a way of escape?

When the Bible tells us that God will not let us be tempted beyond what we can bear and with every temptation (which he does not give us) he will provide a way of avoiding that sin. Specifically what is that telling us that God will do? If you are lusting specifically what will God do to help you avoid sinning throw cold water on us? If you sinning by not helping someone who needs help specifically what will God do to help us avoid that sin? I believe many of the problems with Christians today, especially those of the Church of Christ ilk we don't think things through. We mouth prayers because it is time for a prayer and our primary purposes are to not be tool long and not be too short. We do not want to finish the service too early and never too late. When we pray we must, it is demanded, expect. Expecting is not that God can do something but that he will do something. James makes some negative comments about anyone who asks God for something and does not expect.  

 

That is enough for now.

 

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

"IF 7UP hadn't decided on a name that was short and sweet we'd still be drinking Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda."

You can count on Jesus?

Recently one of my co-workers who admittedly is recovering by overuse of drugs and alcohol commented "Jesus is the only one we can count on." The context was others will fail us but Jesus will not. Specifically what does that mean? Try to avoid generalities and be specific. In what way can Jesus be depended on today where others fail us? To give you an idea of what this guy is thinking, he says he writes poetry that God gives him. When he writes he can feel God on his shoulder and knows that God is giving him the specific words to write. God is quite dependable because he provides the words for this guy to get the credit for writing.

 

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

"IF 7UP hadn't decided on a name that was short and sweet we'd still be drinking Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda."

What does "We Pray for. . ." mean?

In my continuing investigation of prayer and what it is and is not an example recently appeared on the white board in the break room for the River Rampage where I work. The message said "Pray for Greg and Marie." I found that Greg is the husband of my boss and Marie is the wife of one of my co-workers. Marie has been diagnosed with cancer but I am not sure what is wrong with Greg except it is ongoing and serious. The message says "pray for. . ."  In the assembly someone "leads" the congregation in prayer and says "we pray for (insert someones name). Specifically what does that mean? Specifically what are we asking the Creator of everything to do? Is there Bible support for whatever it is we are expecting?

 

What makes us think the Creator of the universe will do anything? He did not save any of the apostles from being killed: he did not stop the persecution we read about in the NT: He did not heal Batselle Barrett Baxter, a renowned preacher in the Church of Christ, of cancer of his brain: he allowed a little girl to be beaten to death by her mother's boyfriend: did not stop slavery in the United States: permitted Christians to starve to death in Malawi several years ago:  I could go on but you get the picture. Can it possibly be that since God has provided a number of principals concerning how we should conduct our lives and therefore will not interject himself into our trifling lives? Could it be the natural laws, which are not laws but as Shawn has explained to me merely observations by scientists of processes found in nature that have been observed to be consistent, control the outcome as he apparently planned?

 

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

"IF 7UP hadn't decided on a name that was short and sweet we'd still be drinking Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda."

How Close to Socialism Does the Church have to Get?

Realizing this is probably close to socialism, what if the story in Luke and the rich man building larger barns read something like this:

Luke 12:16-21

"The investments of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for my bank account exceeds the FDIC insured amount?' And he said, 'I will withdraw my money and invest in Mutual Funds. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample money laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God."

We justify what we do by saying we can lay up treasure on earth AND be rich toward God but can we?

Paul told Timothy 1 Tim. 6:17-19 "As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life."

If we share can we still be rich? Can we keep for ourselves whatever amount it takes to be considered rich and still be rich toward God?

Concerning church funds the preacher is an example only because he is on the payroll. Can a group of Christians take money contributed to the work of the congregation and set it aside for the sole purpose of permitting the preacher to not have to work? Thus helping the preacher to set his hopes on the uncertainty of riches? Which as you see is contrary to what Paul told Timothy?

This occurred to me when a friend told me he sees a woman where he buys a paper every day who he believes is living in her car. Some of the people I work with at Dollywood live in a camp ground where a family of 4 is living. The parents sleep in a van and the children sleep in a tent and congregations of the church of Christ are setting aside money so their preacher will eventually not have to work or so the congregation can have a more comfortable building or so they can have a nice Christmas Party or so they can travel to a foreign country and teach VBS to those children. Has the church lost our focus? While the church universal is doing this so are the individual members setting aside money so we will not have to work; so we can set our hopes in the uncertainty of riches.

Are we unwilling to place our future in God's hands? Who among us is living by faith? Can we be rich towards God?

Hezekiah and Prayer

Our neighbor is convinced God finds her a parking spot when she needs one. She is convinced that if she needs something God answers her prayer and she receives it. I am dubious to say the least.

God appears to be very selective in that he finds her a parking place but lets a 4 year old girl die from ruptured organs from being beaten by her mother's boyfriend. My observation is I am now aware of God answering anyone's prayers. As for Jesus' prayers how were they answered?

You are probably convinced otherwise but I believe the Christians were praying that Peter die quickly. At that time everyone knew no one escaped Caesar's jail. To me that explains their surprise. Not a lack of faith just joy mixed with surprise.

Dez and Wilma and Debbie have been sick a long time. Does God continue to provide our neighbor with parking places while leaving Wilma and Dez and Debbie as well as scores of others today and in the past in pain and other intolerable situations? I do not believe he does that.

When Jesus told his disciples how to pray none of what we pray for was included including the "in Jesus name" thing. If James is going to be the example for praying for the sick don't you wonder why Paul left Timothy sick when all he had to do was let an elder know and Timothy would have been healed? I have never recognized the effectiveness of a righteous man praying.

One time my sister called me to tell me our dad was dying. Dottie and I went to Ohio and sure enough dad looked almost dead. We left that night expecting to return the next day to make the funeral arrangements. When Dottie and I arrived at the nursing home the next morning my sisters were there and dad had eaten two breakfasts and the nurses were trying to get him to skip a third. I can guarantee to you none of the three of us were praying for him to get better. He hated where he lived and was more than ready to die.

I would not necessarily call it psychological illusion (Karl Marx calls says religion in general is an opiate of the people) but I do wonder why no one, other than me of course, questions the fact that the prayers of the masses go unanswered and no one asks why. Especially since James says we can pray wrongly.

That raises another question why do we think all prayers are answered? Hearing us does not suggest answering. Jesus was aware Stephen was being killed but did not intervene. Surely God was aware of all the Christians murdered or tortured all these thousands of years and did not intervene. How about those Christians in Malawi who starved to death? Why are we convinced Jesus will intervene on our behalf? I am not so convinced.

It seems evidence of God answering prayer is taken from the OT never the NT. As in many situations we believe what we want to believe. I for one am not ready to give anybody any reasons why we should expect any affirmative answers to any prayer. I realize that puts me in the minority but my experience has been such personally and observation wise that there is a major gap between what we believe, or say we believe, and what I observe. And I wonder why and I wonder why I am alone in my wondering.

When my sister had breast cancer she asked me if I thought God would heal her. I told her that Jesus did not heal everyone but all those he and the apostles did heal served his purpose. So I suggested she make healing her serve Jesus' purpose. She survived two cases of cancer. Did the doctors do it on their own? I have no idea. Did it take God two tries to heal her? I have no idea. Without being too sarcastic he usually heals sprained ankles in the first attempt. And my last wonder is why does God say yes to the simple requests like parking places and broken bones but says "no" or "wait" to the more serious cases? And why am I the only one who wonders?

Any time any person prays without a complete conviction that their prayer will be answered with resounding yes is doubting and James says some negative things about people who pray in such a manner. I wonder how anyone can pray for God to heal any illness without doubting or wondering. Not questioning if he can but if he will, especially since my observations are that he never says yes.

Is Satan Active Today?

James says: James 1:5-8 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

I believe that refers wisdom and not to parking spots, safety, health etc and James says God will answer.

James also says James 1:13-15 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

James does not say we sin because of Satan acting upon us. So no, I do not need Satan's help to sin. If you believe you do then you need to be able to explain who tempted Satan when he originally fell? The answer is he was lured by his own desire.

Matthew and Mark wrote Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

Jesus was talking to Peter but he called him Satan. I understand that to be telling us that Peter was advancing Satan's position so he was acting as Satan in that situation. Anyone who is not advancing God's positions is advancing Satan's.

In the garden Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

It does not say Satan but serpent. The serpent was advancing Satan's agenda so it is said Satan tempted Eve. Satan did via the intention of the crafty serpent.

Genesis also says Genesis 3:14-15

The Lord God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel."

Why punish the serpent if it was Satan working through her (serpent must have been a woman)?

In Job it says a storm or something killed Job's children. Satan used nature to get to Job. I do not believe he is behind the storms today. Unless of course he is targeting someone but we have no evidence he is allowed to do that ort of stuff today

So No, I do not believe Satan is active in the world other than people advancing his positions versus advancing God's positions.

Does God Ever Say "Yes"?

My experience has been one that God does not answer prayers. Always saying "No!" leads me to believe he is not active in the world today. Where does the bible refute such a statement? What supports the Christian's wish that God is active?

One of the reasons for my doubts is the number of public prayers that go unanswered and no one questions. That suggests no one expects anything. James has some negative things to say about praying without expecting. But how can we expect when we have never experienced? God apparently has no problems with finding parking spaces and healing sprained ankles but more serious situations appear to be out of his sphere of influence.

When Jesus told his disciples how to pray he did not pray anything like we pray today. We pray about and for things for which we have no Bible support and no one questions. Lacking of questioning gives credibility to Karl Marx's comment about religion being opiate of the people.

Has it Occurred

Have you considered when Christians look to government, laws, court decisions to enforce moral issues they are allowing the government laws and courts to decide how to apply? If the government can exclude abortion it can include it. If government can exclude divorce for any reason it can include it. Same with gay marriage. Christians need to stop looking to government, laws and the courts and get back to evangelism.

Gay Marriage or No Gay Marriage, that is the question.

Watching the demonstrations in California and Georgia of the "For Gay Marriage" and the "Against Gay Marriage" groups it occurs to me why is it that Government is involved?

Have you ever wondered why government has such an interest in "marriage?" And why is it that a person who "performs" or "officiates" the "ceremony" has to be licensed by the state? During Colonial times "license" meant permission to do something considered not legal? Not legal does not mean illegal it means something not permitted. People could not do something King George did not allow so they got a "license" to serve beer, open a print shop etc.

Some five hundred or so years ago a "Marriage Ordinance" was created requiring "state registration" and "church consecration." This means that prior to that time government was not in the business of recognizing marriage. The early Christians did not require Rome's permission for them to commit to each other and build families. Neither should we be so required.

God created the concept of the family but man inserted government involvement. God did not identify how two become one just that they do. I do not believe Mary and Joseph asked Rome's permission to become one. With government involvement comes government's allowing for the "putting asunder."

Sex apparently is part of the reason, for otherwise uninvolved individuals, to want government to become involved in personal business because the lack of "consummation" is often used as a valid reason to void the agreement. Maybe the whole business is about sex? If you want to read more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

On the subject of Gay Marriage we have two sides attempting to force their opinions on the country. Christians want the world to believe what they believe without their same background. The world wants everyone to be allowed to do anything they want, with anyone/anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they are.

As ignorant as most Christians are of the Bible they are even more ignorant of the Constitution. Marriage is NOT a Constitutional issue. The newest Supreme Court Justice agrees with that statement. Public opinion is never a valid measurement due to how often it changes and how often it is wrong. Lest we forget how popular opinion led to the extinction of some and destruction of most of the tribes of Native Americans, dehumanizing of the remaining Native Americans, slavery of men, women and children, segregation of the races, the murders of gay men, abortion, current divorce laws, are just a few that come to mind.

In business it is often easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. Our governments, federal, state, and local often operate on that beliefl. They do what they like and see if the populace objects. For examples remember how Abraham Lincoln violated the Constitution, how George Bush 43 violated the Constitution and how our current leader Barrack Obama violates the Constitution and the people remain quiet and ignorant.

What we need is for governments to eliminate all perks for the married. Whose business is it if two people want to commit to each other whatever their gender? Whose business is it if they decide they no longer want to commit to each other. It is certainly not government business. Allowing that moral issues are involved they are best addressed by Jesus and we should let him. Of course that will require that Christians do something other than protest.

Music Debate

Tom Alexander:

Reference the July 2010 issue of Gospel Advocate, "Music Debate."

While I like your article may I make a comment or two . . or three?

Charley Brown was shooting arrows and then drawing a circle around each arrow. Lucy asked him why he was doing that and Charley replied "this way I never miss."

Many times we do that to prove our positions. To use anyone other than the bible to support out point indicates we do not believe the prophets, apostles, etc are sufficient. Because someone in the second or third century did or did not do something does not provide evidence to support our position. The bible is enough or it is not. If it is not then anything goes.

Nowhere in the New Testament did anyone, including Jesus, tell the "good people" to separate themselves from the "bad people." You can reference Paul's letters as well as Jesus' instructions to the churches in Asia. I understand that to mean that nothing anyone else in the assembly does affects badly on me. Considering Jesus' instructions that our loving each other will show the world we are his disciples may suggest that splitting a congregation over any issue just may be the worst thing that can be done and that all sides are at fault and need to seek forgiveness.

Last, you base your position on the fact that our assemblies are for worship. Where do you find bible support for that view? Paul told the church at Rome that worship was when they presented their individual body as a living sacrifice. The author of Hebrews says our assemblies are for the purpose of encouraging each other to love and good works. I have asked many preachers and authors this question and I have never received a response. I take that to mean they consider my question so ridiculous it does not deserve an answer or most likely that they have no clue and that is their story and they are sticking to it.

For me I do not favor instruments in the assembly because I cannot find it in the Bible. Not that it is wrong just that I cannot find it. And once you get outside of the Bible anything goes. Anyone who wants instruments will hit a wall someplace. They like a piano but do not like drums; they like individual instruments but not bands and orchestras; everyone has a line in the sand and mine is the Bible.

Did the people immersed on Pentecost sign up to convert the world? Were they told on Pentecost if they did not they were going to Hell and having been immersed would not save them from that fate? I do not believe that to be the case so neither do we have that responsibility today. The church is nothing more and nothing less than a group of people who have been immersed and had their sins forgiven. Something no other group can claim. If we would live as if that were true others would see it and want what we have. As it is most live so close to the line that neither their brothers and sisters nor the world can see a separation. Our responsibility as a group is to encourage each other to love and to do good works; to follow Jesus' example, instructions and commands. We have made things much more complicated than they need to be.

I liked your article but I suggest it does not convince anyone who does not already agree with you.

This note is much too long so I will close. If you are still reading this I thank you for your time. If you care to explain how singing to each other, praying for ourselves, contributing primarily for our own comfort, listening to a speaker is worship I will be interested in your thoughts. We have memorial services all of the time for our friends and do not consider that worship so calling the Lord's Supper worship is a stretch.

I am John Jenkins. I am retired. My wife and I live in Gatlinburg and meet with Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ in Pigeon Forge. Most of whom will agree 100% with your article.

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179 cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Some people are like a Slinky ... Not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

What Would Paul Do?

Recently I was reading an article "Is Your Religion Enough?"  The author writes:

There is plenty of religion and the assortment is nearly unlimited so take your pick. But wait a minute, what is religion all about anyway?

The business of religion can be very confusing unless we can sort out the real issues. What are the issues? The greatest issue is sin.

He later writes

Is your religion providing the power for you to be able to overcome temptation? Does your religion enable you to live a pure life in an immoral society? Has your religion separated you from your former evil habits, friends, and the world? Do you call that sin which the Bible calls sin?  Has your religion brought you into obedience to the Bible?

The author suggests that if our answers to those questions are not an honest "Yes" is our religion enough.

Considering some recent events at PF it appears our newer members were not separating themselves from their old friends or their old habits.

Yesterday while passing the communion trays I was underwhelmed by the clothing of many of the girls in that ministry trip group. Their shorts were extremely short at least while they were sitting. Considering the amount of cleavage and legs on display during the service on the usual Sunday I wonder if Paul would have warned them they are walking too close to the line. Or do you suppose he would have waited until they were pregnant and told them they should have been more careful.

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com 
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Some people are like a Slinky ... Not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

Freedom of Religion

We do not need to do anything today that the first Christians did not do to "go about preaching the gospel." Our lackadaisical attitude in the assembly. Sitting and listening does not promote evangelism. Playing at "worship" does not promote evangelism. Meeting to provoke one another to love and good works does promote evangelism. Those first Christians met to encourage each other not to go to practice a litany of liturgy.

Results

The Psalms has many places where David thanked God for answering his prayers. I cannot find an example of the results of such a prayer. David was afraid of Saul, he ran, he hid. What example can we find where one of David's prayers was answered. Similar to our prayers. We say we believe in prayer and that prayer "works." What example can we find where one of our prayers (public) produced results? The basis for the question is Muslims pray, what results does it produce? Methodists pray, what results does it produce. Are we deluding ourselves or are we erroneously praying? If the prayer of a righteous man "availeth" much does it mean I have never met a righteous man? I find it intriguing that for over 40 years I have never seen an example of a public prayer producing results. Apparently God can handle the flu and a broken leg or wrist but history indicates cancer or other serious illnesses get the best of him every time. He can even find a parking spot but when it comes to the more serious problems his batting average is -0-. I wonder why. No one questions just continues. Are we deluding ourselves?

Faith is a Risk---Whatever You Believe / Ben Carson, MD

Faith is a Risk---Whatever You Believe

Ben Carson, MD

Where did the first living cell come from? Darwin built his entire theory of evolution on the premise that the cell is the simplest, foundational building block of life.

The electron microscope and countless other contemporary tools have only begun to show us how incredibly complex a cell truly is. You have a cell membrane with lipoproteins phasically interposed with positive and negative charges that can allow certain types of molecules to pass through or not, a very complex nucleus and nucleolus, endoplasmic reticulum with ribosomes on it that are able to understand and replicate genetic patterns, and Golgi apparatuses that generate energy. We haven't even begun to discuss genes, the intricate communication patterns of DNA, or any number of additional subcellular ingredients and their functions. If cells are the original starting point of life, how did all of those complex interrelated parts and processes come to be?

But let's just concede that somehow, mysteriously, the first cell about. Where did the great diversity of other cells come from? Darwinism holds that all life evolved in a gradual, progressive, step-by-step process from the simple to the complex. So how did the earlier, simpler single cells all get together to form more complex multi celled organism?

Consider a single eye. How did a rod cell just sit there for millions and millions of years until a cone cell could develop? Then how did multiple rods and cones come together into an intricate visual-sensory apparatus, embedded into the retina as part of a complex neurovascular network, which converts images into electrical information to be passed through the neural network along the optic nerve and reinterpreted in the occipital cortex of the brain as a recognizable image? Even before we get to the retina, what about the pupil? Where and how did it develop in isolation---because there would be no purpose for it without those other things? Nor would there be any purpose for the iris without the pupil and the anterior chamber. There would be no purpose for the cornea, no purpose for the short ciliary nerves, no purpose for any of it without all the other stuff.

Did each type of cell develop on its own and then sit around and wait for a couple of billion years in the hope that some perfectly compatible cell type might come along to finally make it not merely relevant but indispensable as part of an elaborate system that itself complements even more complex systems that are in turn part of the larger organism? How does that jibe with the "survival of the fittest" premise, in which function is a key factor in deciding what genetically useful characteristics are passed on and ultimately which organisms last another generation? Are we then to believe that specialized cells survived for millions of years, fit for no real purpose, until other specialized and completely worthless and unfit cells came along, which also survived for untold eons, to one day combine with them in anticipation of filling some future need that would take millions of more generations and evolutionary steps?

Believing that the origin of life can be explained by Darwinian evolution requires more faith than I have. Evolution and creationism both require faith. It's just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.

Finding God Apart From Church

Charlie Brown was shooting arrows and then drawing a circle around the arrow. Lucy asked him what he was doing. Charlie said this way I never miss. We do the same thing when we are attempting to prove a point. We claim a prayer has been answered when there is no Bible support for the prayer we had prayed. We find a few things a person said we agree with and ignore what he says we do not agree with.

Many young adults are not intentionally avoiding the "church" they are unable to find it. Jesus said the world will know we are his disciples by our love. Over the years Christians have become blind to the reality that many congregations of the Church of Christ are unloving, non-evangelistic, elitist and cold to outsiders.

Like our friends in those many denominations we have formalized our assemblies. We are known for what we are against. Relative to everything but religion we say "united we stand divided we fall." The church of Christ very much refuses to unite with anyone even itself. If another congregation does the slightest thing with which they disagree they cross them off our list of the saved.

If congregations of the Church of Christ expect to attract we must be attractive. Groups attract people like themselves. Gray heads are not going to attract many under 30. Congregations with a majority under 40 are not going to attract many over 60. Unloving and uncaring congregations are not going to attract people who love and care.

While the world goes into eternity without hope the church of Christ prefers to argue if women should make announcements, or pass communion trays etc. If not for our format of sit and listen they argument would be moot. In an assembly in a house a woman standing up and handing a man a communion tray would go unnoticed. A woman telling the group about a sick friend would not be considered making announcements.

The church of Christ of the past 100 or so years is in serious trouble.

The Loving Approach to Evangelism

When Paul was evangelizing Jews he preached from the Jewish Scriptures (Acts 17:2).  When he was evangelizing Gentiles he did not make his case on what he as a Jew believed he made his case on the basis of what his Gentile audience believed.

In Acts 17 while discussing Christ "in the marketplace" Paul encountered some Stoic  and Epicurean philosophers who took him to the Areopagus to share his views with fellow philosophers (19). Paul began his speech not by "confronting their sin"  but by commending them for being "extremely religious." He based his commendation on the fact that these people had so many idolatrous objects of worship (22-23). If he had been talking with Jewish philosophers  his approach may have differed because Jews were expected to know and honor the Old Testament's prohibition on idols. But these were Gentiles so holding them accountable for things they didn't themselves believe would have been unwise, arrogant and rude. Though their idols offended Paul as a Jew (16) he complimented them for their sincerity.

Paul then noted that one of their "objects of … worship" contained the inscription, "To an unknown God." This acknowledged ignorance on their part provided Paul with an opening to present the Gospel. "What … you worship as unknown" Paul said "this I proclaim to you."  Rather than shooting at what one believes is wrong in another's life or way of thinking love looks for the best, looks for truth and then builds on it.  The loving approach to evangelism finds an area of expressed need, uncertainty, or longing and then seeks to meet it as Christ would.

When Paul presents the gospel to these people he doesn't do so on the basis of Scripture as he did earlier with Jews (1-2). Rather he quotes pagan philosophers (28) for these are the sources that have credibility to these folks, not Scripture. Paul builds his case on truths he finds in what the Epicureans and Stoics already believe. He presents Christ as the fulfillment of their own beliefs and the goal of the innate longing God has placed in all people at all times (26-27). While some "scoffed" at his claims others were intrigued enough to want to consider it further (32).

When evangelizing people who do not share one's own presuppositions this is the wise approach to take. Unfortunately Christians who take the "one nation under God" mindset too seriously are lulled into thinking that Americans generally share their presuppositions.  Being duped by the quasi-Christian civil religion, they treat average American citizens almost as if they were Christians who simply weren't living up to their calling. They think they are doing the people a favor by holding them accountable to things that are foreign to them.

Instead of respecting the integrity of people's beliefs, building on what is true about them we simply point out what we think is wrong. Rather than looking for the best, believing the best, and hoping for the best, we zero in on what we believe is the worst. Rather than serving people by taking the time to understand their worldview from the inside and looking for an opening within this worldview we assume they think like us and speak to them from within our own worldview. We unwittingly undermine the credibility of the gospel and do not communicate the central thing we are called to communicate God's love.

People who are shaped by the civil religion of America are no closer to the kingdom of God than people shaped by the civil religion of Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism, It's nothing more that the civil religious veneer of the culture.  Our job is to serve our fellow Americans by building bridges that connect us with them and entering into their unique worldview jut as Paul did with his Gentile audience.

 

 

 

Re: Reference May 2010 Gospel Advocate “Defining Spirituality in the 1st Century.”

Reference May 2010 Gospel Advocate "Defining Spirituality in the 1^st Century."

 

Nice article. I have a question/comment. When discussing the Old Law I never hear this discussion. My question is am I missing something?

 

Paul wrote: Romans 2:12-16 "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law; for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

 

In the beginning, God had a special relationship with His creation where He spoke directly to heads of households. Eventually he selected Abraham through his son Isaac to begin the people through which Messiah would come. At that time there were two lines. Abraham through Isaac was one line (Jews) everyone else were the other (Gentiles).  

 

The Law of Moses was intended specifically for the Jews; to guide them to the point in time, the fullness of time, when Messiah would come. Everyone else (Gentiles) did not have the law but when by nature they did what the law required (moral aspects) became a law unto themselves allowing them to be acceptable to God and saved as were obedient Jews. When Paul talks about the Old Law being a schoolmaster he was referring to himself and other Jews not Gentiles.

 

On Pentecost, Peter announced the Good News of Jesus to the Jews, requiring the Jews to come to Jesus. The Law of Moses was intended to provide a way for Messiah to be born. Messiah being born removed any necessity for the Jews to be treated special by God. But the Law was not fulfilled until Jesus died, arose, and ascended. Stopping at any time prior to Jesus' return to the Father would have meant no Messiah and mankind would have been left in their sin. Meanwhile the Gentiles continued as they were being acceptable to God when they did by nature things of the Law. Cornelius as well as others were among that number. In Acts chapter 10 we have the accounting how God opened the kingdom of God to Gentiles. "At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God." At this point the two lines, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac as well as the Gentiles were together in Jesus. Acts 10:1,2

 

May 2010, Gospel Advocate “Spiritual but not Religious.”

Justin Rogers:

 

Reference May 2010, Gospel Advocate "Spiritual but not Religious."

 

Interesting article. I try to look behind the response. An example is when you ask a child a question and they say "don't know." They know the answer but they have found that if they answer the question another question will follow. If they don't know the questions stop.  So the answer "don't know" does not mean they lack the knowledge they just are not interested in continuing this discussion.

 

I believe when the answer is Spiritual but Not Religious it means the assembly where you mostly sit and listen is not acceptable. Young people want to do something. They want to experience what it feels like to help someone, to teach someone.

 

Worship is serving others. Worship is not singing to each other, not praying for ourselves, not contributing for our own comfort but serving others. As Jesus did, as Jesus would do today.

 

My experience has been that the only reason one is removed from the "prayer list" is when they die. Why do our denominational friends believe God heals and answers prayers while my experience is he does not? For 45 years I have never seen anyone come off a prayer list because a serious illness was cured. Apparently God can handle a slight fever but has problems curing cancers.

 

Charlie Brown was shooting his bow and arrow. When he shot an arrow he would go up and draw a circle around it. Lucy asked him why he was doing that. Charlie said, "This way I never miss." We do that with prayer and Gods' response to prayer. Young adults don't want to settle for that. The Bible says the prayer of a righteous man avails much. My experience apparently has been to never know a righteous man because I have never seen where prayer does much good. But we continue to draw our circles.

 

Worship is not singing to each other, praying for ourselves, contributing for our own comfort, listening to an entertaining speech. We have memorial services all the time for friends who have died so calling the Lord's Supper worship is a stretch.

 

Young people do not want to settle for what we have settled for. Sit and listen is not acceptable to them. Spiritual but not religious does not necessarily mean separation but change. Change means inactivity to activity.

 

But as before, interesting article.

 

Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com  
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

You are getting old when you just can't stand people who are intolerant.

Children and Sex

On the subject of children and sex this is a one discussion I never hear.

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in many of the states was 10 years old. In Delaware it was seven; as late as 1930 twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry with parental consent.

Our laws say a girl under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex but if she becomes pregnant she can consent to aborting her parents' grandchild.

The transition between childhood and adulthood is much longer today than it was less than one hundred years ago. By the time a boy was a seasoned seventeen or eighteen, he was ready to start his own family. A girl became a woman by the time she reached childbearing age; twelve, thirteen, fourteen or fifteen and was often considered old enough to marry. The transition from childhood to adulthood was so short that adolescence---at least as the distinct stage of life we now consider it---hardly existed.

Today the traditional determinations of adulthood---the establishment of occupation and family---are routinely postponed until after college. With the period of childhood innocence seeming shorter and shorter, we've created a new ten-or-twelve-or-more-years-long designation, a no-man's land (or no-woman's land) we term adolescence.

We have stretched adolescence further than any time in history. We are fighting, nature and hormones. We are not going to win so what are we going to do?

Sunday school

Growing an adult Bible study class is not easy, but there are some simple steps to help grow class attendance:

• Make your lesson active not passive, focus on one or two questions per lesson. Make it a question that really doesn't have wrong answers.
• Find people to take care of the needs of each class member. Care group leaders take care of five or six people. The care group leader will call each person each week to encourage them to come to class or to find out why they haven't been coming to class.
• Grow from within. Class members invite others to our class.