Joel and I taught a class this morning. We focused a lot of the discussion on Jesus' call on us to give of ourselves and our resources. John Wesley was a great role model in this area. Here is what he had to say about our use of money:
Gain all you can, without hurting either yourself or your neighbour, in soul or body, by applying hereto with unintermitted diligence, and with all the understanding which God has given you;-- save all you can, by cutting off every expense which serves only to indulge foolish desire; to gratify either the desire of flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life; waste nothing, living or dying, on sin or folly, whether for yourself or your children;-- and then, give all you can, or, in other words, give all you have to God.
Read the rest of his sermon here.
Some of the blogs that I frequent have recently had some articles on the role of subjective experience in the Christian life. I've put some significant thought into this topic and yet I still don't know completely what I think on the topic. On the one hand I know that the Holy Spirit does communicate about sin, righteousness, judgment and the nature of God to Christians. These are definitely communicated through subjective means but what about other things? Am I sure that he doesn't communicate very specific direction to believers that are willing to listen? What do you think? I'm going to do a study on the work of the Holy Spirit as seen in scripture and try to form my own conclusions on this topic. Here are some links to some reasonable discussions from different points of view on this topic.
Pyromaniacs – Misreading God (the comments are good too)
Internet Monk – Thoughts on Spiritual Experience
Stand to Reason – A Private Hotline to God?
Recently some people challenged Joel and I about being too negative and critical. Joel's response was to point out that we are negative and critical because there is so much that is bad and negative in the world around us. Also, Joel pointed out that Jesus himself was considered a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief and that he was often negative and critical. The people challenging us were very opposed to Joel's characterization of Jesus. They challenged Joel to prove his claim. Being convinced of our correctness on this issue we decided to do just that. I skimmed Matthew, Mark and the beginning of Revelation and Joel skimmed Luke and John. We each recorded any mention of Jesus' emotions (if it was obvious) and instances where Jesus was critical or complimentary of people . Here are our results:
Instances of critical comments by Jesus: 130
Instances of complimentary comments by Jesus: 45
Obvious emotions of Jesus
frustration: 14
sorrow: 3
troubled: 3
anger: 5
distressed: 1
compassion: 1
rejoice: 1
agony: 1
displeasure:1
pity: 3
grief: 3
Now obviously anyone that created a list like this would come out with slightly different numbers and slightly different descriptions of Jesus' emotions. Overall I think that it would be hard to come up with a count that contradicted our conclusions. If you don't believe me then I challenge you to do a count and post your results. One thing to note about these numbers is that the affirming comments number is greatly inflated by the compliments that Jesus gives to the seven church at the beginning of Revelation. That section of Revelation had 15 compliments and only 7 criticisms. That means that Jesus, as presented in the gospels, is 4 times more critical then affirming.
I had a lot of fun doing this assignment. I noticed that Jesus' criticisms are usually directed at the rich, those that think that they are righteous, and those that lack faith. His compliments are for those that show faith and people that show humility. I think that it has reminded me of what pleases Jesus and what definitely doesn't. Another thing that I noticed is that Jesus often makes very critical comments in his anger. We're often led to believe that responding with criticism in anger is sinful. I'm not sure how often what comes out of my mouth when I'm angry is not sin. This observation at least shows me though that responding critically in anger is not always sin. I think that I'm going to try to do more survey type studies in the future.
There is new great internet offer that is sure to exite all you busy Christians out there. Now, you no longer need to bother yourself by spending 4.76% of your week attending a Sunday service in order to recieve communion you can now do it from the comfort to your own home. No more having to deal with other people. God's favour is available to all who sign up for this wonderful offer. The inovative Gregory Dickow is now offering, when you sow a gift of $40 or more to his ministry:
I encourage you to take communion today over a situation where you don't feel God has turned to your favor. Then that situation will change because God has a blood-bought oath to show you His favor through His precious body and through His precious blood. I want you to expect it today!...Favor works for anybody. A toaster works for a good person and a bad person. The toaster works because you plug the cord in the electrical outlet and rely on its power, not because of anything special or holy about you.
In the same way, when you plug into the favor of God through the body and blood of Jesus by taking communion, it begins to work for you.
I am so excited to share these truths with you. When you begin to view taking communion in this new way and see God¿s favor begin to flow, everything turns around! What has been painful becomes helpful; what has been sadness becomes joyous; what has been dark becomes light; and what has been failure becomes success.
From the testimonials on Dickow's site, you can also learn that health and wealth can also be yours. Isn't this a wonderful offer! You don't even need to be righteous to receive the favour of God. It's too bad that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with this deal years ago. So many generations have missed such a wonderful opportunity. Sign up today before it's too late.
I found an interesting article on the Christianity Today blog. The author goes through a short history lesson of 14th century Japanese Christianity. The church started when missionaries brought the faith to Japan but when they were expelled because of persecution the church went downhill.
Over time the Crypto-Christians confused their Christian beliefs and their Japanese disguises. The result was the emergence of a hybrid religion no longer resembling the orthodox faith of the missionaries. When Europeans regained entrance to Japan in the 19th Century they were astonished to see communities of hidden Christians returning from the hills around Nagasaki.This amazement waned, however, when they discovered the faith of these forgotten Christians was hardly Christianity. As one historian notes, "Although the faith followed by the underground Christians had the outward appearances of Christianity, the vital content and spirit of the religion evolved into something entirely different...It would be more accurate to call it a folk religion altogether Japanese in spirit and content."
After going through the history lesson author goes on to challenge the church of today.
Have we, like our processors, become Crypto-Christians? Seeking survival and fearing irrelevance, have we clothed our faith with the forms of our American culture to the point that our Christianity has morphed into something entirely different¿a folk religion altogether consumerist in spirit and content? Like the Kakure of Japan, are we holding so tightly to our faith we cannot sense that it is already slipping between our fingers?By replicating the practices of the nations has the church, like ancient Israel, yielded its imagination to the idols of our day? By heavily adopting cultural forms, like the Kakure, have we forgotten the central teachings and practices of the apostles? Was Walter Brueggemann correct when he wrote, "The contemporary American church is so largely enculturated to the American ethos of consumerism that is has little power to believe or to act."?
I think that he is bang on on this point. One particularly insightful commenter says "In fact it is impossible for a Christian believer's faith to to remain intact when they hide it in a closet. What usually happens is that when the more congenial moment arrives there is no longer any faith left to proclaim. It is impossible to imagine a believer's faith which is not defiant and fearless in the face of the cultural forces that are mobilized to suffocate it." Another says, "Christianity became a lifestyle enhancement or a faith upgrade feature for the Kakure. They chose to save their lives, and frost them with a little Christianity."
We trying to preserve our churches by making sure that there are new converts in the pews. What we are preserving though is only a faint resemblance to all the church is intended to be. Also, I think that often we disguise our own selfish desires for a comfortable life with being seeker sensitive. The cold hard truth is seeker sensitive. It's what they need to hear if they are going to be saved. If the world isn't interested in our message then that isn't our problem. We don't need to cave to their pressures and make the message of truth more palatable. We just need to be faithful in what the Lord has commanded of us, to preach the gospel, feed the widows and orphans, give away our money, carry his cross and forfeit our lives for his mission.
I found this video on adversaria's site. Alistair has some interesting comments on how some of the tactics suggested for starting a cult are commonly found within standard evangelical churches. Here is an excerpt of what he has to say.
The indoctrination of new converts. There is a difference between teaching and indoctrination. Good teaching should equip the mind to think critically. Indoctrination tends to turn off the mind¿s critical faculties. Indoctrination imposes an ideology upon people, an ideology that often restricts them from giving expression to important aspects of their lives. Teaching grants people the tools with which they can begin to work towards true expression of the world, God and themselves. Someone who has been taught, rather than indoctrinated, is empowered to think in a way that goes beyond their teachers.
Phil Johnson has good article on his blog about balance. Here is a excerpt:
Let's be honest: That claim is often employed in an effort to stop meaningful discussion rather than advance it. Many people who take that approach simply don't want to work through the difficulties posed by the tension between the gospel call and the sinner's inability, or between God's absolute sovereignty and His wrath against sin. They imagine that if they take a position in the middle of the road and cover their eyes, they can simply avoid all such problems altogether.That's not a biblical way of thinking. Scripture (as well as true Calvinism) stresses both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The truth is not a midway point where neither emphasis is taught at all, but a balanced doctrine where both sides of the truth are fully stressed.
The balance between Christian liberty and godly living is also like that. Don't look for a comfortable midway point between legalism and license. There is no safe "middle road" between legalism and license. In fact, legalism and license often go hand in hand and are found together, because they stem from the same wrong view of sanctification. Legalism is often a smoke screen for carnal living.