Sunday, February 27, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Loveless Story
He met her online, through her blog, actually ... so he never really met her. Never even saw her picture, but it didn't matter. He was sure she was lovely because she wrote beautiful posts.
She wrote poetry, and music. She put her perspective on history. She told wonderful stories of how things were and could be and should be.
It was obvious that others were enchanted with her, too, from their comments. She had done sweet and thoughtful and sometimes extravagant things for them.
He put some friends onto her blog, just to be sure he wasn't reading too much into it. They were all quite taken with her, too.
He contacted her by e-mail, and the relationship began. He wanted to meet her, and it would have been fine with her, but he never asked for a date or time or place. Finally, she did. And she offered to drive and meet him where he was.
The promise elated him for days. But the day came ... and went ... and though he checked his PDA's e-mail record from her to ensure he was at the right place at the right time, she wasn't.
Heartbroken, he sent e-mails that were not returned. Her blog entries stopped; she was a consistent - almost daily - blogger. It wasn't like her. He feared something awful had happened, and his suspicions proved true when a search engine turned up her obituary.
And her story. The article quoted witnesses say that she had seen a semi-tanker rig plummeting driverless down a hill at a truck stop and slammed on her accelerator to interpose her car. It deflected a collision with a busload of elderly tourists, saving them from fiery doom.
He mourned. His friends supported him. They supported each other. They talked about her often. They found other groups online who did the same. They wrote blogs about her. They pored through her archives. They remembered.
Sometimes they wondered whether she had been a teacher, or a doctor or a counselor, because she had written about teaching and healing with obvious experience and passion. Sometimes they wondered if all her entries had been written by her. Because some days she seemed to have been in a different mood and had been writing in a different style. He did a careful language study, counted the characteristic words, and published his controversial findings.
Other times his friends quibbled with her other fan clubs about the blogs they had written about her. She had never mentioned anything but vocalists among her favorite music, and yet some were convinced she must have liked instrumental music too. He became a strong proponent for one of the views.
The quibbles became online slugfests, and more time and pixels were spent arguing than remembering ... or doing any of the things she had enjoyed doing ... or helping any of the people she had loved to help. He was taking and delivering potshots in the fanblogs and by e-mail and it was just all emptiness to him.
Finally, he decided that he was was wasting his time; he should forget all of his misguided friends and forget her and get a life.
She wrote poetry, and music. She put her perspective on history. She told wonderful stories of how things were and could be and should be.
It was obvious that others were enchanted with her, too, from their comments. She had done sweet and thoughtful and sometimes extravagant things for them.
He put some friends onto her blog, just to be sure he wasn't reading too much into it. They were all quite taken with her, too.
He contacted her by e-mail, and the relationship began. He wanted to meet her, and it would have been fine with her, but he never asked for a date or time or place. Finally, she did. And she offered to drive and meet him where he was.
The promise elated him for days. But the day came ... and went ... and though he checked his PDA's e-mail record from her to ensure he was at the right place at the right time, she wasn't.
Heartbroken, he sent e-mails that were not returned. Her blog entries stopped; she was a consistent - almost daily - blogger. It wasn't like her. He feared something awful had happened, and his suspicions proved true when a search engine turned up her obituary.
And her story. The article quoted witnesses say that she had seen a semi-tanker rig plummeting driverless down a hill at a truck stop and slammed on her accelerator to interpose her car. It deflected a collision with a busload of elderly tourists, saving them from fiery doom.
He mourned. His friends supported him. They supported each other. They talked about her often. They found other groups online who did the same. They wrote blogs about her. They pored through her archives. They remembered.
Sometimes they wondered whether she had been a teacher, or a doctor or a counselor, because she had written about teaching and healing with obvious experience and passion. Sometimes they wondered if all her entries had been written by her. Because some days she seemed to have been in a different mood and had been writing in a different style. He did a careful language study, counted the characteristic words, and published his controversial findings.
Other times his friends quibbled with her other fan clubs about the blogs they had written about her. She had never mentioned anything but vocalists among her favorite music, and yet some were convinced she must have liked instrumental music too. He became a strong proponent for one of the views.
The quibbles became online slugfests, and more time and pixels were spent arguing than remembering ... or doing any of the things she had enjoyed doing ... or helping any of the people she had loved to help. He was taking and delivering potshots in the fanblogs and by e-mail and it was just all emptiness to him.
Finally, he decided that he was was wasting his time; he should forget all of his misguided friends and forget her and get a life.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Death, Dad and Hysterical Blindness
Tomorrow I will not blog.
Tomorrow I will be thinking of my dad.
Twelve years ago tomorrow he breathed his last in this world.
Norman William Brenton was the very definition of meekness. His picture should appear next to the word in illustrated dictionaries. He was the third-most humble person, I believe, to walk in this world. Though he was never tempted to strike a rock rather than speak to it, nor to overturn a moneychanger's table, he did once get out of the car and scold a drunk driver who had hung up his ride on a high curb after nearly hitting ours as we drove to church. Yet for that instance, there were probably a dozen in which he warmly greeted a tipsy, rheumy-eyed visitor to our inner-city church and escorted them to the benevolent room for a fresh change of clothing.
Dad had some sort of coronary episode on the first day he died. Mistaking it for indigestion, my mom dashed to the store for milk. She found him dead when she returned. EMT medics resuscitated him, but his brain had been starved of oxygen too long.
He remained in a coma on life support as the family gathered. We faced the worst. We prayed for the best. For a miracle. We knew he had a living will and we knew what it said, yet my mom and older sister and her husband could not find it in the safe at home, even after looking several times.
This may have been an instance of that peculiar phenonmenon called "hysterical blindness." It has little to do with out-of-control emotions; it describes the suppression of visual information due to shock.
(I experienced it once, having happened first on the scene of a single-car accident; an old station wagon driven recklessly by a young woman who had just passed me too close on the expressway then plowed through a guardrail and rolled her car several times down an embankment. When I peered into the upside-down car, I couldn't see her. Another fellow walked up. "Is she already out of the car?" I asked. "Could she be under the dash?" He looked at me like I was crazy: "Man, she's all over the place.")
Though my family didn't see Dad's living will in the safe, I found it in moments. It said that he did not wish to have any heroic measures taken to prolong his life in this situation. We prayed again. We asked for him to be removed from artificial ventilation, but to retain intravenous nourishment. We put it in God's hands.
Dad breathed on his own for a couple of weeks, never stirring from the coma, and at last expired. Twelve years ago tomorrow.
It gave time for all of us in his family to get used to the idea that he would be gone.
I don't know whether his Lord gave him that choice when coming for him the first time, but I know what Dad would have said.
The very different tragedy currently playing out within the family of Terri Schiavo has brought all of these memories fresh to my mind. (You can read a fine recap of the situation at Believer Blog.)
I'm reminded that I have a responsibility to my family that I need to attend to. I have checked the little box on my Arkansas driver's license that expresses my desire to be an organ donor. I've told my family about it.
But I don't have a living will, spelling out what I would wish for them to do in catastrophic circumstances.
Yet.
Could it be that - when it comes to the matter of my own demise - I have a case of hysterical blindness?
Tomorrow I will be thinking of my dad.
Twelve years ago tomorrow he breathed his last in this world.
Norman William Brenton was the very definition of meekness. His picture should appear next to the word in illustrated dictionaries. He was the third-most humble person, I believe, to walk in this world. Though he was never tempted to strike a rock rather than speak to it, nor to overturn a moneychanger's table, he did once get out of the car and scold a drunk driver who had hung up his ride on a high curb after nearly hitting ours as we drove to church. Yet for that instance, there were probably a dozen in which he warmly greeted a tipsy, rheumy-eyed visitor to our inner-city church and escorted them to the benevolent room for a fresh change of clothing.
Dad had some sort of coronary episode on the first day he died. Mistaking it for indigestion, my mom dashed to the store for milk. She found him dead when she returned. EMT medics resuscitated him, but his brain had been starved of oxygen too long.
He remained in a coma on life support as the family gathered. We faced the worst. We prayed for the best. For a miracle. We knew he had a living will and we knew what it said, yet my mom and older sister and her husband could not find it in the safe at home, even after looking several times.
This may have been an instance of that peculiar phenonmenon called "hysterical blindness." It has little to do with out-of-control emotions; it describes the suppression of visual information due to shock.
(I experienced it once, having happened first on the scene of a single-car accident; an old station wagon driven recklessly by a young woman who had just passed me too close on the expressway then plowed through a guardrail and rolled her car several times down an embankment. When I peered into the upside-down car, I couldn't see her. Another fellow walked up. "Is she already out of the car?" I asked. "Could she be under the dash?" He looked at me like I was crazy: "Man, she's all over the place.")
Though my family didn't see Dad's living will in the safe, I found it in moments. It said that he did not wish to have any heroic measures taken to prolong his life in this situation. We prayed again. We asked for him to be removed from artificial ventilation, but to retain intravenous nourishment. We put it in God's hands.
Dad breathed on his own for a couple of weeks, never stirring from the coma, and at last expired. Twelve years ago tomorrow.
It gave time for all of us in his family to get used to the idea that he would be gone.
I don't know whether his Lord gave him that choice when coming for him the first time, but I know what Dad would have said.
The very different tragedy currently playing out within the family of Terri Schiavo has brought all of these memories fresh to my mind. (You can read a fine recap of the situation at Believer Blog.)
I'm reminded that I have a responsibility to my family that I need to attend to. I have checked the little box on my Arkansas driver's license that expresses my desire to be an organ donor. I've told my family about it.
But I don't have a living will, spelling out what I would wish for them to do in catastrophic circumstances.
Yet.
Could it be that - when it comes to the matter of my own demise - I have a case of hysterical blindness?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Kingdom Has Subjects
Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | Acts | King | Ethic
My bloggin' buddy Fajita can stretch a bloggin'-topic series to at least 12 interrelated entries - as he has indeed done with his "Post-Restoration Hope" cycle. It's a dandy, and you shouldn't cheat yourself out of a single installment.
I play out after quite a few less than 12. I've just barnstormed the topic of the kingdom of heaven, and this will pretty much wrap it up as far as I'm concerned.
It won't be typical. There won't be a bulleted list of scriptures linked to Bible Gateway.
The kingdom is a novel concept to us ... possibly because we've only encountered the concept in novels (or movies or theatre). It's not part of our culture. It's almost antithetical to American culture; our ancestors fought the Revolutionary War to get out from under a monarchy. They established our own kind of government. If you don't like it, turn the beggars out after four years and start over.
It's our country and we'll do what we want to with it, thank you.
Kingdoms don't operate that way. There's royalty. And there's subjects. If you're not one, you're the other.
We don't have a clear picture of what it means to be a subject in a monarchy, whether in early Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Israel, Rome, Europe, China or Japan. We don't really like the idea of being subject (verb form) to anyone. We pledge allegiance to ourselves, not to a king or queen.
We don't fully grasp that a king has the final authority. There is no court of appeals.
We don't comprehend that everything in a kingdom, technically, belongs to the king even if he generously lets us use what we have worked hard to earn and purchase.
We don't really appreciate that there is a kind of slavery, of involuntary servitude that is implicit in a royal government.
Or that the best stuff we produce goes to the king.
So the kingdom of heaven is a much more hazy concept to us Americans than it was, say, to first-century Christians ... or medieval serfs ... or even citizens of the United Kingdom.
But it's a term that's as common as grass in scripture and it's here to stay.
If we can't change the name, how can we better embrace the concept?
Because, when it comes right down to it, Fajita and I - and lots of others! - are blogging about the same thing.
Here's my series in the order I wrote 'em:
And here's the question: How can we make the kingdom a clearer concept to ourselves and others?
My bloggin' buddy Fajita can stretch a bloggin'-topic series to at least 12 interrelated entries - as he has indeed done with his "Post-Restoration Hope" cycle. It's a dandy, and you shouldn't cheat yourself out of a single installment.
I play out after quite a few less than 12. I've just barnstormed the topic of the kingdom of heaven, and this will pretty much wrap it up as far as I'm concerned.
It won't be typical. There won't be a bulleted list of scriptures linked to Bible Gateway.
The kingdom is a novel concept to us ... possibly because we've only encountered the concept in novels (or movies or theatre). It's not part of our culture. It's almost antithetical to American culture; our ancestors fought the Revolutionary War to get out from under a monarchy. They established our own kind of government. If you don't like it, turn the beggars out after four years and start over.
It's our country and we'll do what we want to with it, thank you.
Kingdoms don't operate that way. There's royalty. And there's subjects. If you're not one, you're the other.
We don't have a clear picture of what it means to be a subject in a monarchy, whether in early Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Israel, Rome, Europe, China or Japan. We don't really like the idea of being subject (verb form) to anyone. We pledge allegiance to ourselves, not to a king or queen.
We don't fully grasp that a king has the final authority. There is no court of appeals.
We don't comprehend that everything in a kingdom, technically, belongs to the king even if he generously lets us use what we have worked hard to earn and purchase.
We don't really appreciate that there is a kind of slavery, of involuntary servitude that is implicit in a royal government.
Or that the best stuff we produce goes to the king.
So the kingdom of heaven is a much more hazy concept to us Americans than it was, say, to first-century Christians ... or medieval serfs ... or even citizens of the United Kingdom.
But it's a term that's as common as grass in scripture and it's here to stay.
If we can't change the name, how can we better embrace the concept?
Because, when it comes right down to it, Fajita and I - and lots of others! - are blogging about the same thing.
Here's my series in the order I wrote 'em:
- Kingdom Christianity per Matthew
- Kingdom Christianity per Mark
- Kingdom Christianity per Luke
- Kingdom Christianity per John
- Kingdom Christianity Expressed in Acts
- The Kingdom Has a King
- The Kingdom Has an Ethic
And here's the question: How can we make the kingdom a clearer concept to ourselves and others?
Sunday, February 20, 2005
god goes for broke
i've got one of those miserable garzonguous headaches again and i've just woken up from a nap where i dreamed i was my friend david u getting back from arizona or maybe one of my other met-or-unmet friends getting back from abilene later this week or from winterfest in gatlinburg and i'm catching up on the blog entries i've missed while i've been gone and finding myself permanently three days behind in this nightmarish twilightzonish separation where there are people with ideas and heartaches and joys that i can't share because i'm always going to be three days apart out-of-sync from them in this unreachacrossable great gulf of discontinuity and i wonder is this how god felt when he went for broke in the fullness of time and there was no alternative but to send his only son because he had lost it all every precious soul he had created and loved and cherished and wept over since the beginning of time and he'd promised them he'd get them back no matter what they did and he set the deadline and there was no getting around it and that son had to die so he could have just a few of his children back so he went for broke and rolled the dice and his son said please father now send me it can't wait and he did and the entire universe came to a screeching squealing fishtailing halt when the nails went in and the veil of the temple tore and then he waited and waited and waited an eternity three days a glimmer of hope forty days and some words by peter and the rush of his spirit and then the results started trickling in like election returns here are some back! one, twelve, three thousand a tiny fraction a drop in the bucket and the days crept on while he watched and waited from the edge of his throne a few more turning their faces homeward here and there until years have past and decades and centuries and he still waits as if nothing else matters in the cosmos but reaching across that almost unbridgeable three day chasm to the ones he has loved and lost my head hurts my head hurts my heart hurts
Saturday, February 19, 2005
The Kingdom Has an Ethic
Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | Acts | King | Subjects
It's clear from the Ethic on the Mount (and many other scriptures) that Jesus wanted His kingdom to be a defining part of our lives:
It is an amazing ethic (Matthew 7:28-29) because of its authority ... the authority of a King who loves His subjects to death.
His death, not theirs ... so He could put to death what keeps them from Him.
It's clear from the Ethic on the Mount (and many other scriptures) that Jesus wanted His kingdom to be a defining part of our lives:
- Redefine what gives you joy - not by self-seeking - but by relationship with others and God, and it's yours ( Matthew 5:1-12; Luke 6:20-26)
- Have a purpose in life, like light and salt do (Matthew 5:13-15)
- Give that purpose legs; put it into practice (Matthew 5:16)
- Exceed expectations (Matthew 5:17-20)
- Squelch anger (Matthew 5:21-22)
- Make peace with others (Matthew 5:23-26)
- Squelch lust (Matthew 5:27-30)
- Commit if you marry (Matthew 5:31-32)
- Keep your promises; don't "borrow" God's integrity by swearing (Matthew 5:33-37)
- Love your enemies (Matthew 5:38-43; Luke 6:27-29)
- Don't strike back; give back (Luke 6:29)
- Have perfection as your goal; don't settle for less (Matthew 5:48)
- Give for others' sake, not yours (Matthew 6:1-4; Luke 6:30; 38)
- Pray for God to hear you, not for others to hear you (Matthew 6:5-8)
- Pray from your heart your praise to God (Matthew 6:9)
- Pray for His will to be done, not yours (Matthew 6:10)
- Pray daily for what you need, not what you want (Matthew 6:11)
- Pray for a forgiving heart like God's (Matthew 6:12-15)
- Pray for His guidance and deliverance (Matthew 6:13)
- Fast for God to see you, not for others to see you (Matthew 6:16-18)
- Invest in the unseen and eternal (Matthew 6:19-24)
- Squelch worry (Matthew 6:25-34)
- Judge as you would want to be judged (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37; 41-42)
- Share wisely (Matthew 7:6)
- Be proactive: ask, seek, knock! (Matthew 7:7-11)
- Treat others as you'd wish them to treat you (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31)
- Think small and narrow (Matthew 7:13-14)
- You know truth by what it does; Jesus knows truth for what it is (Matthew 7:15-23; Luke 6:39-40; 43-45)
- Don't just hear; do! Build wisely on a solid foundation (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)
It is an amazing ethic (Matthew 7:28-29) because of its authority ... the authority of a King who loves His subjects to death.
His death, not theirs ... so He could put to death what keeps them from Him.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Resurrection and Reality
Just a few moments ago, I was working on some materials for a class I'm planning to teach this summer on eschatology ... thinking about how the resurrection of Jesus guarantees our own ... about how that incorruptible body might be different from the corruptible ... and reading John 20:19-20:
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
... and I wondered how He got through those doors (or passed through a wall) with a resurrected body that Dr. Luke (24:39) says had "flesh and bones ..."
"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
... when the thought suddenly hit me: Maybe because Jesus was more real than a wall or a door.
A wall or a door - to Him - is only as "real" as smoke or fog seems to us. Insubstantial. Impermanent. Inconsequential. Walk right through it.
Remember how Paul said it in II Corinthians 4:18 - 5:3:
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Tent vs. mansion. Naked vs. clothed. Temporary vs. eternal. Seen vs. unseen.
Unreal vs. real.
Or maybe I just read too much C.S. Lewis.
(Is it possible to read too much C.S. Lewis?)
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
... and I wondered how He got through those doors (or passed through a wall) with a resurrected body that Dr. Luke (24:39) says had "flesh and bones ..."
"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
... when the thought suddenly hit me: Maybe because Jesus was more real than a wall or a door.
A wall or a door - to Him - is only as "real" as smoke or fog seems to us. Insubstantial. Impermanent. Inconsequential. Walk right through it.
Remember how Paul said it in II Corinthians 4:18 - 5:3:
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Tent vs. mansion. Naked vs. clothed. Temporary vs. eternal. Seen vs. unseen.
Unreal vs. real.
Or maybe I just read too much C.S. Lewis.
(Is it possible to read too much C.S. Lewis?)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Kingdom Has a King
Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | Acts | Ethic | Subjects
No kingdom can long survive without its king. The kingdom of heaven has one that is like no other:
Do you know Him?
No kingdom can long survive without its king. The kingdom of heaven has one that is like no other:
- He was born a king (Matthew 1:6, Matthew 2:1-3)
- He told stories of Himself as a king (Luke 19:12, Matthew 22, Matthew 18:23-35, Matthew 25:31-45)
- But He would not be forced to be an earthly king (John 6:15)
- He entered His royal city as a king (Matthew 5:35, Matthew 21:5, Luke 19:37-38, John 12:13)
- He never denied being a king (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 1:49, John 18:37)
- He was mocked and tortured for claiming to be king (Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17-19, Luke 23:36-37, John 19:3)
- He died a king (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:18-22)
- But His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36)
- So His followers respected other kings as kings (Acts 26:2, I Peter 2:13-17)
- Because He is King of Kings (I Timothy 6:13-16, Revelation 17:31, Revelation 19:16)
- And He will reign forever (Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 15:31)
Do you know Him?
Limmerictus I: Faith
More wonderful faith cannot be
than the fact that God believes in me ...
His plan is to reach
everyone that I teach
and the fact is, there is no "Plan B!"
than the fact that God believes in me ...
His plan is to reach
everyone that I teach
and the fact is, there is no "Plan B!"
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Honey and Vinegar
It's not a potion to cure colds. It's a choice of the way to catch flies. According to the old saying, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I've encountered a church here in my hometown that studied last summer the question of homosexuality, a topic I only touched on lightly in a recent blog post. Since I was off work all day yesterday with a migraine that wouldn't let me think, work, or focus my eyes easily, I listened to the entire series of messages.
After my vision improved, I posted the links to them last night on Brandon Scott Thomas's blog, where a discussion with several folks - including a couple of gay Christians - took place in the Comments recently.
How can I say "gay Christians"? The same way I can say "divorced Christians" or "stumbling Christians" or "greedy Christians" or "exclusionary Christians." I don't mean it as a label, just a descriptor. We have in common a belief in Christ. We have different temptations.
The series followed by Little Rock Church - which has a "Church of Christ" heritage - was called "Full of Grace and Truth: A Christ-Like Response to Homosexuality." Most are MP3s you can listen to; the last one is a page listing/linked to resources:
I'd encourage you to listen to the messages in the order presented, and be blessed. I really appreciate the candor and spirit with which this church looked into the matter, with plenty of grace but without playing fast and loose with the truth.
They've chosen honey, because they want to catch more (souls, not flies). But the whole of the message is not sweet. As the saying implies, there are some that can be caught with vinegar. So there is a taste of it in these messages, because homosexuality is sin.
Just a taste for a person crucified by the perpendicular beams of his/her passion for Christ and attraction to the same sex.
Just enough.
I've encountered a church here in my hometown that studied last summer the question of homosexuality, a topic I only touched on lightly in a recent blog post. Since I was off work all day yesterday with a migraine that wouldn't let me think, work, or focus my eyes easily, I listened to the entire series of messages.
After my vision improved, I posted the links to them last night on Brandon Scott Thomas's blog, where a discussion with several folks - including a couple of gay Christians - took place in the Comments recently.
How can I say "gay Christians"? The same way I can say "divorced Christians" or "stumbling Christians" or "greedy Christians" or "exclusionary Christians." I don't mean it as a label, just a descriptor. We have in common a belief in Christ. We have different temptations.
The series followed by Little Rock Church - which has a "Church of Christ" heritage - was called "Full of Grace and Truth: A Christ-Like Response to Homosexuality." Most are MP3s you can listen to; the last one is a page listing/linked to resources:
- Part 1: Attitude Adjustment
- Interlude: Parable of the Good Samaritan Revisited
- Part 2: What the Bible Says and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality
- Part 3: Building Bridges to Homosexual Friends and Relatives
- Interlude: Story Changing Grace
- Part 4: A Christ-Like Response (Panel Discussion)
- List of Resources
I'd encourage you to listen to the messages in the order presented, and be blessed. I really appreciate the candor and spirit with which this church looked into the matter, with plenty of grace but without playing fast and loose with the truth.
They've chosen honey, because they want to catch more (souls, not flies). But the whole of the message is not sweet. As the saying implies, there are some that can be caught with vinegar. So there is a taste of it in these messages, because homosexuality is sin.
Just a taste for a person crucified by the perpendicular beams of his/her passion for Christ and attraction to the same sex.
Just enough.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Fair Enough
You get all kinds of comments on an open blog - and this one is. Today I received this comment to an archived post:
"I think you misunderstand the Scriptures, the Restoration Movement, and the Church of Christ."
That was almost all it said.
Not specific, to be sure. But gentle, tempered by the words "I think" and "misunderstand." Just the kind of rebuke I would want to receive, and rebuke is a scriptural concept too frequently abused and infrequently done well.
I would have to agree that I often do not understand the Scriptures, the Restoration Movement, or the Church of Christ.
I don't claim to have answers - possible answers, maybe - but I have a lot of questions.
I respect mystery as a key aspect of God's nature, and therefore His Word.
I think everyone should study and come up with his/her own answers and possible answers, because the struggle with some issues is sometimes more important than the answers we perceive.
My initial reaction has been tempered by a recent post by fellow blogger David U. Though I share the skepticism of another fellow blogger, Fred Peatross, that "that blogs will ever become a link/connection to those Jesus misses most", my commenter is making an honest effort at it.
I know, because the rest of the comment I received from him yesterday was a name, and a URL to a blog. In fairness to the points of view expressed there - whether I agree with all of them as crucial items in a relationship with God through Christ is immaterial - I'd like to post a link to it:
http://clearcutbiblestudies.blogspot.com/
It may help someone passing through this blog to come up with answers that draw him or her to Christ - or closer to Him - and I am all for that!
"I think you misunderstand the Scriptures, the Restoration Movement, and the Church of Christ."
That was almost all it said.
Not specific, to be sure. But gentle, tempered by the words "I think" and "misunderstand." Just the kind of rebuke I would want to receive, and rebuke is a scriptural concept too frequently abused and infrequently done well.
I would have to agree that I often do not understand the Scriptures, the Restoration Movement, or the Church of Christ.
I don't claim to have answers - possible answers, maybe - but I have a lot of questions.
I respect mystery as a key aspect of God's nature, and therefore His Word.
I think everyone should study and come up with his/her own answers and possible answers, because the struggle with some issues is sometimes more important than the answers we perceive.
My initial reaction has been tempered by a recent post by fellow blogger David U. Though I share the skepticism of another fellow blogger, Fred Peatross, that "that blogs will ever become a link/connection to those Jesus misses most", my commenter is making an honest effort at it.
I know, because the rest of the comment I received from him yesterday was a name, and a URL to a blog. In fairness to the points of view expressed there - whether I agree with all of them as crucial items in a relationship with God through Christ is immaterial - I'd like to post a link to it:
http://clearcutbiblestudies.blogspot.com/
It may help someone passing through this blog to come up with answers that draw him or her to Christ - or closer to Him - and I am all for that!
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Kingdom Christianity Expressed in Acts
Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | King | Ethic | Subjects
Forgive the double-entendre in the title, but it illustrates the principle that you find throughout Luke's sequel, and that those acts of preaching often were accompanied by acts of mercy and compassion:
And Paul and others wrote about it - what it isn't and what it is:
That it is to be inherited, but not by everyone:
The inheritors receive it as a gift:
And they were both receiving it and would receive it soon:
Okay, I sneaked in a lot more than just the book of Acts here. Still, the theme of "acts of service" in the kingdom is consistent.
If we are concerned with sharing and serving, we don't have to be concerned about the timing of the breaking in and coming of the kingdom.
We're part of it.
Forgive the double-entendre in the title, but it illustrates the principle that you find throughout Luke's sequel, and that those acts of preaching often were accompanied by acts of mercy and compassion:
- Jesus came back to talk "kingdom" 40 days (Acts 1:3)
- Timetables weren't part of the agenda (Acts 1:6)
- Philip preached it (Acts 8:12)
- Paul and Barnabas preached it, with a prophecy of trouble (Acts 14:21-23)
- Paul argued it persuasively (Acts 19:31)
- He committed to it, foreknowing the consequences (Acts 20:25)
- He explained and declared it (Acts 28:23)
- Boldly and unhindered, right up to the end (Acts 28:31)
And Paul and others wrote about it - what it isn't and what it is:
- Not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17)
- Not talk, but power ()I Corinthians 4:20)
That it is to be inherited, but not by everyone:
- Not the immoral (I Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:21, Ephesians 5:5)
- Not flesh and blood (I Corinthians 15:50)
- Not those through whom a disobedient spirit works (Ephesians 2:2)
- Because that opposing "kingdom" will be destroyed (I Corinthians 15:24)
The inheritors receive it as a gift:
- Qualified and rescued for it by the Father (Colossians 1:11-13)
- Called by God into it (I Thessalonians 2:12)
- Judged worthy of it by God (II Thessalonians 1:5)
- Chosen by God to be rich in faith (James 2:5)
- Doing, in gratitude, what makes their calling/election sure (II Peter 1:11)
And they were both receiving it and would receive it soon:
- Inspiring awe and thanksgiving (Hebrews 12:28)
- Accompanied by a "rich welcome" (II Peter 1:11 again)
- Associated with a charge to serve (Revelation 1:6, II Timothy 4:1) and reign while serving (Revelation 5:10)
Okay, I sneaked in a lot more than just the book of Acts here. Still, the theme of "acts of service" in the kingdom is consistent.
If we are concerned with sharing and serving, we don't have to be concerned about the timing of the breaking in and coming of the kingdom.
We're part of it.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Kingdom Christianity per John
Matthew | Mark | Luke | Acts | King | Ethic | Subjects
Like Paul Harvey, the apostle John tells us "The Rest of the Story."
I don't know whether he had access to one or more of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark or Luke) - his closing verses lead me to suspect that - but he seems to concentrate on telling the parts of the story of Jesus that will lead us to believe (John 20:30-32).
So his two references to the kingdom are like bookends, near the beginning and the close of his story:
But in those few verses of the very mystical, miraculous, powerful, persuasive gospel of John there are profound truths.
The kingdom is transcendent, more important than fighting to prevent an unjust arrest, leading to a more cosmic judgment.
The kingdom is transformation, from this world to the next.
That transformation is compulsory - "You must be born again."
And that transformation makes us "The Rest of the Story."
Like Paul Harvey, the apostle John tells us "The Rest of the Story."
I don't know whether he had access to one or more of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark or Luke) - his closing verses lead me to suspect that - but he seems to concentrate on telling the parts of the story of Jesus that will lead us to believe (John 20:30-32).
So his two references to the kingdom are like bookends, near the beginning and the close of his story:
- Be born again to see and enter it (John 3:3-5)
- Understand that it's of, and from, another world (John 18:36)
But in those few verses of the very mystical, miraculous, powerful, persuasive gospel of John there are profound truths.
The kingdom is transcendent, more important than fighting to prevent an unjust arrest, leading to a more cosmic judgment.
The kingdom is transformation, from this world to the next.
That transformation is compulsory - "You must be born again."
And that transformation makes us "The Rest of the Story."
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Kingdom Christianity per Luke
Okay, Luke's gospel is where the kingdom rubber meets the worldly road. Literally. Jesus goes on the road; He's on a mission; and He's got a deadline.
If I drop out the duplicate references to the kingdom from Matthew and Mark, this is what is left for me to do and be a part of it:
If I'm not mistaken, that's more than the number of total citations I found in Mark (12-11). These are all unique to Luke; they don't even count the duplicates.
Did you sense a recurrent theme? (What's that "p" word again?)
Can there be any doubt that Luke is the "preach"-quel to Acts?
If I drop out the duplicate references to the kingdom from Matthew and Mark, this is what is left for me to do and be a part of it:
- Preach the good news of it, like Jesus (Luke 4:43)
- Proclaim the good news of it, like Jesus (Luke 8:1)
- Preach the kingdom, like the disciples (Luke 9:2)
- Speak to others about it, like Jesus (Luke 9:11)
- Proclaim it, though grieving (Luke 9:60)
- Go preach, and don't look back (Luke 9:62)
- Preach it when you're not welcome (Luke 10:11)
- Seek it (Luke 12:31)
- Receive it (Luke 12:32)
- Preach it, like John (Luke 16:16)
- Recognize it within yourself / among yourselves (Luke 20:17-21)
- Accept it (Luke 22:29)
If I'm not mistaken, that's more than the number of total citations I found in Mark (12-11). These are all unique to Luke; they don't even count the duplicates.
Did you sense a recurrent theme? (What's that "p" word again?)
Can there be any doubt that Luke is the "preach"-quel to Acts?
Monday, February 07, 2005
Kingdom Christianity per Mark
Matthew | Luke | John | Acts | King | Ethic | Subjects
None of Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" euphemisms for young John Mark! He'll go ahead and risk the wrath of his fellow Jews by calling it what it is: the "kingdom of God."
But I find his description of Jesus' words about the kingdom consistent.
To be a part of that kingdom, I must:
People have debated for centuries whether Jesus really intended to found a church, and how much it overlaps His kingdom.
When I looked at Matthew's references, I took it personally. (Jesse's mom made an observation that put it in perspective!)
But - without accusing or lauding - I tried to look at Mark's references for that overlap. Does the church bear out the vision of the kingdom that Jesus describes?
The answer is probably "yes and no."
I just wonder how I would react if Jesus came like the thief in the Jack Benny sketch and, instead of demanding "Your money or your life!", asked:
"The kingdom or the church?"
Would I stand there like Jack's skinflint persona, one hand cradling the elbow attached to the hand where my chin is resting ponderously ... finally answering: "I'm thinking it over!"?
I want to object to the question; I want to say there couldn't be such a choice; it's not valid to ask. Yet I look over John Mark's bullet points as I'm pecking away at this keyboard and ...
I'm thinking it over.
None of Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" euphemisms for young John Mark! He'll go ahead and risk the wrath of his fellow Jews by calling it what it is: the "kingdom of God."
But I find his description of Jesus' words about the kingdom consistent.
To be a part of that kingdom, I must:
- Repent and believe (Mark 1:15)
- Abhor division (Mark 3:24)
- Accept mystery (Mark 4:11)
- Sow seed, anticipate harvest (Mark 4:26-31)
- Connect it with power (Mark 9:1)
- Get my priorities straight (Mark 9:47)
- Cherish innocence (Mark 10:14)
- Eschew wealth (Mark 10:23-25)
- Love God; love others (Mark 12:28-34)
- Look forward to the feast (Mark 14:25)
- Wait for it; ask boldly (Mark 15:43)
People have debated for centuries whether Jesus really intended to found a church, and how much it overlaps His kingdom.
When I looked at Matthew's references, I took it personally. (Jesse's mom made an observation that put it in perspective!)
But - without accusing or lauding - I tried to look at Mark's references for that overlap. Does the church bear out the vision of the kingdom that Jesus describes?
The answer is probably "yes and no."
I just wonder how I would react if Jesus came like the thief in the Jack Benny sketch and, instead of demanding "Your money or your life!", asked:
"The kingdom or the church?"
Would I stand there like Jack's skinflint persona, one hand cradling the elbow attached to the hand where my chin is resting ponderously ... finally answering: "I'm thinking it over!"?
I want to object to the question; I want to say there couldn't be such a choice; it's not valid to ask. Yet I look over John Mark's bullet points as I'm pecking away at this keyboard and ...
I'm thinking it over.
Friday, February 04, 2005
One Final Moment of Trekish Truth
The last one, I promise. If you missed the first and second ones, no big deal.This one comes from movie # VI: The Undiscovered Country. The fans are ahead of me, already anticipating that the moment takes place in Cap'n Spock's quarters as he and fellow (mostly) Vulcan Lt. Valeris discuss the very impressionistic-looking painting hanging there: The Expulsion from Eden. It's Spock's reminder to himself that "All things end." (Which is sort of appropriate, since this is the last film to feature the original cast.)
But the moment comes a few lines later:
Spock: "History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. We must have faith."
Valeris: "Faith?" (Well, this would be an unusual concept to the all-logical Vulcan mind.)
Spock (apparently paraphrasing Max Ehrmann's Desiderata): "That the universe will unfold as it should."
Valeris: "But is that logical? Surely we must ....?"
Spock (apparently quoting his human mother, who once expressed being "sick to death" of logic): "Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris - not the end."
Okay, that's pretty close to Proverbs 1:7. Sort of. The fear of the Lord is logical. Right?
But my real question is whether we can, in a faith as profound as Ehrmann's (or the legendary Spock's), believe that the universe will unfold as it should.
I believe in prophecy. I believe that Old Testament prophecy proved true in the New Testament. I believe that New Testament prophecy proves to be true as well. I believe that it says, in very few words of summary, that the universe unfolds as it should.
God wins. Satan loses.
Our faith in that truth - though tested by accident, natural disaster, crime, war, evil, even political assassination of presidents or prime ministers - will not be in vain.
That's logical too. Isn't it?
The First Ten Kisses
Visit Val's blog today, read When The Music Fades and be blessed.
Just the insight of "the first ten kisses" would have been enough to enrich your whole day.
There's enough there, in the fading moments of his sister's life, to bless all of yours.
Just the insight of "the first ten kisses" would have been enough to enrich your whole day.
There's enough there, in the fading moments of his sister's life, to bless all of yours.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
New Wineskins Blog
A couple of nights ago while not sleeping late into the night, I had this odd idea to start a New Wineskins BLOG here on Blogger.com/Blogspot.com and turn it over to Greg Taylor, the online magazine's managing editor. Little did I know that he'd been wanting to do one for a long time.
After a good night's sleep (so I could handle HTML coding again), I put one together, and Greg seems really excited about it. He wants to use it to post some free-access articles so that non-subscribers will be able to get a taste for the good stuff behind the firewall.
There is some really good stuff there.
And it will be a place where folks can comment on articles they've read in both areas, hopefully.
I think he'll be inviting the other NW editors, publisher, and several other writers to be authors on the site and I'll stick around as a co-administrator to help tweak that Blogspot template as needed.
I pray that the good Lord will bless it, and bless many through it.
After a good night's sleep (so I could handle HTML coding again), I put one together, and Greg seems really excited about it. He wants to use it to post some free-access articles so that non-subscribers will be able to get a taste for the good stuff behind the firewall.
There is some really good stuff there.
And it will be a place where folks can comment on articles they've read in both areas, hopefully.
I think he'll be inviting the other NW editors, publisher, and several other writers to be authors on the site and I'll stick around as a co-administrator to help tweak that Blogspot template as needed.
I pray that the good Lord will bless it, and bless many through it.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Just a Thought ...
"We do not ask that they give up their opinions, for they can hold their opinions as private property; we only ask that they not impose their opinions upon others as tests of fellowship." - Alexander Campbell, from his article in the Millennial Harbinger, 1830, p. 145.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
