayed in Sudan any more than Christianity is to blame for abortion clinic bombings. What is to blame, however, is blind devotion to evil, intolerant, and egotistical leaders who thrive on being able to coerce their loyal minions into frothy hoards of mongrels who forego any sense of TRUE religious behavior in the name of whatever false god their leaders are touting.
And, while the two examples cited above are extreme displays of higher than usual ignorance and hatred, we see more discreet forms of the same behavior every single Sunday morning. How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet maintain an attitude of intolerance toward someone of another race? How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet adamantly demand their way in regards to Sunday morning worship music choice? How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet 'gang up' to oust preachers or deacons or Sunday School teachers? James, I believe, said it something like this: "Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so......if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, ......this does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, and demonic. (James 3:10-15)
Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." (John 13:35) Love is not displayed through intolerance, racism, backbiting, selfishness, envy, greed, arrogance, or lust. Rather, love is displayed through forgiveness of wrongdoings and seeking each other's well-being above our own. Anything less is not of Christ.

Grace and peace,

PTL

2007-07-14T19:10:00.000-07:00

So I'm blogging with a fellow Christian this past week and end up putting my foot in my mouth (as I am too often wont to do). At any rate, some comments made by my good friend seemed to imply that I had interpreted the bible using 'man's wisdom' and she tried to interpret the Bible seeing only what God wanted her to see. I was wrong.....as it turns out, that's not at all what she meant - but I didn't find that out until AFTER I had inserted my foot into my mouth - I submitted that her comments seemed 'a bit arrogant' to me. My gracious friend and I worked through the misunderstanding very quickly and very gracefully, but I cannot say the same about other good Christian friends (of hers, that is). I am saddened at how often Christians 'jump in' to the defense of others with, I'm sure, the best of intentions - or at least to show loyalty to their friends. In this case, however, as is often the case, emotions run stronger than wisdom and attitudes are displayed that are not at all what I believe to be a reflection of Christ.
I'm not sure what the correct response should be for those who are not directly involved in a misunderstanding, but still want to show loyalty to one or the other parties who are involved. My first thought is that, unless directly involved, input from those outside the misunderstanding usually only serves to muddy the waters - and I really like my first thought in this instance. :) Yet, what would be an appropriate response when I just REALLY, REALLY feel that my friend needs help? Of the three people who joined in offering me advise (funny, didn't Job have three friends too?), one simply used humor & tried to help me see that there is no way my gracious friend would have meant the comment in an arrogant way because that just isn't who she is - I really like that kind of response as well. :)
One of the others offering input tried the 'counselor' approach and offered insight into why I might have read the comments as arrogant - I think the counsel was that I was having a personality crisis and trouble at work & needed to just cast all my cares on the Lord. While the advice about casting cares on the Lord is always sage, I wasn't too big on this response. :)
The third person, the least Christlike of the three, proceeded to accuse me of being a bigot, being high & mighty, being holier than thou, being arrogant, etc., etc. I wasn't too big on this response either. :)
Do I understand why these well intentioned (at least I assume they were) advice givers felt the need to offer their preverbial '2 cents worth'? Of course - a beloved friend of theirs had been slighted (they felt). Was it the best way to help resolve the issue? Probably not.
Why am I blogging this experience? Because, as my gracious friend and I agree, every experience is set before us by God for a reason. As I shared with my friend, the most obvious growth potential for me is to learn to question a fellow blogger and ask for clarification when I feel slighted by someone's comments - BEFORE suggesting that those comments are arrogant, or rude, or whatever else I may feel. In addition, however, it has also reinforced the belief that, if I'm not central to a misunderstanding, unsolicited comments made by me will usually serve to hinder, rather than help, clearing up the matter. Oh, how difficult it is, though, to not take up offenses for others.

PTL

The Standard

2007-03-23T01:53:00.000-07:00

It's 4:00am - can't sleep, so I'm reading a book by Donald Miller called "Searching for God Knows What" and I'm reminded once again what this Christianity thing is all about (or rather what it's not about). It's not about 'getting to go to heaven' - it can't be, or else it would be about me. Does that make sense? If my Christianity is about 'earning crowns', then I'm doing it for the wrong reason.
I honestly don't think people set out to become legalistic hall monitors. I think that we (and yes, I'm part of that group as well) usually set out to do 'good things for God', and the reason we do that is that we've been indoctrinated into a culture where doing good things is rewarded. When you are little, you get 'presents' for doing good things. Behave in church and you'll get some candy. Don't hit your brother and you'll get some candy - maybe that's why we're an overweight society as well, but that's another blog. At any rate, we're indoctrinated into this mentality that God loves 'good little boys and girls' more than He loves 'bad little boys and girls', and so we 'learn' to try to earn God's love. The problem with that is that God's standard is much higher than behaving in Church - His standard goes to the core of who we are. When we're confronted with God, we are confronted with the depths of our own depravity - and there is no costume or make-up which will mask that depravity. As a result, we learn to pretend. We pretend that we're really not that bad by lowering the standard. And the standard is other people. That's the root of legalism. When we make other people our standard instead of God, we become legalists. Here's how it works: we can't maintain the righteous standard set by God so we make other people our standard of righteousness. In so doing, we 'develop' a set of religious rules which usually leans toward things that we tend not to struggle with. In other words, it's easy for homosexuality to be included in my 'no-no' list because that's not a struggle I have (for the record, I'm not saying that homosexuality isn't a sin, I'm merely using it for an example). Then, I can look around me and feel rather justified in my own righteousness because it's pretty easy to find people who fail to meet the standard I've set. And, if the people who fail to meet my standard are known for being Christians, then I feel much better about my standing with God because I know I'm doing better than those around me. Ever felt like that? Ever patted yourself on the back because you're a better Christian than someone else? That's exactly what the Pharisees did - they set their own rules and then thanked God that they were better at keeping the rules than the horrible sinners they were daily confronted with.
Christ took another approach, though. Even though HE WAS THE STANDARD, He didn't 'look down on people' for not meeting it - He knew they couldn't. He simply made it His life to meet the needs of those around Him.
I'll never measure up - I just can't. If, however, I can change my focus FROM either (1) trying to meet the standard, or (2) holding others to my own standard (you know - teaching as doctrine the commandments of men), and TO truly being a friend to those around me, then I'll be a lot closer to The Standard than I ever could have with my focus on me.
What a mighty change in this world would be wrought would Christians only learn to live for those around them.

Mat. 25:34-40 (NIV)
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Grace and peace,

PTL

Is Faith a Good Work?

2007-01-15T08:16:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I'm blogging on a good buddy's site the other day and made the statement (paraphrased I'm sure), "surely saying a prayer - or even 'trusting' in God for that matter, cannot save us as they are both works." To which I received an unsolicited reprimand from one to whom I was not addressing akin to: (again paraphrased) "I'm a bit lost as to how someone is supposed to be saved prior to being justified". So, being the intellectual and theological babe that I am, I began to think - I mean REALLY think - about what exactly I believe faith to be and what, exactly, I think faith accomplishes.
To what faith is first: according to Heb. 11: 1, faith is "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." and in Heb. 11:3, by faith we "understand" things of a spiritual nature that the natural man cannot understand (I Cor. 2:14). So, then, faith is a supernatural ability to understand things of a spiritual nature which blossoms into a supernatural hope and trust in Christ, God, and an assurance in God's sovereign ability to accomplish what the Bible says He will accomplish - which would include things personal (Rom. 8:28 for example) as well as things eschatological (where we go when we die for example). I think, to this point, I will be in general agreement with my 'choice' brethren - even those who are quick to reprimand me for my ideas regarding faith.
So, then, I know what I believe faith to be, but (1) how do I 'get' this faith, and (2) what does this type of faith accomplish? I will address first what I think faith accomplishes. There are numerous places in the Bible that imply that faith results in justification. Rom. 5:1 is a shining example of such doctrine. This presents a dilemna, however. If I believe that salvation is based on nothing more than God's unmerited favor toward me - and that I can do nothing to advance my salvation save for God's 'special' grace, and yet I believe that I am justified by faith, then I MUST believe that faith is not a 'work' in the sense that it is something I 'bring' to the salvation table. So, then, where does this faith come from? Is it something that I 'work up' within myself or is it something that God graciously gives to His elect? Rom. 5:1 says we are justified by our faith, but Rom. 5:9 says we are justified by His blood; are the two related? Can we be justified by two different things, or are the two things inseperately related? I believe they are related. I believe we are justified by His blood and the evidence of such is our faith which we have because of God's regenerating grace bestowed on his elect.
Eph. 2:8,9 says, "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of works lest any man should boast; it is the gift of God." This passage raises at least two questions for me. (1) what does 'that' refer to (i.e. and THAT not of works), grace or faith?, and (2) what is the 'gift of God', faith or grace? For the longest time I believed that 'that' referred to faith, but I have come to believe it refers to grace. So, to restate the sentance in a manner which reflects where I'm at in my walk, "For by grace I have been saved through faith, and that grace is not of works." You see, the 'grace' that saves me also affords in me the ability to respond to God in faith - by which I know that I am justified. Does that make sense? And what is the free gift? It is the ability to believe.
So, then, the crux of this post is whether I believe that faith comes before regeneration or regeneration comes before faith. If faith comes before regeneration, it is something that I 'work up' on my own and is thus a work - and salvation is NOT by works. If, however, regeneration comes before faith, then faith is something that I have - in response to God's supernatural work of 'replacing my heart of stone with a heart of flesh'. And, the more I've studied the subject, the more great theologians I've found who adhered to the doctrine of 'reneration before faith'. This group obviously includes Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, and Sproul, but - much to my intrigue - the great Catholic theologians Augustine and Aquinas.

Grace and peace to all,

Posttinebraelux

Guiding the Errant - My responsibility?

2007-01-09T06:09:00.000-08:00

I have recently been dealing with the issue of what, exactly, my responsibility is as a Christian. I've decided it isn't proselytizing, but I've also decided it isn't 'making' others conform to my interpretation of the Bible. As Christians, we read and study God's Word, commentaries on God's Word, and study books on God's Word. As we study these different media regarding the Word, we develop opinions which, at some point, become beliefs, convictions, and philosophies. Some are WAY off base (as with the wise men at the manger) and some are pretty universally accepted within Christendom (as with the virgin birth). In between, however, lies the vast expanse of 'opinion'. And, within that expanse, are the opinions of well learned scholars and the opinions of obstinate, ignorant oafs. I mean no ill will toward anyone but, to be honest, there are many professing Christians who devote NO time to the study of God's word, but are still willing to proffer opinions about the Bible - often based simply on what someone else has told them.
As anyone who spends any time at all in 'blogosphere' will realize, the blogworld is a fascinating place to witness this phenomenon. There are, in blogworld, bloggers whose Biblical prowess ranges from not being able to quote John 3:16 (i.e. pretty ignorant of things Biblical) to those who are PhD or DDiv professors in Christian universities. And, as most are aware, people are often VERY defensive of their own beliefs/convictions and are easily offended when someone else disparages these strongly held beliefs.
One particular blog I frequent has, as a ground rule, 'no attacking the blogger - just the issue'. On some level, however, isn't even an attack on someone's dearly held belief an attack on that person? For instance, it is easy for me to get offended when someone refers to the doctrines of Grace as a 'radical 5-point belief'. Am I radical? I don't think I am, but others may take issue with my perception of myself. :)
At any rate, I have become keenly interested in what my responsibility is with regard to helping others along the road to Spiritual wisdom. And, over the past few weeks, as I've studied how Christ responded to similar situations, I've begun to understand that it is not my repsponsibility to make sure others have 'good doctrine' - that's God's responsibility. Christ said that the Holy Spirit would 'guide us into all truth' (John 16:8). I noticed - for the first time it seems - that He didn't say that 'Greg' (my first name) would guide others into all truth. So, then, how does the Holy Spirit do that without me helping Him 'beat' the truth into someone else? I think that maybe I am to share with others what I believe, why I believe it, and why I hold that belief so dearly - and then allow God to guide my brother or sister as HE chooses to guide them. Whether or not they agree with me is not my concern - that is between them and their God.
Ever notice who Christ spent most of His time arguing with? It was not with those who disagreed with him (I'm sure there were legions of that type), but rather it was those who 'forced' others to accept their own interpretations of the Bible - i.e. the Pharisees. I DESPERATELY don't want to be a pharisee.
I am becoming more and more convinced that phariseeism is not just 'parading' my religion for others to see, but - and the but is MUCH worse than the parading - rather coercing others into their own form of religion by using peer pressure and fear tactics.
To use an example, do I believe Mormonism to be a wrong path? Yes. Am I obligated to share with a Mormon (or anyone else for that matter) what I believe to be the right path? Yes. Am I to force them to believe like I do? Never.
to use an example closer to home for most of us, do I believe the doctrines of Grace to be a correct interpretation of salvation? Absolutely. Am I obligated to share with others why I believe this? Absolutely (I Pet. 3:15). Am I to 'beat' others down until they agree with me? Never.
May God grant me the grace to accept that others may not agree with me - and to love them without regard of our differences.

Grace and peace,

Posttinebraelux

Evangelism - My responsiblity?

2007-01-09T06:07:00.000-08:00

Recently, I've been inundated from several sides regarding a particular issue. Have you ever noticed that, when God is impressing on you the need to study and respond to a particular issue, He uses many media to get your attention. In this particular case, I had been re-reading the Gospels, blogging with a couple of different people, reading a book (Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller), fellowshipping about this issue in my Sunday school class, and then hearing it from the pulpit during a service. I have found that, when God uses so many different media to get my attention, I'd better listen and respond - or, as has been my experience, God will gently (or not so gently) and lovingly continue the lesson until I do respond. :)
The issue I've been confronted with over the last couple of weeks is the issue of what, exactly, my first and most important responsibility to God (I've always thought is was evangelism).
I've long been convinced of God's sovereignty with regard to every aspect of life - including salvation. One of the basic tenets of this type of belief is that God 'saves' who He saves when He wants to save them and how He wants to save them - regardless of what anyone else wants, needs, desires, or demands of Him (Holy Trinity excepted). An extreme view of this doctrine is what some call 'hyper-Calvinism' which is the philosophy that it doesn't matter if we 'spread the Gospel' because God will save who He will save with or without us. This is NOT Christianity and, I'm afraid, most of those who hold this type of belief will have missed the boat, so to speak. True Christianity, as I see it, is 'spreading the Gospel' as we're commanded to do (Mat. 28 & Rom. 10) with both our mouths and our lives. But I've recently begun to understand a difference between 'living out Christ' - which is the 'spreading the Gospel with my mouth and life' - and evangelizing. I see evangelism as more of a proselytizing thing now than before. And, I've become convinced that it is not my responsibility to help God save those whom He has elected to save. Salvation is God's responsibility - period. My responsibility, I've come to understand, is to: love God with all my heart strength, mind, and soul.

Grace and peace to all,

Posttinebraelux

Baptism - Did you do it right?

2006-12-11T14:06:00.000-08:00

So I've been blogging on a good buddy's site about what baptism is and is not. I was raised in a Southern Baptist church so, aside from horror stories around the campfire on dark nights, I had no idea that any 'true' Christians actually practiced the rite of sprinkling (as opposed to dunking) until I was an adult. In fact, I remember going to a Presbyterian church in my late teens and seeing a 'coloring page' for the youngsters which depicted John the Baptist 'sprinkling' Jesus. I was appalled! I half expected God to rain down judgement on that church at any moment and was afraid someone would associate me with this pagan group (sorry my Presbyterian friends) just because I had visited. I felt the strong urge to proclaim, "I had nothing to do with this blasphemy!"
I have since become aware that many great theologians and Bible students have had baptism experiences different than I. This has, in turn, forced me to reconsider why it is we are baptized, what baptism accomplishes, and whether or not deviation from the SB norm is acceptable in God's eyes.
Why are we baptized? Is it for the 'remission of sins' as indicated in Acts 2:38? Is it part of the salvation process as indicated in Gal. 3:27? Is it merely because we're commanded to do so in Mat. 28:19? How important is it, anyway? Well, with respect to the first two questions, I think it imperative that we make a distinction between 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and 'baptism with water'. I do believe that baptism of the Holy Spirit is an integral part of the salvation experience and does, in fact, accomplish remission of sins. I believe, however, that baptism of the Holy Spirit is that spiritual act of 'death and resurrection' as alluded to in Rom. 6. Our old selves are 'buried' and our new, alive spirits are 'raised to walk in newness of life'. I cannot believe that baptism with water accomplishes either remission of sins or salvation in the baptizee. If it did, salvation would be, at least in part, based on a work of ours - and I adamantly believe that it is not.
So, then, if baptism of water doesn't 'accomplish' anything in us, why are we commanded to do so. Well, Scripture doesn't seem nearly so clear as to 'why' as it is that we are to do it (Mat. 28)As best as I can glean, it is a public proclamation of our association with Christ and it is a 'picture' of what Christ accomplished - through His death and resurrection physically and our death and resurrection spiritually (Rom. 6).
So, if we believe that 'water baptism' is nothing more than a symbolic representation of what has occurred spiritually - and that it accomplishes no spiritual feat, then how important is it that: (a) we are baptized at all, and (b) we perform it by immersion as opposed to sprinkling or some other symbolic gesture? I believe it is important primarily because we are commanded to do so. Secondarily, water baptism almost always follows proclamations of faith in the new testament writings, so that we have strong precedent to do so. Finally, I truly believe that it serves as a public proclamation of association with Christ. The second part of the question, however, is more difficult for me. If water baptism truly accomplishes nothing spiritual within us (and I don't believe it does), then I personally am willing to accept as fellow brethren/sistren those who have been 'sprinkled' assuming that: (a) they did it in honest obedience to Christ's command to be baptized (as opposed to an attitude of rebellion against immersion), (b) they did it in an open and honest desire to be associated with Christ's death and resurrection, and (c) they did it in full recognition that the rite of water baptism carried with it no supernatural significance (i.e. that is was not part of the salvation experience).
Do I believe immersion baptism to be the strongest picture of what Christ accomplished according to Rom. 6? Absolutely. Am I willing to exclude brethren/sistren from Christian fellowship because they believe sprinkling to be as symbolic as immersion? I am not.

Post Tinebrae Lux

My Daughter

2006-11-24T06:50:00.000-08:00

As you're aware from my profile, I have two children - one son and one daughter. I have posted an ode, if you will, to my son (see 'My Son') and am blessed to share about my daughter as well. My daughter, Brittney, owns my heart. For whatever gracious reason, God allowed my children to be born in the order I had desired. My son is my pride and my daughter is my heart. Words cannot express the joy I experienced holding my newborn daughter in my arms. Daughters truly are a magnificent gift from God. Their dependence, their softness, their maternal natures - it is inexpressable joy to be a father to a daughter.
My daughter has taught me so much about life that I often feel I am the student and she the teacher. As she grew into the beautiful woman she is, she taught me patience through her passionate way of living, she taught me humility through her tender compassions, she taught me gratitude through her giving spirit, and so much more.
My daughter is a fireball. She, like her mother, does not understand the word apathy. She is 100% committed to whatever it is she is doing. And as is the case with most passionate people, my daughter's emotional state can range from very low to very high - but seldom is static (as her husband has found out over the year they've been married :) ). It is just that spirit, however, that makes her who she is. What a treasure to see such passion - passion about convictions, passion about love, passion about life itself. It is a bit easier now that she is an adult as she's learned to channel that passion in productive avenues. As a teenager, though, she and I learned much from each other as we dealt with each other through the adolescent years. She taught me that it is ok to be different. I am a(n) very un-emotional and objective person by nature and have a tendency to requre that of others. She, however, has helped me understand that high-spirited people are who they are because God has gifted them with such and that it is just that passion that God uses to accomplish His will through her. What patience she helped instill in me as we struggled through those years together. And now - the patience has paid off. She is such a fine example of a Godly woman and wife!
Her tenderness, too, is a joy to behold. I know that I know that I know that she is going to be a wonderful mother some day. She is so tender and compassionate toward others. I am often humbled that she, a mere young adult, shows so much more tender kindness than I - a 'mature' Christian. It is humbling that I have so much to learn from my daughter.
And giving nature is truly a gift from God. My daughter is driven to serve others. While I KNOW that it is Christ's Spirit in her that motivates her, it is, nonetheless, such a blessing to have been allowed a role in her training. I often look back on things I did as a father and 'see' mistakes I've made, but God used my honest desire to see her grow into a Godly woman and did just that. He worked through my frail attempts at fathering to mold my daughter into the embodiment of what a Christian woman should be.
My daughter is much like her mother - in looks as well as passion for life - but so much her own person as well. I also see bits of myself in her - and pray that it is only those bits which are good that she carries with her. My daughter is - and always will be - my heart.
I love you Brittney

Post Tinebrae Lux

My Son

2006-09-25T09:38:00.000-07:00

There have been few days in my life which were as important to me as the days my children were born - October 25, 1985 and June 9, 1987. My daughter is my second-born and the day she was born will forever be one of the happiest days of my life. The day my son was born, however, is truly one of the defining moments of my life. That was the day that I was transformed from being a young man into being a 'Dad'. There are not words to explain the joy, the pride, the overwhelming passion that I experienced when I first held my son. My son - this living, breathing, completely helpless baby was part of ME! And I was part of him. To this day - and I'm sure until my memory is gone - I cannot think of how much I love my son without becoming tearful. The memories of him falling asleep on my chest, the memories of playing with him in the park, the memories of camping with him, or teaching him, of learning from him - at times they flood over me with such force that I am forced to my knees in gratefulness to my God for giving me such a treasure. Time cannot erase my memory of his beautiful blue eyes, of his golden hair, of his infectious smile, his complete and utter trust in his dad as his protector. I would rather lose all my posessions that the memory and blessing of having raised my son.
He is grown now - my son. He is no longer the little boy who wants to hold my hand, who wants me to carry him, who wants me to play with him. There is such a hole in my heart - a deep yearning for the love and trust that only a child can express. I'm sure that all parents go through similar feelings - maybe that's what the empty nest syndrome is all about. Whatever it is, it hurts.
My son and I have grown apart. We don't understand each other any more. I'm not sure what the cause was - I think there is always the tendency of parents to 'blame' themselves for some unknown failure, or to look back at how they have raised their children and 'wish' for the opportunity to do things different - and maybe, given the chance, there are things I'd have done differently. But that type of reflection cannot be healthy - we cannot change the past and are foolish to 'wish' for that opportunity. We must live in the present.
I'm not sure what caused my son to take the journey he's taken, but his journey has been one that is, for the most part, very foreign to that which I have known. As a result, my journey (at his age) was one that would have been very foreign to what he has known. As a result, our values, ambitions, loves and passions are disparate to the point that, the few times we are in each other's company, I feel myself grasping for anything that we can call 'common'. We are strangers, he and I.
Oh, the mighty love I have for my son! If I could, I'd take all his doubts, all his fears, all his insecurity upon myself. I'd hold him and stroke his beautiful face as if he were my child again. But I cannot; I cannot take this from him. His is the charge to concquer his doubts, to embrace his fears, and to face his insecurities. The curse of dads is that, in becoming men, their sons must - by nature - reject the authority and protection of their fathers. They must, themselves, become authorities and protectors. And OH the torment of my soul to experience that.
There are two things I strive to rest in as I watch my son struggle into manhood. First, I KNOW that my son is a good and decent person. However misguided I may believe him to be, I know that my son has the tools to become a strong man - and those tools include compassion, charity, humility, and grace. Second, I KNOW that my God works everything together for good to those who love Him, to those who are the called according to His Word. Oh, how many sleepless nights I've cried to God for that comfort, though! It is one thing to 'know' something - it is quite another to 'rest' in that knowledge. Dear God help me to rest in that knowledge.
There is a passage which speaks to the relentless nature of God's love for His children; it is that, "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor heighth, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, can seperate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our lord." While I certainly am not God, inasmuch as I am physically, emotionally, and spiritually able, the same is true of my love for my son. There is NOTHING that can seperate my son from my love.
I love you Patrick.

Post Tinebrae Lux

A Prayer of Salvation?

2006-08-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

So I'm engaged in another series of blogging debates last week, and the issue is the so-called 'prayer of salvation.' I guess I have been living under a rock for the past few years, but I was dumbfounded this week to discover the number of people who honestly believe (can you believe something dishonestly? :) ) that a prayer must be voiced before salvation can take place. I really had no idea that so many people - and some very learned scholars - believe that a prayer is even one part of the salvation equation - much less the 'determining' part.
So I asked myself, 'Is this really a big deal? Does it really matter whether or not someone thinks you must say a prayer in order to be saved?' And the answer I've been forced to embrace is an emphatic 'YES'. It does matter. It matters because it affects how I see myself in the evangelism equation. It matters because it affects how I view prayer. It matters because it affects how I see God. It matters because it affects how I see other Christians.
How does it affect my evangelistic outlook? If I believe that prayer is a necessary component of salvation, then by necessity I must believe that I can 'persuade' someone to be saved. If salvation is dependent on someone voicing a prayer, then, by default, I must believe that they have the ability to 'choose' to voice that prayer. And if they have the ability to choose to voice 'the prayer', then they have the ability to be persuaded. And if they have the ability to be persuaded, then I should have the ability to persuade, no? And if I have the ability to persuade, then their salvation becomes dependent on my oratory skills, yes? The interesting part of this kind of thinking is that God has been completely left out of the equation. Salvation becomes an issue about whether or not someone will choose to say a prayer and whether or not someone else is able to persuade them to do so. God becomes an inept bystander 'hoping' that I have good oratory skills and 'hoping' that 'I.B. Choosen' will say the prayer. If evangelism is nothing more than persuasive oratory, then why are we able to persuade some and not persuade others? If, indeed, people can be persuaded into Christendom, then I should be a staunch advocate of emotional manipulation, 'fear tactics', and other such ploys in my efforts to 'lead others to Christ'. But I am not! I abhor emotional manipulation. I abhor preaching designed to scare people into heaven. In addition to being unscriptural, it presents a perverted picture of God as either an inept boob who is wringing his hands in the hopes that someone will choose to be saved, or as a vengeful potentate who is impatiently waiting to throw you into a burning hell - unless you stand at the Jesus counter and buy your ticket into heaven.
I believe that the 'prayer of salvation' issue can be solved in just a few words as follows: there is no Biblical warrant for such. This simple resolution, however, fails to address the larger problem of how we see God. Aside from the obvious Biblical issues inherent in holding a 'freedom of choice' view of salvation, I think the more serious flaw is the distorted idea of God that such a philosophy engenders. If I believe that someone can, at any time they want, just 'choose' to be saved, then I - by definition - believe in a God who is not totally omnipotent and omniscient. The God I believe in, however, IS TOTALLY omnipotent and TOTALLY omniscient. All men are not created equal. Some are created by the only True Creator to be a display of God's wrath and power and some are created by the only True Creator to be a display of God's mercy (Rom. 9). And what is the motivating factor for who is created for which purupose? It is nothing more than God's good pleasure! Those who are created to be a display of God's mercy were created for such a purpose simply because God, in His own counsel, chose to do so (Eph. 1).
But what about the prayer? Where does that fit in? If we are 'predestined' to be either vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy, can we change our predestination by saying a prayer? If not, why? Well, first of all, I believe that God doesn't hear the prayers of the wicked (John 9:31), so it must follow that it is impossible for a 'wicked' person to voice a 'prayer of salvation' that God can hear. Secondly, even if we could voice such a prayer, we don't have the spiritual understanding to do so (I Cor. 2:14). Things of God are 'foolishness' to the lost person - they don't understand those things and have no desire to understand them. Thirdly, before being spiritually reborn, we are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) - and dead people don't do ANYTHING - much less offer up a prayer to be made alive. Before glorious conversion, we simply do not seek after God (Rom. 3:11) - and to imply (by imploring us to say a prayer) that we can somehow find that which we are unable and unwilling to seek is to distort the gospel.
Henceforth, I shall be opposed to encouraging someone to 'say a prayer' in order to be saved and shall lovingly stand opposed to those who would preach such an offer.

Sola deo Gloria,

Post Tinebrae Lux

The Real Me

2006-08-03T07:38:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I've been 'blogging' for a few weeks now - the 'new' has worn off. At first I found that it was difficult to 'get away' from the blogs I had been involved in. Now, almost a month later, I have trouble checking my own blog. Isn't that the way with 'stuff'? Whether it is intellectual stimulation (blogs), erotic stimulation (pornography), physical stimulation (new golf clubs), or emotional stimulation (self-help philosophies), they all provide us with that initial euphoria - that adrenaline rush - but later leave us wanting more and more. They are unfulfilling.
It's a bit of a crock, however, to say that Christ fills the void. I REALLY, HONESTLY wish that was the case. I wish that my lusts - be them emotional, physical, or intellectual - subsided after I became a Christian. I truly wish that 'being high on Christ' was all that it is cracked up to be (no pun intended). But it's not. I still have to daily - wait - hourly, struggle with my selfish nature. There is no such thing as being 'high on Christ' - at least not in my Christian experience. Maybe I just don't have as much of Christ as some other people do. I can say, however, that coming to grips with the fact that I will ALWAYS have this depraved nature within me struggling to gain control is liberating. Remember what Paul said at the end of Rom. 7? 'Oh wretched man that I am; Who will deliver me from this body of death?' I don't think those were words he was just 'penning' to make a point. I honestly think that passage was a bitter soul-cry from Paul - you know, the shaking fists and beating chest kind of cry. But then look at the next statement: 'but thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Here he is bitterly struggling with his own sinful nature - and he ends the passage with praise and thanksgiving to God. Why???? It's because of who he is in Christ. You see, as long as we focus on being 'spiritual', all we are doing is displaying a facade for all the rest of the facade-displayers to see. If enough of us walk around wearing this facade, we can corporately bury our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well in Christendom. But this charade only works if we all agree to pretend like everything's great. The minute even one of us pulls the mask off so that those areound can see how grotesque the 'real' me is, the house of cards falls. Why does it fall? Because it reminds all of the rest of us that we are no more attractive than that one who has just bared the real self to us. We are all - by nature - fallen, grotesque creatures - and no amount of primping and acting and masking can cover that up. The reason we 'corporately' agree to be 'masked' is that it takes MUCH less effort to pretend that others are ok than it does to REALLY care about the other person. I can get through life pretty easily if you'll just agree to pretend like life is good. The minute you start letting me in on what's really going on, though, - well - then I have to be 'real' too. And not only that, I have to make a choice whether I'm going to love the real you - you know, the 'acting' kind of love, or whether I'm just going to leave you in the ditch to die - and we can't do that because the Good Samaritan would never allow it.
But what if we corporately came to grips with who we REALLY are - and who we REALLY are in Christ? What if we accepted the fact that I am depraved - and you are depraved - and we all are depraved? That's the kind of environment that true fellowship can blossom. That's why Paul praised and thanked God. Not that he was depraved - but that he understood the cost that had been paid for his depravity. That because of what Christ had accomplished, he could now experience true love - both from Christ through Himself as well as through others. What will it take for church to be a place of fellowship - you know - where I know your weaknesses, needs, desires - and you know mine - and we all struggle together. Is it possible to have fellowship like that? I don't know, but I'd sure like a taste.

Grace and peace,

Post Tinebrae Lux

Slaves of Christ?

2006-07-28T07:25:00.000-07:00

So I'm heavily engaged in the 'Christians and alcohol' debate and a good brother throws in the analogy of slavery - the analogy being that, just because God doesn't specifically address something as wrong, we can and should still glean principles from Scripture which point to it's wrongness. In theory I agree with such premise, but I'm still working through my thoughts regarding a hard and fast Biblical condemnation of slavery - but that's for another blog. It did, however, serve to start the 'cogs' of my brain. Didn't Paul refer to Christians as slaves? I quote vs. 16 and 17 from Romans Ch. 6 as follows: "Do you not know that, to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slaves you are whom you obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. But thanks be to God that, though you were slaves of sin, you have obeyed from the heart that form of teaching into which you were delivered. And having been freed from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness." So I got to thinking, what are some of the 'characteristics' of being a slave? I have come up with the following: (1) slaves do not 'own' themselves; they are owned by someone else. Does that work in my 'Christian slave' analogy? I think so. Didn't Paul say, "...you are not your own? You have been bought with a price...." (I Cor. 6:19b & 20a). So, then, as a Christian, I have no personal rights, right? If, in fact, I am a slave of Christ evidenced by the fact that I've been 'bought with a price', then I belong to Christ - not myself. Okay - not too difficult to understand 'theoretically', but what about the practical implications? How should that affect my everyday life? Well, first and foremost, I think it means a relinquishment of my 'rights'. I can't say, "This is how 'I' want to worship" or, "'I' want this or that". My first consideration MUST be, what is Christ's desire for me? Isn't that the attitude expected of slaves? What does my master desire? I'm personally not a big fann of the WWJD bracelets, but I think the premise is close. The relevant question is not, "what would Jesus do", but rather, "what would Jesus have me do"? And the answer will ALWAYS be - do that which puts others ahead of yourself. (2) slaves are dependent on their 'masters' for their sustenance. I know we 'say' that we are dependent on God for our needs, but do we really recognize that all that we have is because of the grace of God? James says, "every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above" (Ja.1:17) But, if we are slaves, even the good things given us by God are not ours 'for our own pleasure'; they are ours to use as our 'master' would have us use them. Whether the 'stuff' we have is money, toys, tools, houses, etc. They are not given to us to fulfill our selfish desires, but rather, that we may learn selflessness through the giving away of that which God has given us. (3) slaves expect no 'compensation' for their work. We are so often in need of forgiveness for our arrogance. We confess that all that we are and all that we have comes from God, and yet 'expect' accolades, promotions, recognition, and commendation - not to mention any monetary benefits we think we 'deserve'. As long as our attitude is one of "well, I've done such and such for you God - what are you going to do for me in return?", or "Look what I've done - I 'deserve' this or that", then we fail to have a 'slave' mentality toward Him who 'owns' us. All that we do should be in appreciation for what Christ has done for us - bought us with the ultimate price - with no expection of selfish reward.
So the analogy works pretty good so far, but what about the passages which deal with Christian freedom and Christian liberty? Aren't those somewhat at odds with this notion of being a 'Christian slave'? John 8:32 says, "and you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free." Does this fit in with our 'Christian slave' analogy? Maybe. You see, before salvation, we are told that we are 'slaves of sin' - not only in Rom. 6, but here in John 8 as well - "everyone who commits a sin is a slave of sin" (v. 34). So the freedom that the 'Truth' (or Christ) brings, then, is freedom from slavery to sin. I think Luther called it the 'bondage of the will'. Before salvation, we are slaves to our own fallen nature - with many of the same 'traits' that I've already mentioned. We are dependent on our lusts, we are subject to the desires of our lusts, we are owned by our lusts. But Christ 'set us free'. Okay, free FROM the 'bondage of our will', but free TO what? Free to be a slave to someone else? Well, ....yes. I had - up until I began to 'chew' on this slavery thing, always contended that the freedom 'to' was the freedom of choice that a Christian has - as opposed to one who has not been spiritually 'regenerated'. Before regeneration, as the doctrine goes, we will 'always choose wrong' - we don't have the ability to choose righteousness. But after regeneration, we have the 'choice' to choose between righteousness and sin - as testified by Paul in Rom. 6. BUT, the more I 'chew' the slavery cud, the more I'm convinced that while we have 'choice' in an absolute sense, in a practical sense, we really don't. I think maybe that the freedom that Christ was talking about was the 'freedom' to become selfless. Does that make sense? Before knowing the 'Truth', we ALWAYS choose the selfish road. Oh, some of our actions and thoughts may seem altruistic, but 'me, myself, and I' are always at the root of the decision. After the 'Truth' has 'purchased' us, we are given the capacity to 'follow Christ' - i.e. we now have the 'freedom' to do good and righteous things. You see, my paradigm of 'freedom' was skewed. While I don't use my liberty as 'license', I believed that I had the 'freedom' to do such. If, however, I am a slave to Christ, I really don't have that freedom. My master does not approve of choices I make that serve ME. My master desires me to make choices that serve others - and now, becuase I know the 'Truth', I have the 'freedom' to make those choices. So, my friends, I now continue this journey called life with a significant paradigm shift regarding who I am - I am a slave to Christ.

Grace and peace to all,

Post Tinebrae Lux

On Alcohol (the drinking kind)

2006-07-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

During my short tenure here in blogosphere I have become painfully aware of an issue that appears to have taken on "life or death" importance since the most recent meeting of the SBC. It's the issue of whether or not the Bible speaks against the Christian's liberty to consume alcoholic beverages. I have been engaged in at least four different blogs where discussion - wait, that's too mild - where heated and often Christ dishonoring assaults have been made from those on both sides of the issue. I must say, however, that it is my experience that those who would promote the Biblical position of moderation (I say Biblical not in the sense of "most accurate", but in the sense of "basing one's position on Scripture) have been, for the most part, the ones who suggest that it is a conviction issue. In other words, it is my experience that (most of) the moderationists (can I call them that?) take the position that if you are convicted (and convinced) that the consumption of alcohol is blessed by God (not the abuse of alcohol), then the only requirement is that you do all to the Glory of God. In like manner, most of the comments I've seen by moderationists have inferred the same attitude toward those who would abstain - i.e. that if that is their conviction, then their only obligation is to be fully convinced and abstain to the Glory of God. Maybe it's a bias of mine (as I would put myself in the moderationist camp), but I truly have seen less judgement from the moderationists than the abstentionists (is that a word?). To be fair, I have witnessed the cry of "legalist" from the moderationists, but I think maybe that cry is in response not to the abstentionists view of alcohol as much as it is their attitude toward the moderationists. It has been my experience that, for whatever reason - and I'm sure there are many - the abstentionists fear that a moderationist view of alcohol will permeate the SBC - if not Christianity itself. In response to that, not only have they developed extensive and elaborate arguments for multiple uses of the word "wine", why Jesus didn't drink real wine, etc., but they have (and I realize this is a generalization - not all abstentionists would do this - possibly not even the majority) made abstention of alcohol into a "Scriptural absolute", thus justifying their condemnation of anyone who would dare consume a glass of "real" wine (strong drink according to most of the posts I've seen). Don't misunderstand me - the Godly exchange of ideas, Scripture interpretations, etc. is both edifying and strengthening. Judgement from those who abstain, however, or disdain from those who do not abstain, is immoral according to Rom. 14. Is there not a point where we who drink in moderation can lift our wine glasses with the glasses of those who abstain (whatever may be in those glasses) in honor of God's love, blessings, sovereignty, and son Jesus Christ? Please do not post dissertations on why you believe the Bible prohibits alcohol - that issue has already been addressed ad-nauseum on several other blogs. This post is not about defending the consumption of alcohol - it is about the judgemental approach some abstentionists take toward moderationists and - to be fair - the despising approach some moderationists take toward abstentionists.

Post Tinebrae Lux

Looking Back

2006-07-13T08:07:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm almost through my first week in blogosphere. My knowledge of things blog has increased exponentially. As you can probably glean from my writings, the blogs most visited are those which deal with things of a theological or Biblical nature. Some of the things I've learned this week include: (1) not all professing Christians behave like Christ (ok, I didn't just learn that, but it has certainly been reinforced over the past few days), (2) there are some REALLY knowledgeable bloggers out there, (3) blogging provides an avenue for spirited people like myself to discuss, disagree, and (hopefully) become edified through exchange with others with whom I'd otherwise have no access to, and (4) if I'm not careful, this can become an addiction. :) With respect to the professing Christians who do not behave like Christ, I must admit that, although I expected that of some, I am intrigued that much of the animosity I've experienced has come from those who shepherd churches. Doctrine without love is a very dangerous position. With respect to the wealth of knowledge in blogosphere, it is nothing short of amazing - and much of that knowledge (wisdom if you will) has been amassed by lay people. I'd expect it of seminary educated professionals, but the level of theological knowledge possed by the laity out there is a witness to the power of the Holy Spirit to "gird up the loins of our minds." My prayer is that God would use this avenue to continue to make us all more like Christ through the edification wrought by the loving interaction between brothers and sisters in Christ and through the accurate application of His Word in our lives. May God humble us all.

Post Tinebrae Lux

My Journey

2006-07-11T08:48:00.000-07:00

Where to begin? Well, I was raised in a Southern Baptist environment and was indoctrinated into the SB way of thought. This included dispensationalism, "choice" salvation, deacon-led church leadership, the evil of rock music, alcohol prohibition, etc., etc. It's still amazing to me how much of mans' indoctrination we blindly accept as Truth. Thanks be to God, however, that He has allowed me a mind with which to ponder, a conscience with which to see, and infinitely most importantly, His Word with which to guide me. When I was in my very early thirties I began a journey of extensive personal transformation. This was due, in large part to emotional, physical, and spiritual trials I was going through. During the early part of this journey, I noticed that the "just pray to God and everything will be all right" mentality just didn't work. I was beginning to see that God wasn't really concerned with making sure all good Baptists had nice clothes to wear, children who were well-behaved, pot-luck dinners where no dishes contained broccolli, and the like. Life wasn't the "bowl of cherries" (to use a worn out cliche) that it should have been. I mean, I went to church, I studied my Bible, I prayed often - and God still didn't care (or at least that's how I saw it). What was wrong with this God who "loved good little boys and girls"? Why was He allowing this hell in my life? Didn't He know that I was on my way to becoming a deacon? Didn't He know that if people saw how messed up things were that my witness wouldn't be as strong? Didn't He know that the lost world needed to see someone who "had it together" in order to convince them that they needed to be saved?
That's when I truly started to question what it was that I believed and why I believed it. I praise God that, through all the "stuff", my belief that His Word was Truth never waivered. Through all the storms, I trusted His Word as my lighthouse. Only that lighthouse started pointing me in directions I didn't want to go. I started to become aware that the God of the Bible wasn't fitting into my box any more. I began to see that He was above my preconceptions. He wasn't interested at all in me looking like a "good Christian" - He was interested in me looking like Christ. And through that, I began to really see what Christ looked like. He didn't have 2.2 kids and a loving, doting wife. He didn't have a blue pinstripe suit to wear to church. He wasn't a deacon in good standing. He didn't drive a Suburban. He was a homeless, often hungry, always relentless, passionate man who railed against the establishment and loved with all that was in Him. I think if Christ would have been born in the 1950's, then he'd have made a great hippie in the 1960's (please-I mean no disrespect to Christ and He knows that). I mean, look at Him - he went around breaking the "church" rules, teaching the masses that the church had the rules all screwed up (Mat. 5), leading poor, dumb souls astray (at least in the establishment's eyes), starting revolutions, and, in effect, spitting in the face of the establishment. Can you imagine how He'd be treated today if He did that kind of stuff? The main difference between Him and the hippies is that His was righteous behaviour and the hippies' often was not.
I began to see that the God I'd been led to believe in was nothing more than an idol. This wasn't the real God - the real God was (is) MUCH more awesome, frightening, and powerful than the one I believed in. The God I began to see in the Bible was the Creator of ALL, the sustainer of ALL, and the destroyer of all that He chooses to destroy. You see, I began to understand that man wasn't nearly as strong as I had made him out to be. In fact, I think that's one of the most significant issues with those who adhere to a "choice" salvation position - they exalt man above what he really is. All my trials, all the hell I was going through, death, life, sickness, health, prosperity, poverty - it was all because of God. God is responsible for ALL of it. And you know what the intriguing thing is - this didn't make me angry at God - it gave me a peace that I cannot explain. For the first time in my life, it wasn't about me - it was about God. And because I still held fast to His Word, I was finally at peace with my surroundings. You see, He really does cause ALL things to work together for those who love Him, to those who are THE called - not because of the called, but because it brings Him glory to do so. The trials aren't there because He fell asleep, or isn't paying attention, or isn't able to stop them - the trials are there to make me more like Christ and that brings Him glory. I CAN'T bring Him glory - only Christ through me. When we begin to see man for who he really is, clay in the Potter's hand (Rom. 9), we REALLY begin to live. The freedom Christ talked about in John 8 - that's what we begin to experience. I'm free from trying to get others to approve of my actions. I'm free from trying to earn God's favor. I'm free from the bondage of the "doctrines of man". And that freedom comes not from anything I've done - but from God Himself. My only obligation is to become like Christ - when I do that, all those do's and dont's become irrelevant. If I truly reflect Christ in all that I do, I don't have to worry about keeping the rules - I'll already be doing it. And you know what else? God is now, always has been, and always will be in complete and utter control of all that happens.

Post Tinebrae Lux

Christian Love

2006-07-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

I read in a post by another blogger the statement, "The consumption of alcoholic beverages is arguably the greatest social evil of our time." I strongly disagree; I believe the lack of Christian love is the greatest social evil EVER - at least with respect to those who claim Christianity. Our "Christian" culture is rampant with arrogance, pride, and selfishness. We speak of love, and then turn and devour each other. We have lost Christ in our desire to Christianize the world. I am reminded of Paul's words in I Cor. 13; he said that even though he spoke with the tongue of angels, but had not love, he was nothing more than a clanging symbol. Isn't that what we've become - clanging symbols? Aren't we, for the most part, a pack of self-righteous zealots spouting our own brand of Christianity and denouncing those who disagree with us as heretics? Again, Paul said that there abided faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love. When we look openly and honestly at the life of Christ (as observed by the Gospel writers), we see one who pours himself out to those whom the Church has pronounced as unworthy of God's love. The poor, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the brawlers, the crude fishermen. What a travesty that the church today has lost it's first love - no, has lost love altogether. Sure, we send missionaries to poor and underdeveloped countries, but what about His body here? I love the passage in Rom. 10 where Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring the good news." Have you ever really read that passage? Why in the world would Paul make reference to "feet" when he's talking about those who spread the gospel? Wouldn't it have made more sense to say, "How beautiful are the mouths of those who spread the Gospel"? No, and here's why: we've distorted the gospel into making it a "spoken" gospel. You know, the Roman Road stuff. But that's not the Gospel - the true Gospel is a living Gospel - one that speaks and acts in accordance with Christ's kind of love. You see, we've taken the command to make disciples and turned it into a command to "make people confess Christ." A little like the Crusaders - only we don't use swords and dungeons. We use fear of an eternal hell and fear of ostricization. We use the power of the pulpit to manipulate the masses into conformity to "doctrines of man". That's not love. Love is pouring oneself out for those around him/her. Love is becoming so selfless that your needs, desires, wants become my own. Love is releasing our expectations. Take a look at Christ again - who was it that received the bulk of Christ's antagonism? It wasn't the prostitutes, it wasn't the imbibers, it wasn't even the theives (tax collectors); it was the Pharisees. And why? Was it not because, for all their religious zealotry, that they were unable to love? Christ called them "whitewashed tombs" - very lovely and "religious" on the outside, but inside full of decay and rot. Brothers and sisters, this should not be so. How can we say that we are filled with Christ's love when the Christian divorce rate is roughly equal to that of the secular world? How can we say that we are filled with Christ's love when churches split over what kind of music is played during the worship service? Or when Deacons run the Pastor off? Or when the Pastor runs members off? When will we learn to let go of our selfish expectations of others and empty ourselves into those around us? Please don't misunderstand - love is not some warm, fuzzy feeling where we all turn into "flower-children" and run around hugging each other. Sometimes love is hard - but ALWAYS love is centered on the other person - not ourselves. Until we turn the tide of self-centered religious zealotry toward self-less love for others, the church will be nothing more than a meeting place for those who wish to seek God's approval through their religious works.
Post Tinebrae Lux

Introduction

2006-07-07T10:59:00.000-07:00

Hey there everyone.

This is my first blog, so I'm sure I'll get many things wrong in the early stages. As you can tell by the blog name, I adhere to what is commonly referred to as the "doctrines of grace". I don't like being called a Calvanist, but rather, a monergist or Sovereigntist. I am Southern Baptist by heritage, but don't fit in well with most SB's as my stances on several issues are at odds with the majority of SB's (at least those with whom I'm familiar). Those stances include (1) seperation of church and state, (2) sovereignty of God in His election of the saints, (3) God's approval of alcohol, (4) the need for the elimination of the invitation in worship services, (5) the need for return to an elder style of church leadership, and several others. Thanks for stopping by and feel free to post comments regarding any of the above-mentioned issues or your own. I will note, however, that I am not a Theologian, just an avid student of scripture.

Peace and grace to all,

GR