The Simpleton Thinker

Modern Day Pharisees

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:06:00 +0000

I've had a convergence of thought and experience lately that came to a little bit of a head this morning as I was reading The Gospel of John. I realize that I'm blasting you all with a long post here, but once I got to writing, I just couldn't stop. I hope that you bear with me and that it's as coherent and meaningful to you as much as it has been for me.

Basically, I'd like to urge extreme caution and introspection as well as make a suggestion on how we respond both inwardly to ourselves as well as outwardly to others in the face of a particularly heated debate raging in our society today.

Like it or not, this current 2012 election cycle (remember, I asked you to bear with me here) has brought the issue of gay marriage in particular, and the uninhibited acceptance of homosexuality in general, to the forefront of our social discussion. I'll admit that the "conversation" has been around for some time and that it's sure to continue to be around for the foreseeable future, but right at this time, it's an especially large source of tension between Christians and non-Christians.

All this to say that I believe this issue has become a litmus test from a sinful world that sincerely believes they're "good" and Christians trying to explain the Gospel to them are hypocrites worthy only of derision.

The argument goes something like this:

Christian: "The Bible says that homosexuality is sin and that marriage is the God-sanctioned and blessed union between one man and one women."

Non-Christian: "Well the Bible also says that we should stone homosexuals and disobedient children, that victims of rape should marry their rapist, etc. Should we do that too?"

At this point, the conversation breaks down and the gap between those talking widens even further, each walking away shaking their head with the idea that "they just don't get it." I'd also argue that BOTH parties in the conversation have moved further from experiencing the Gospel and are all the worse for it.

In general, I think that the more mature Christians either intentionally avoid finding themselves involved in these kinds of "traps" or quickly move the conversation elsewhere, in neither case ever actually addressing the honest and reasonable objection of someone that hasn't experienced the Gospel.

The less mature Christian typically boils down to separating the Old Testament from the New Testament with a "that was then this is now" kind of argument. (A classic example of this that I most recently saw was from a well-meaning but poorly thought-out Facebook post that read "I love how people look only to the Old Testament and say that it describes how the Christian God is today without even looking at the New Testament. Here's a hint: Christianity doesn't even appear until the New Testament.")

At a national level, the argument is basically that we're a Christian nation blessed by God and that by turning from our Christian foundation we're losing God's "special blessing" on our nation.

On a personal level, I've also found myself guilty of the above responses in either thought or action at some point.

To summarize, none of the common visceral approaches show an understanding of the Gospel. Even worse, I believe that they actively drive a wedge between us and Christ our King.

That's a long preamble, I know, but hopefully it sets the stage well enough for you that the power and understanding of John 1:27-36 hits you as powerfully as it did me when I read it this morning.

John 1:1 through to 3:27 narrates the story of an eternal God that created and controls the universe who became flesh, that His arrival was announced by His chosen prophet, the gathering of His disciples, His giving signs testifying to His authority (which also displayed the nature of His ministry), His exercising His authority in His house, and lastly His explanation to a Pharisee leader "how it works" when the Pharisee, like us when using the arguments above, should have already known.

From here, people begin flocking to Jesus and John the Baptist's disciples, while debating with a Jew, express concern about, of all things, purity (sound kinda like the marriage debate maybe...?)

Their argument, so far as I understand what I'm reading is that purity comes from following the law (remember, they lived a pretty simple and spartan existence in the wilderness and were very well known for their observance of the Laws around eating and drinking, among other things.)

Up until today, if I'm being honest, I've really always looked at John's response as a series of unconnected "truth-isms." I don't believe that I've ever been able to make sense of them as a whole unit of thought.

What struck me in particular this time, and I really couldn't explain to you why it did, is a sharp contrast between the reaction of the nationally recognized spiritual prophets of Israel, the pharisees, and the God-appointed prophet John. John reacted EXACTLY as the pharisees *should* have. The pharisees reaction was to feel threatened and begin using the law as a cudgel to beat down both honest and dishonest understandings of an unchanging eternal loving and just God.

In his response, John shows that he clearly understood that the law was given to the flesh, the natural born Israel, which must be continually cleansed from the constantly appearing stain of sin, which makes us entirely unacceptable in the presence of a Holy God. (Hebrews, anyone?) He understood completely that Israel, if it must always remain in the flesh, is in a completely hopeless state. He obviously wanted no part of that and so willingly and gratefully stepped aside so that his Master's eternally revealed will could be accomplished.

If our approach to homosexuals, adulterers, slanderers, fornicators, liars, thieves, et al is to throw the law at them and demand that they comply or lose blessing then we're guilty of the same thing that the pharisees were, a sincere lack of understanding of the Gospel.

If we intentionally choose to avoid the issue wherever we can, then we're not preaching the Gospel and are again ignorant of the Gospel, which demands our response.

If we try to separate the God of the Old Testament from the New, then immature or not, we're guilty of the worst kind of ignorance, as it actively works against the Gospel.

If you're familiar with Arturo Azurdia then you are likely very well familiar with his excellent sermon on Jesus being revealed in the Old and New Testaments. In that sermon he relates a personal story that always stuck with me. Art had been a preacher for some time when he was talking with an older and wiser pastor. In that conversation, Art made a statement that basically challenged anyone to tell him where you can find Christ in the Old Testament. Up to that point he humbly admits that he really focused his preaching on New Testament books because he was about preaching Christ and that's where you find Him. The older pastor's short but spot-on response knocked Art on his back-side and ultimately sent him on a course that changed nearly everything about his understanding of the Bible. The older pastor said "My friend, if you don't see Christ in the Old Testament then you just simply don't know your Bible."

Christ is in every page of the Old Testament as well as the New. What John responded to his disciples with included the same wisdom that Paul imparts to the saints in Romans 9:6-13, that God's people are and have always been a spiritual people. It's absolutely critical that we remember this, especially when responding to the world's objections to and misunderstanding of the Gospel.

The flesh does not save or bless. It dies, ergo it kills. The law kills. That's clearly shown in Scripture and experience testifies to its truth. It's no a coincidence that John's reply to his disciples is provided *after* Jesus explains to Nicodemus that we must be born again, apart from the flesh, in order to receive the testimony of Christ and adoption as children. At this point in the book John is transitioning the reader from a flesh/law-based perspective of Grace to a more perfect and eternal spiritual perspective.

It's also no coincidence that John the Baptist dies in the Gospel story.

Supporters of gay marriage and the idea that homosexuality is a harmless lifestyle choice/disposition equal to a straight heterosexual life-style want the argument to be about the flesh. It's the logical and natural argument for them. They can never know the spiritual truth unless it's revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, such was the case for us all at one point in time. We must *always* be sensitive of this truth.

It's also a place non-Christians want to argue from because, from that perspective, they're absolutely correct. They'll win that argument every single time. When you boil it all down, the core of the argument is that we should ignore the Word of God because we're all doomed to die miserably under more judgement than we can bear or avoid, so why bother listening at all. I mean hey, "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!"

Like John, we must strive to transition those we're talking to from a flesh-based perspective to a spiritual one. From law to Grace. That's the argument that we win every time because it's the truth, and after all, the truth is the point, not winning or losing an argument.

Law and Grace go hand in hand because it's the eternally planned transition from death to life and together lead to a complete and unified understanding as to why gay marriage, homosexuality, sexual impurity, lying, disobedience, et al (aka death) are wrong and should not be entertained or tolerated in our lives.

Law and Grace are not contrasting opposites. They testify to one another and could not exist alone. Christ, our king and creator, is both.

As the author of Hebrews points out, what Chris is currently ministering us through at Cornerstone, is that we must strive to be mature and honest witnesses for Christ and to not forget or gloss over the very foundations of our faith.

Amen!! (?)

Active Love

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:34:00 +0000

Deuteronomy 6:5 states: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

Most, if not all, of us read this today and think of emotion and warmth and tenderness. I would suggest, however, that while that can certainly be spoken truly about love at times and it's definitely a good thing when it can be, that's not what the text meant to Moses' initial audience and it should not all all mean that to us as we read it.

The idea of love, expressed in this manner in that time period, was one of identity, alliance, faithfulness, and covenant relationship. For instance, Malachi 1:2,3 states:

“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob's brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”

What God is telling Israel through this text is that He has chosen Israel, descendants of Jacob, as *His people* and has thus made a covenant with them that he will be faithful to.

Reference this text with Dueteronomy 7:7-10:

It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD *your God* is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face.

and Jeremiah 31:3

the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.

There are many other versus that support this interpretation of love in this way, but I think you get the point. In short, what I'm saying is this:

From the earliest writings, the Scriptures do not simply call on us to hold and maintain a place of warmth in our hearts that makes us "feel good inside" or any other such thing as that. Specifically, what this calls us to is a personal and complete identification with the Holy God of all creation and that *our every desire would be only His desire*, regardless of what may come. There are no other alternatives and nothing less is expected of us.

The fact that we're to hold this attitude with body, soul, and might, directly implies that it will not always feel very good or warm at all. After all, why would the Wisdom of the universe instruct us to gird ourselves for such a deep commitment if it's going to be easy and that thing that we're naturally inclined to do anyway?

No, there's nothing warm and fuzzy about it at all. It's hard and difficulty and everyone knew it when it was said.

Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:59:00 +0000

Spring and summer litter the ground, orange and brown, whispering crisply under my feet of bitter cold days breaking the dawn. The trees stand naked and thin, prepared now for a slumber that will bring quiet dreams of warm green tans and the soft caress of an azure sky.

Been Awhile

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:54:00 +0000

Haven't posted in forever. I hope I will again soon.

Black Hole Logic

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:36:00 +0000

God and black holes are alike in at least one way; you wouldn't know either existed unless someone who actually understood the math told you so. Have you ever seen either? So why is it so easy to unquestioningly believe in one and not the other? Well...I think it's because a black hole demands no response. - Shawn Freeman June 2010

Planning

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:43:00 +0000

When you plan, plan thoroughly. Don't forget that the jump includes the down.

-Shawn Freeman (April 2010)

Thinking Out Loud

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:16:00 +0000

Typically, the problem in coming up with something original and worth saying is that we often don't really have anything to say. Words are coming out, but there isn't any content. Always exercise patience, and when you actually have something to say, refine it to is purest form. And then there's Facebook...

- Shawn Freeman (April 2010)

Culture Trumps Science

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:48:00 +0000

In these times I find culture a far more honest and reliable course of study than science, particularly as it regards origins. At least we can admit that a cultural foundation can be understood in different ways and might actually be flawed.

Decisions, Decisions

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:05:00 +0000

Some bad decisions lead to sin, others simply to stupid. I promise you this though, they're ALL well intentioned. In this truth lies the most bitter irony of all.

- Shawn Freeman (March 2010)

Thinking about what "everyone" really means

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:51:00 +0000

Clearly "everyone" means all people. Of course, depending on the context, it could mean everyone in the room or everyone in the state or everyone in this church or that church.

When reading passages of scripture such as Hebrews 2:9, this is basically the question most commonly being explored; who is "everyone", often devolving into an Armenian or Calvinistic debat.

I started thinking about this today and what struck me is that what Jesus has done was done for all those under his authority, which is to say for ALL of mankind. EVERY LIVING CREATURE from yesterday, today and tomorrow. He did this because He is king of all things and everyone, whether they acknowledge that or not.

Really look at what Hebrews is saying in chapter 2:

Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. [emphasis mine]

Too often people will to quote that last part "...taste death for everyone", and discuss it ad nauseum, but completely ignore what the text is saying about His place and authority over them.

If you cling to the fact that He died for ALL men, then you must recognize that you are a member of His kingdom. Inherently, this means that what He said is undeniably true and not open to debate; no one will go to the Father except through Him.

The Bible is His authoritative Word to us, as is evidenced in His own testimony. It specifically means that not all roads lead to Jesus. Not all paths lead to the Father.

I would suggest that the question "what does everyone mean?" isn't the best question to pursue. Everyone is everyone.

The better question is "What does that mean to everyone?"

Gold Rush

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:28:00 +0000

A brother in Christ corrected me the other day, admonishing me with Proverbs 26:17 after I'd brought up my thoughts on a conversation he'd had with another brother.

My first reaction was prideful; "I know I'm right. I was admonishing him. How dare he turn it back to me. Man, this guy is full of himself."

Then I thought about it some more, a little later on; "Ok, maybe he had a point. I'm still sure I'm right somewhere though. He's not 100% right."

God hasn't let it drop, however. I caught myself doing almost EXACTLY the same thing with someone else just a day later!

It's extremly interesting to me how God paused the second conversation just as I got started. He cut the call for just a couple of minutes immediately after I nailed my coffin on the subject.

That pause made me realize what I was doing and how dead on the earlier rebuke was. Praise God!

The result was that I immediately repented, called back, confessed what I found myself doing and apologized.

I wish I could take it all back but I can't. I also called and apologized to my other brother in Christ (involved in the second incident I began discussing) for butting in where I had no business, even though he had no idea what I'd done. (I hope that's not too confusing to follow.)

I say all this by no means to pat myself on the back. For from it, I'm ashamed of myself.

I say all this because I've just been reading Colossians and got so jazzed that I had to post the understanding that I've gained from it all.

Check it out:
Paul says in Col 2:2,3 that it's our goal to attain ALL of the wealth in Christ.

Basically, there is an account with an unlimited balance. We have full access to it, when we learn and know and live according to the truth of the Gospel; that is, Christ.

The funds in that account allow us to live in complete freedom, totally debt free; Everything always paid in full.

While engaged in my sin of meddling in other peoples affairs, I voluntarily cut off my access to that account and immediately began accumulating debt, as it were. I'm not saying that my salvation was in jeopardy, mind you, just that I was becoming a slave to sin once more, after having been so graciously freed from it.

By admonishing me and helping to free me from my sinful behavior, dwelling in dishonest behavior as opposed to dwelling in the truth, my brother did the equavalent of handing me a HUGE sum of gold in which to pay off the debt that I'd been accumulating.

He wasn't giving me the back of his hand, he was handing me his wallet!

I'm even more humbled now.

I thank the Lord for brothers and sisters in Christ that are willing to stand bold in his Word and admonish on Love.

Wanna know what I think?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:28:00 +0000

Ever get asked that question? My answer or late has trended to "Actually, no. I don't."

I've noticed a particularly disingenuous trend of late in both the larger social culture of American life (read: the last election) as well as in my personal experience; people preambling a statement with "I believe..." or "I think..." or the WORST "I feel..."

Oy! I'm really beginning to dislike this in the extreme.

Something has been knawing at me for sometime now and I was finally put my finger while reflecting on a conversation that I had last weekend.

While I honestly do respect him, I had a conversation with a guy that I know doesn't like to read. He avoids it like the plague; Scripture, news, leisure, etc. There are simple one-syllable words that are unknown to him. And yet he proudly boasted to me that he's "opinionated".

What?!?!

How can ANYONE be opinionated about anything if they're ignorant? What on earth do you base your opinions on?!?! Audio-visual media? Are you serious? Do you have ANY clue how deeply flawed the current AV media is?! How deeply it skews a single subjective opinion?

As I've reflected on this I've begun thinking about how many conversations I've been involved in, even recently, where the person prefaced any statement they made with "I feel...", "I think..." or "I believe..."

They add the disclaimer, make their statement AND THEN NEVER OFFER PROOF OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!"

Wow! Think about that.

Think about what they're really saying. It's VERY personal: "If you disagree, then you must be against me because my word is clearly the authority here." "What? I'm the bad guy? You don't like me?"

A fundamental lesson in writing, at the elementary school level, is that all statements need to be backed up with supporting evidence. You HAVE to backup any statement that you make with either a convincing argument or supporting facts. Anything short of that is suspect in the extreme. Absolutely useless and uttered only be a fool.

There is no substitute for reading. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Median Living

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:10:00 +0000

I heard about something called "Median Living", in which you commit to living on the national median income (about$46k) and give the rest to the Lord.

In theory, I find it very exciting. In practice, I pray that God can give me wisdom and will.

Involuntary fasting?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:27:00 +0000

Is there such a thing as an involuntary fast?

If God removes our prosperity (or at simply allows us to remove it from ourselves through bad habits/behavior) in order to humble us and turn our hearts, is that a fast too or something else? (rf. IS 58)

Hidden Away

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:33:00 +0000

Mary hid in her heart the wonderful things told her about her child.

I'll bet she used that in tough times to get her through and continue in faith.

What an example!

Out with the old, in with the...no, wait, hold off on that!

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:36:00 +0000

Sometimes I can become alarmingly astounded by my hubris; at its sheer depth; at its utter blindness.

I realize, of course, that if you know me, I've shocked you to the core. "Hubris!?!? You?!? Fie on't, good sir, fie!"

Having grown up in the brilliant white heat of Duran Duran, Def Leppard, Motely Crue, AC/DC, Survivor, Loverboy, Van Halen, White Snake, Queensryche, et al. under the warming but fading comfort of Sabbath, Zeppelin, Styx, Skynyrd, Bread, Clapton, Hendrix, Dylan, Joplin, The Dead, et al.

I'd like to think that I'm just the epitome of clever and hip;

All children, let alone my own, would do well to humbly and happily 'sup at my feet as I regal them with stories of my rock-bred youth and seek to edify them on the oh so many inerrant reasons that the "music" of their interest is truly not where it's at, nor even halfway to intelligence. What a waste they've involved themselves in.

Can I get an amen?

Saturday evening I spent some time with "my grandfather and his friends". I had the opportunity to relax downstairs in my garage with a really good cigar (an Arturo Fuente Hemingway, if you must know), my favorite beverage and Pandora Radio (an internet radio thingy. Very cool.)

As I sat relaxing and staring into the starry sky, enjoying the smoke and silk, I sat back and proceeded to get an unexpected education.

I tuned Pandora to the Buddy Rich "station", which is to say I had a Pandora's box of Buddy Rich and like-minded music opened up to me. From there, I was forced to flip over to the Count Basie "station".

I have only one word available to articulate my conclusion: WOW!

Man, could those guys compose and play. They were doing things that I'd never had the pleasure to hear before; and that long before my parents had even been born. Good grief.

All of that to give this simple thought: It seems to me that the natural tendency of a man is to consider himself the sum and pinnacle of all good that came before him. That all had been designed and implemented soley for his benefit, so that he could be assured of the perfect pleasures of life and therefore go boldly into the world performing perfect works for the good benefit of God and man. All that follows in history is a either a positive result of his life or a lesson not learned.

HA!

It's never about us

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:05:00 +0000

Forgive me, I'm still stuck on Cornelius. The more I meditate on his story the deeper the well becomes.

Six months after I came to a saving knowledge of Christ, my wife got saved. Both of my daughters (12 & 18) each have a personal and productive relationship with our savior. Beyond these three, the most important three individuals in my life apart from Christ, mind you, there are no others that I could say with any certainty who were led to Christ through me by the Holy Spirit.

For the longest time, this bothered me. I lost sleep at times wondering why I was so unproductive for my King; what was wrong with me?

Leading others to Christ was my sole metric for determining my value before the One I served. If I wasn't doing that effectively then I must be a terrible Christian. I've grown up a lot since then and have come to know better. Sadly, there are many many churches around that continue to hold to this standard.

Understand please, I recognize that evangelism is important, I'm not denying that in the least. We're commanded to make disciples. I'm simply saying it's not our sole metric nor is it a metric that we should hold in a higher place than any other.

Reading Cornelius' story is yet another reminder that Christ hasn't the slightest need for me or anyone else in order to bring men to Him. It also humbles me in regards to the above mentioned because I know now that my previous mind set was all about me and what I could do and had very little to do with Christ.

Peter, as I'm sure we can all agree, was a great man. Spiritually blessed in amazing ways and an incredibly successful servant of Christ. Nonetheless, he was completely unnecessary in regards to the salvation of Cornelius, Cornelius' entire family or Cornelius' closest friends. Christ clearly called Cornelius to Himself long before Peter ever arrived on scene. As a matter of fact, as I've mentioned previously, Peter never even finished what he was saying.

The whole situation gives every indication of having been used by Christ for His glory!

The hero of the story is Christ, not Cornelius; not Peter. Cornelius did nothing beyond respond to Christ's call, which was required and irresistible. Peter did nothing but learn a valuable lesson and involuntarily gain further insight in the the mysteries of salvation.

In this, I believe, lies the primary metric to apply in all situations: has Christ glorified himself in this; or that; or me?

Cornelius, the "Rudy" of Scripture

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 03:17:00 +0000

I just finished watching a the movie Rudy, after having read Acts 10 earlier today. I gotta say, I'm a little excited from it and praising God that I enjoyed them both in the same day so that I could enjoy the connection.

Rudy, if you're not familiar with the movie, is based on the real life story of Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger who desperately wanted to play football for Notre Dame all of his life. The catch, however, was that Rudy was a below average student from a working class family. Not only that, but he was pretty small in both height and weight, especially so relative to a college football player, and never possessed any athletic talent or prowess. He just played hard.

Late into the movie Rudy admits that he knows that he simply wasn't born a football player, whatever the desires of his heart. This doesn't matter to him though. He never quits, he never stops doing everything that he can to participate as a member of the team.

Rudy was given the heart of a Notre Dame football player, if not the body and he eventually resigned himself to the implications of that situation while holding onto hope for something better despite everything. The end result was that Rudy improved the game of the entire team and through the experience gained the opportunity to always be counted as a Notre Dame football player. Something that only a relatively small number of people can enjoy.

Long before Rudy, however, there was Cornelius. Cornelius wasn't working-class, of course, but he was physically poor in that he was a gentile and not a Jew. Nonetheless, he continued doing all that he could to honor and glorify the God of Israel despite the unfortunate incongruity between his birth and heart.

His prayers where a sweet incense before the Lord when most of Israel's were a foul stench. God so loved Cornelius that he assigned to him the honor of educating Peter, thereby dramatically improving the "game" of the whole Church! Not only that, but Cornelius' relatives and close friends we all brought into the kingdom.

Now if there's any mistake about the purpose God had for Cornelius or that perhaps Cornelius' ultimate salvation was the point of the whole exercise, then let me point you to an important fact: Peter never finished delivering the Good News of the Gospel what before the Holy Spirit of God descended on the Gentiles there.

Their hearts had already been prepared for Christ long before Peter showed up. It was Peter's heart that needed work. It wasn't the hearing of the Gospel from Peter that was necessary, but rather, it was the pouring out of the Spirit upon Gentiles that Peter needed to see.

As a bit of a separate thought, I find it so encouraging that God preserved the Roman Centurion Cornelius and all the other gentiles present until that day. I don't' know what God had for them after that moment, but I know it's a hard fact that no army, no nation, no king, no anything had the power to kill Cornelius or any of his relatives and close friends before that day. Think about that for a moment to. The implications, at least to me, are huge.

End of Days...?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The more that I read and talk with Godly men the more I'm realize how little I understand, particularly as it regards eschatology.

I'm currently reading through the book of Acts again and have gotten to chapter 8. I've thought about many things during this course of reading that I'm still chewing on, but as a side issue, the idea that the church, composed of jew and gentile believers, IS now the full and total composition of Israel is really tugging away at my mind.

I've always been of the opinion that there is still a future purpose and plan for physical Israel. As a matter of fact, I blogged about it in some detail over several fairly long posts, starting here. I'm not convinced entirely away from my opinion of physical Israel but I am certainly thinking that it needs to change in some significant way.

A NOTE OF CAUTION:

Just for the sake of clarity, because a conversation like this can often generate undeserved heat, let me say that eschatology is nothing more than a subject that I personally find terribly interesting. I fully acknowledge that God's glory is revealed in his entire plan; from the beginning of days to their end. I also acknowledge that His Word discusses the end of days in various places of both the Old and New Testament. It is a fit topic for conversation. I don't accept, however, that this is something to begin a new church over or to create a gap between brothers. Our Lord was clear about what our attitudes should be about this; We're to be out preaching the Gospel, not focused and quibling about what and when the last days will come.

Think about it

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Shouldn't Isn't

I was watching the movie Australia on the plane the other day (terrible movie, BTW) and an exchange between two main characters got me thinking. At one point Hugh Jackman says something like "that's how it is", Nichole Kidman responds, "That shouldn't be" and Jackman's reply is simple and great (especially given the total lack of original thought or dialog elsewhere in the movie) "That's how it is."

How often to we live and operate in the should/shouldn't rather than the is/isn't?

For instance, if we find ourselves in a conversation that we know we shouldn't be engaged in do we stop or simply say (either outloud or to ourselves) "I really shouldn't say this, but..."

When counseling or encouraging, do we base what we say on the reality of the situation or do we work from a position of what should or shouldn't be?

MIA

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:23:00 +0000

I've been silent lately, though not thoughtless. Thinking about stuff is one thing, composing it into thoughtful commentary on a regular basis...? Well, that's something completely different. That requires work and practice, which is exactly why I wanted to do this blog. This is a skill I'd VERY much like to develop.

Given my lack of postings lately, you probably get the idea of how much work I have ahead of me.

Greater success through silent effort

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:22:00 +0000

I don't know about anyone else (though I've a pretty good idea), but my visceral reaction to an injustice witnessed or against me is to lash out and speak up against the source.

Not a good I idea, perhaps. Especially considering that it shifts my focus so negatively.

The text that I read today, Amos 5:10-15, is clearly directed to Israel, but is nevertheless an important lesson for everyone. As a matter of fact, I might argue that the Archangel Michael had this perspective rooted in his dealings with Satan.

Reading only through to Amos 5:13, one might conclude that we should simply be silent. I would urge reading through to verse 15, however. "Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the gate." These are 3 separate commands, as I read it, and not progressive causal relationships; one leading to the other.

In other words, let's simply move forward in service to the Lord without complaint, grief, or self-righteousness.

No?

Getting the heart to the matter

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:58:00 +0000

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4)

After 20 years as a husband and 18 as a dad, I still find it so hard to find balance in leading my family and being at peace with them.

I constantly need to evaluate my motives, make sure that we're not disobedient to the Word of God and then deliver my thoughts in a way in which they'll understand. (Being an average person, at best, with all of my own hang-ups and faults just makes it all the more difficult)

I find myself thinking lately about how to avoid a derective that I know won't be obeyed. After careful prayer and thought, it's critical that I lead my family to my desire with love and patience rather than simply demanding it be followed.

The Lord's example is incredibly heavy on my heart in that he desires the heart of His people rather than their blind obedience to the law.

OOF

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:43:00 +0000

I'm hitting the road and headin to camp with a great friend for the next three days. Fishin' & relaxin'.

I'll be bringing my notebook with me, however, and will publish my thoughts over the weekend (Lord willing) when I return on Monday.

Have a great weekend! (I plan to.)

Politics and the English Language

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:56:00 +0000

Karl Rove, in regard to the current political climate, wrote and quoted the following in a recent op-ed piece:

"In his 1946 essay 'Politics and the English Language,' George Orwell wrote about words used in a 'consciously dishonest way.' 'That is,' Orwell wrote, 'the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.' "

I really like that. I liked it so much, in fact, that I was immediately prompted to look through the Proverbs for wisdom regarding words and speech. In there I found this (among many other things, of course):

"The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool." (Pro 10:18)

A brief research on Orwell produces this additional information:

To give an example of what he is describing, Orwell "translates" Ecclesiastes 9:11,

“I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

into "modern English of the worst sort,"

“Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

The headmaster's wife at St Cyprian's School, Mrs. Cicely Vaughan Wilkes (nicknamed "Flip"), taught Orwell English and used the same method to illustrate good writing to her pupils. She would use simple passages from the King James Bible and then "translate" them into poor English to show the clarity and brilliance of the original. Walter John Christie, who followed Orwell to Eton wrote that she preached the virtues of "simplicity, honesty, and avoidance of verbiage" and pointed out that the qualities Flip most prized were later to be seen in Orwell’s writing.

And what thought have I walked away with? Good question. I'm walking into my long weekend thinking about showing love versus hatred in my speech and manner.

Here's the summary of my thought: The simplicity of the Word of God is Love exemplified. Anything that is done to His Word that adds complexity is to distance yourself, and perhaps your audience, that much away from the desirability and effectiveness of that Love.

I'm not suggesting a hard fast rule, mind you. Only that perhaps there's a more significant correlation between the Word of God and how we present it than we often pay attention to.