Anglo-Bapti-Catholic?

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs

2011-10-11T14:02:00.002-05:00

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman,
author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy, November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence, then you are a healthy, productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep, and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers -- athletes, business people and parents -- from sheep to sheepdogs, and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep, and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11, almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth.

"HERO" - Skillet

2010-06-06T06:22:00.001-05:00

How and When Did You "Get Saved?" -- R.C. Sproul, Jr.

2010-02-03T05:49:00.002-06:00

A note from the moderator: Although there are a couple of obvious differences between my experience and this article, I found it to be quite close to my own thoughts on the matter. Being raised as a Southern Baptist, I was not baptised as an infant; my parents did not stand in front of the congregation and vow to see to my Christian education. And while I share with Rev. Sproul the typical church-camp conversion experience, the other instances mentioned by him are his alone, and mine bear only slight similarities. Further, before anyone mentions, I do recall a scandal involving this brother in Christ; however, I would hope that the reader would remember that none are perfect (least of all myself) and consider the words written. I hope you enjoy, and I hope, also, that Rev. Sproul does not object to my borrowing his material. -- js

How/when did you "get saved?" Or when did God sovereignly grant you the faith to repent and believe?

I don’t know. I certainly had any number of conversion experiences in my life, the latest of which took place when I was in high school. The first I remember was while saying prayers before bed with my mother when I was still in grade school. Another was a typical experience at church camp. The last I was alone, listening to Bob Dylan’s record “Saved” when I asked God to cover my sins in the blood of the Lamb. I have been tempted over the years, however, when asked to give my testimony, to say something like this, “I was baptized as a child, and have been improving on that baptism, more or less, ever since.” I do not, of course, believe that God necessarily gave me the gift of saving faith at the time of my baptism. The Westminster Confession affirms wisely that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time wherein it is administered (chapter 28, section six) and I concur with it. I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration.
I am dubious about naming a time and a place despite these conversion experiences for a number of reasons. First, I never remember a time when I did not at least believe that God exists, that Jesus is His Son, and the Bible is His Word. My parents, as they vowed to do at my baptism, taught me the Christian faith from birth. They prayed with and for me. That, of course, doesn’t make a person saved. The devil, after all, believes all these things. Second, there were so many conversion experiences, how would I know which, if any, were the real deal? Third, I cannot judge which experience was real either on the basis of my sanctification. That is, I have sinned grievously even after my last conversion experience. I cannot point to that day and suggest, “Well, the Holy Spirit must have indwelt me then because from that point forward my sins were nice, respectable ones.”
It is possible that God gave me new life within the womb, and over time I came into a deeper understanding of the faith He gave me. It is possible God gave me life during one of those conversion experiences. It is even possible that He gave me new life more recently than that. The issue isn’t, of course, when I believe, but that I believe. The drama of a “good testimony,” wherein we paint lurid pictures of our lives before Christ, and tranquil pictures of our lives after Christ is, in my judgment, fundamentally off. I never was a drug addict, and I never lived on the street. I never joined a witch’s coven, and I never played in a heavy metal band. I was, however, at some point in my existence, a rebel against the true and living God, who would have killed Him if I could. After my conversion, however, no one would use my life as a defense of the Wesleyan doctrine of perfectionism. But, because by His grace I have been born again, I repent of my sins, and He forgives. Because I have been born again, though I disobey, I disobey as His son. Because I have been born again, even though I disobey, I am indeed growing in grace, becoming more like Jesus every day.
God blessed me with parents who not only love me, but love Him. I grew up under the ministry of faithful men profoundly committed to preaching the Word of God. I remained, even in the midst of my foulest sins, a son of my mother the church. When I got saved I cannot answer. How I got saved is simple- by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, giving me a heart of flesh so that I might cling to His cross, crying out, “Lord, be merciful to me- a sinner.”

Oh, that we all had the courage to praise God with such openness and conviction in our daily lives...

2009-10-08T01:51:00.006-05:00

I don't know anything about the video, but I have always liked the song and thought I would share.

On Salvation, Part III

2009-10-03T05:28:00.004-05:00

A recent article on the weblog Creedal Christian by Fr. Bryan Owen, called "Are You Saved?", touched on the issue of salvation from the perspective of an Orthodox Christian, as opposed to that of a neo-Protestant. In his article, Fr. Bryan mentions the consternation felt by many Episcopalians in addressing this all-important question, and I would venture to say that they are not alone in being unsure of how to respond. I would imagine that a majority of catholic Christians have the same problem in meeting such a query with an answer that expresses their beliefs with clarity and love for the asker. For while such a question is usually asked with the intent to cast doubt on the salvation of one who cannot claim a certain date and time, it is usually also done with the intent to bring one to that certain date and time, and is therefore done out of love and charity, however misinformed or misguided.

Fr. Bryan speaks of the "individualism and neo-gnosticism" which seems to pervade modern protestant theology, and I must say that I quite agree with him. Having been reared in a Southern Baptist church myself, I am well aware of this problem in the "ultra-Protestant, Southern Bible-belt." However, while there are several Baptist doctrines with which I have issues, I find myself wondering if they didn't get a few things right. For that matter, is it not possible that, over the centuries, just as the Protestant view has swung as far as possible from the "catholic," the catholic view has attempted to remain catholic by opposing the Protestant to such an extent that something might have been unintentionally lost?

The Orthodox perspective given by Fr. Bryan in his article and the accompanying video is basically summed up by the following:

*I was originally saved over 2,000 years ago...
*I am being saved, daily...
*I will, Lord have mercy, be saved at the great and final judgment.

A reader left a comment which is worthy of noting, and I hope that he does not mind my reproducing it here:

"If salvation is in large part God's work for the world, and the reason for the Incarnation (Jn 3:16), and if God never ceases working (Jn 5:17) and "was, and is, and is to come" (Rev 4:8) then it is entirely fitting that we should experience salvation in this threefold symmetry...."

I want to be unambiguous is stating that I do not disagree with the above summary; however, I wonder if it is complete.

While there are many instances where the Holy Scriptures speak of the ongoing process of salvation, there are also a number of verses in those same Scriptures that speak of that specific moment in time when we "call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21)" and are saved. Rom 10:9,10 says, "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." S. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesians, said, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13,14)" While none of these verses diminish the truth of the ongoing process of salvation, they speak to that definite time of belief to which the Protestant doctrine refers.

While I must believe that salvation is a process that was accomplished on the cross, is being accomplished in the present, and will be accomplished "at the great and final judgment," I must also believe, from the same source, that there must be a "once-for-all change-of-state in the life of an individual," to borrow from another comment, that marks the beginning of that individual's journey of faith. The fact that one is correct does not necessarily mean that the other is not. I want to reiterate a portion of my own comment to Fr. Bryan's article:

"This disparity between the "catholic" and "evangelical" (to coin the common usages) interpretations has often given me trouble in my own journey. I can't help thinking that the answer lies somewhere in the middle [the via media between the catholic and Protestant], being not an either/or proposition, but one of both/and. The two are not mutually exclusive ideas, but necessarily dependent."

I wonder if a more fitting summary of the process of salvation wouldn't be something like the following:

*The price for my salvation was paid over 2,000 years ago...
*I was saved when I believed...
*I am being saved, daily...
*I will, Lord have mercy, be saved at the great and final judgment.

I welcome your comments.
Pax vobiscum,
Jerry

from the pen of Charles Spurgeon...

2009-09-05T02:38:00.001-05:00

“Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?” - Job_38:16

Some things in nature must remain a mystery to the most intelligent and enterprising investigators. Human knowledge has bounds beyond which it cannot pass. Universal knowledge is for God alone. If this be so in the things which are seen and temporal, I may rest assured that it is even more so in matters spiritual and eternal. Why, then, have I been torturing my brain with speculations as to destiny and will, fixed fate, and human responsibility? These deep and dark truths I am no more able to comprehend than to find out the depth which coucheth beneath, from which old ocean draws her watery stores. Why am I so curious to know the reason of my Lord’s providences, the motive of his actions, the design of his visitations? Shall I ever be able to clasp the sun in my fist, and hold the universe in my palm? yet these are as a drop of a bucket compared with the Lord my God. Let me not strive to understand the infinite, but spend my strength in love. What I cannot gain by intellect I can possess by affection, and let that suffice me. I cannot penetrate the heart of the sea, but I can enjoy the healthful breezes which sweep over its bosom, and I can sail over its blue waves with propitious winds. If I could enter the springs of the sea, the feat would serve no useful purpose either to myself or to others, it would not save the sinking bark, or give back the drowned mariner to his weeping wife and children; neither would my solving deep mysteries avail me a single whit, for the least love to God, and the simplest act of obedience to him, are better than the profoundest knowledge. My Lord, I leave the infinite to thee, and pray thee to put far from me such a love for the tree of knowledge as might keep me from the tree of life.

Address of His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah (OCA) to Inaugural Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America

2009-06-29T03:24:00.002-05:00

The Necklace

2008-12-10T05:05:00.002-06:00

The cheerful little girl with bouncy golden curls was almost five. Waiting with her mother at the checkout stand, she saw them, a circle of glistening white pearls in a pink foil box.

'Oh mommy please, Mommy. Can I have them? Please, Mommy, please?'

Quickly the mother checked the back of the little foil box and then looked back into the pleading blue eyes of her little girl's upturned face.

'A dollar ninety-five. That's almost $2.00. If you really want them, I'll think of some extra chores for you and in no time you can save enough money to buy them for yourself. Your birthday's only a week away and you might get another crisp dollar bill from Grandma.'

As soon as Jenny got home, she emptied her penny bank and counted out 17 pennies. After dinner, she did more than her share of chores and she went to the neighbor and asked Mrs. McJames if she could pick dandelions for ten cents. On her birthday, Grandma did give her another new dollar bill and at last she had enough money to buy the necklace.

Jenny loved her pearls. They made her feel dressed up and grown up. She wore them everywhere, Sunday school, kindergarten, even to bed. The only time she took them off was when she went swimming or had a bubble bath . Mother said if they got wet, they might turn her neck green.

Jenny had a very loving daddy and every night when she was ready for bed, he would stop whatever he was doing and come upstairs to read her a story. One night as he finished the story, he asked Jenny, 'Do you love me?'

'Oh yes, daddy. You know that I love you.'

'Then give me your pearls.'

'Oh, daddy, not my pearls. But you can have Princess, the white horse from my collection, the one with the pink tail. Remember, daddy? The one you gave me. She's my very favorite.'

'That's okay, Honey, daddy loves you. Good night.' And he brushed her cheek with a kiss.

About a week later, after the story time, Jenny's daddy asked again, 'Do you love me?'

'Daddy, you know I love you.'

'Then give me your pearls..'

'Oh Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have my baby doll . The brand new one I got for my birthday. She is beautiful and you can have the yellow blanket that matches her sleeper.'

'That's okay. Sleep well... God bless you, little one. Daddy loves you.'

And as always, he brushed her cheek with a gentle kiss.

A few nights later when her daddy came in, Jenny was sitting on her bed with her legs crossed Indian style... As he came close, he noticed her chin was trembling and one silent tear rolled down her cheek.

'What is it, Jenny? What's the matter?'

Jenny didn't say anything but lifted her little hand up to her daddy... And when she opened it, there was her little pearl necklace . With a little quiver, she finally said, 'Here, daddy; this is for you.'

With tears gathering in his own eyes, Jenny's daddy reached out with one hand to take the dime store necklace, and with the other hand he reached into his pocket and pulled out a blue velvet case with a strand of genuine pearls and gave them to Jenny.

He had them all the time. He was just waiting for her to give up the dime-store stuff so he could give her the genuine treasure. So it is, with our Heavenly Father. He is waiting for us to give up the cheap things in our lives so that he can give us beautiful treasures.

Received in an email from a dear friend and sister in Christ

Think of Prayer as Reminding God

2008-09-12T01:33:00.002-05:00

From the weblog of Rev. Dr. Joe McKeever, Director of Missions for the Baptist Assoc. of Greater New Orleans

In high school, J. L. Rice and I were the two first boys to ever take shorthand. We took it for two full years, thinking we would need it in college. We didn't, but for me, it was a wise choice since it paid my way through school and supported my family the first two years of marriage. (I worked as a secretary for a railroad company during college and for a cast iron pipe company for two years afterward.)

In Old Testament days, in the courts of kings like David and Solomon, among the officials serving the rulers was one called a "recorder." The Hebrew word is MAZKIR. It's a fascinating word.

Bear in mind that the consonants in Hebrew carry the freight. The ZKR--pronounced zah-kar--is the word for "remember." You will recall what a popular theme that was for prophets who brought sermons to God's people. "Remember, O Israel," they would begin. A friend of mine did his doctoral thesis on the use of "zakar" in the Old Testament. He had plenty of material to work with.

The word MZKR or MAZKIR adds a new dimension to "remember," and makes it "to cause to remember." That is, to remind.

A MAZKIR or court recorder was a person with an interesting assignment: he took notes (shorthand?) on what the king did in negotiations with other rulers or while issuing verdicts in court and he kept that information on file. The next time the king met with the other rulers or held court again, he called in his "mazkir" and asked him to bring him up to date, to remind him of what they did the last time. Kings need people to help them remember.

Okay, still with me here? This is where it gets good.

Isaiah, chapter 62, verses 6 and 7. "I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who remind the Lord, take no rest for yourselves and give him no rest until He makes Jerusalem the praise of the earth."

"You who remind the Lord" is MAZKIR.

Think of prayer as your serving as the Lord's court recorder. You take notes on what He has done and what He has promised, then you bring Him up to date on it when you enter His presence with a need or intercession.

I cannot tell how many times over the years I have heard unthinking preachers lambast their colleagues for standing in the pulpit and praying prayers like this: "O Lord, thou who created the earth...who commanded the light to shine in darkness...who did this and did that."

"He knows who He is and what He has done!" the critical preacher would say. "Get to the point. What's on your mind! Quit beating around the bush in your prayer."

I confess I've had some of those same thoughts when listening to others pray.

The problem with that criticism is that it is ignorant of the many prayers throughout scripture where God's people prayed in just this way, reminding the Lord of...

--who He is --what He has done --what He promised --who we are --what we need

Case in point. Acts 4. Peter and John were arrested for preaching Jesus and threatened with severe retaliation if they continued.

"After they were released, they went to their own fellowship"--that is, they pulled the church members together--"and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them." (Acts 4:23)

Someone must have said, "Well! We'd better tell the Lord about this!" and they did.

"They raised their voices to God unanimously and said, 'Master, you are the one who made the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and everything in them.'"

See what they're doing? Reminding God of who He is and what He has done. As if He didn't know!

They continued, "You said through the Holy Spirit by the mouth of our father David your servant, 'Why did the heathen rage and the people plot futile things? The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers assembled together against the Lord and against His Christ.'" (v.24-26)(That quotation is from Psalm 2.)

Now what are they doing? Reminding the Lord of what He has said.

Continuing, "For in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, assembled together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you appointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (v.27-28)

Reminding the Lord of their situation.

"And now, Lord...."

Finally, they come to the point. But like a good attorney in the courtroom, they lay the groundwork for the point to which everything has been leading up.

"And now, Lord, behold their threats, and grant that your servants may speak your word with complete boldness, while you stretch forth your hand for healing, signs, and wonders to be performed through the name of your hold servant Jesus."

Reminding the Lord of what they needed.

Was that necessary?

In the midst of urging us to pray, Jesus said, "Your Heavenly Father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matthew 6:8)

He knows, but ask Him anyway. Tell Him like He didn't know.

Why is this necessary? Because Jesus said this is how we are to pray.

The postscript to that Jerusalem prayer meeting is this word: "When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak God's message with boldness." (4:31)

There are as many ways to pray as God has children.

"Reminding God" is one many of us have left unused. Give it a try.

Faith and Works

2008-09-09T01:45:00.002-05:00

Borrowed from the Rev. Canon Chandler Jones at Philorthodox

The Epistle of Saint James serves as a vital counterpoint and juxtaposed interpretative text for the theology of Romans and I think looking at it in greater detail would be extremely beneficial. In biblical studies polemics, especially by protestants, Saint Paul and Saint James are often opposed to one another as though they represented contradictory theological and moral teachings, but nothing could be further from the truth. They beautifully support and complement each other by clarifying each other's positions and balancing each other's perspectives. As Saint Paul, of course, says we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law, Saint James says faith without works is dead. They are both correct, which Saint Paul summarises in Galatians 5.6, when he states that Christians are justified by faith working in love.

Justifying faith for Saint Paul is living faith, faith in action, faith animated and enlivened by supernatural charity, the bond of peace and of all virtues, the source of divine life and of our cooperation with saving grace.

The question is often raised as to why Saint Paul and Saint James seem to disagree on the role of faith and works, and I always like to respond by saying that they do not disagree on the necessity of faith, but that they define works differently.

For Saint Paul, 'works of the law,' ergon nomou, involve the totality of the Old Testament system of obedience to the laws and commandments of the Mosaic Covenant, including observance of the ritual, ceremonial, sacramental and dietary laws of the Mosaic revelation. Saint Paul simply states that we are justified, made righteous before God through Christ, not on the basis of observance of the total religious system of the Old Testament, but on the observance and obedience of the new Law of Christ, the 'law' of the New Testament, the Law of Love, which is established and fulfilled in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ Himself and communicated to us by the Holy Ghost. Faith in Jesus, not Old Testament ceremonial and legal practice, places us into Christ's perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law and thus makes us objectively righteous before God, vindicated and transformed as we are by virtue of our union with our Head, the Lord Jesus. And the formal and initial cause of our justification in Christ is Baptism, wherein we are born again and sacramentally conformed to Christ in His Death and Resurrection, given the grace of the Holy Spirit that we may 'walk in newness of life'.

For Saint James, 'works' are not the rites and observances of the Old Testament, which do not in themselves justify, but the Theological Virtues, faith, hope and love (I Corinthians 13). the Cardinal Virtues, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, the Corporal Works of Mercy, feeding the hungry, refreshing the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, visiting the sick, visiting the imprisoned, burying the dead (Saint Matthew 25), the Spiritual Works of Mercy, converting sinners, instructing the ignorant, counselling the doubtful, comforting the sorrowful, bearing wrongs patiently, forgiving offences, praying for the living and dead - without which faith does not and cannot live and bear fruit in the soul. There can be no justifying or saving faith that does not act as God commands, and that requires human free-will and correspondence with grace.

Saint Paul condemns works-righteousness, the attempt to save oneself by trust and reliance in the performance of the outward form of Old Testament prescriptions and statutes; Saint James condemns solafidanism, the false and misguided trust in faith alone apart from living one's faith in Christ as the means of one's justification before God. Neither Apostle supports a subjective trust or faith in subjective faith as a kind of resting on one's laurels or 'armchair Christianity.' Saint Paul also rejects solafidanism as Saint James repudiates the idea that the Old Testament system has any power to save.

The term sola fide, 'faith alone', is interestingly found in only one place in the New Testament, in Saint James 2.24, 'ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.'

Related reading on Anglo-Bapti-Catholic: On Salvation; On Salvation, Part II

Prayer

2008-08-26T22:23:00.001-05:00

I have found myself convicted by the Holy Spirit, through the words of my friend at A Pilgrim on the Canterbury Trail, of my deficiency in regards to prayer and study of the Holy Scriptures. I, too, have called myself a Christian for quite a few years, since sometime in the early eighties, and still I manage to go days without study and quiet reflection or time in communion with my Lord. I know that I am not alone, and that there are those who have overcome it with the Lord’s help. I take heart in knowing these things, but at the same time it saddens me that our adversary is so successful in his labors.

Enter the words of encouragement from friends. I have had the pleasure of corresponding through email with a fine man, a deacon in Christ’s church whom, though we have never met face-to-face, I have come to appreciate for his wisdom and charity. I wrote to him a couple of weeks ago in total exasperation and received from him words so simple I was almost ashamed to have not thought of them myself. He said, and I was quite glad to listen, that prayer is neither limited to sitting alone in a quiet room and speaking with intent to God, nor kneeling behind a pew in the local parish church. We pray, whether we know it or not, throughout the day. God hears our thoughts…He knows our hearts.

When we sing that favorite hymn that we can’t seem to get out of our heads, He hears it and knows that we worship Him. When we help someone in need, we honor Him, and He is pleased. When we cry out in frustration, He hears us and knows that we really cry out to Him. When we look around and wonder at all that He has made, He knows that we recognize Him as Lord. When that sudden revelation comes to us while driving, it is He who gives it to us. We pray throughout the day, and He hears and answers us.

This is not to say that quiet reflection and prayer are not needed. If we look at the example of our Lord, we find that He often went off by himself to pray. Even He, the Son of the Living God, recognized the need for one-on-one communion with the Father. It is during these times that He received peace and strength for the path laid before Him. And so it is with us. We need that time of solitude, that peaceful communion with the Father who strengthens us.

Everyday Ethics Round Table Discussion

2008-08-05T03:22:00.002-05:00

While browsing Virtue Online, the weblog of David Virtue, I found and listened to a round table discussion on BBC Radio’s “Everyday Ethics.” The point was made by a gay rights activist that “the science is overwhelming that sexual orientation is down to our genetic inheritance.” Surprisingly, a TEC bishop, the Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen of Maine, made the counter-point that in cases of identical twins, who share 100% of their genetic make-up, one twin may be homosexual while the other is not. This brings us to Mr. Virtue’s comment that there is no such thing as “sexual orientation”, but rather there are sexual preferences and behaviors, which was the catalyst for the mentioned exchange. +Knudsen continued her refutation with the assertion that we are all born fallen and with various “conditions and orientations” that we don’t like and wish we could be without.

Another question posed to the group was that of homophobia in the church. As I have stated before, while there may be some homophobia/hatred of homosexuals driving the current debate, it is not the majority "conservative" position. As stated by Mr. Virtue, the disagreement over homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessings has really nothing to do with fear of and hatred for homosexual people, but with the impropriety and sinfulness of homosexual behavior. Scriptural texts are clear in their designation of homosexuality as sin, just as they are with any other form of sexual sin (fornication, sin outside of the bonds of Holy Matrimony). I am not by any means saying that I am less sinful than an actively homosexual person. My sins are neither more nor less than his/hers. My sins may be different, but I need God’s grace just as much. Therefore, I have no fear or hatred for my brother or sister sinners. I welcome them to sit next to me in the pew, to share my prayer book and hymnal, to join me in worship, to seek the same forgiveness and transformation I seek. However, knowing the biblical position on homosexual behavior as sin, it is my humble opinion that one who openly flaunts his sin, refuses to confess that it is sin when confronted with God’s Word written, is unqualified to be ordained to Holy office in Christ’s church. I have the same answer for the question of gay rights and the role of homosexuals in the church. They have the same rights as everyone else. They have the right to participate just like everyone else. They have the right to seek grace and forgiveness for their sins. They have the right to accept God’s gift of salvation through transforming grace. They do not have the right, just as I do not have the right (the call comes from God to ordination to Holy Orders in Christ’s church) to be ordained. And this has nothing to do with the person, but with that person’s choices and behavior.

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” -- 1 Timothy 3:1-2 (emphasis added)

Transformation

2008-05-25T01:46:00.001-05:00

One of the most important points of the Christian faith, lately disregarded as out-dated by many theologians of the more liberal persuasion, is the belief in the transforming power of Christ Jesus, or more specifically, that we are transformed from the old sinner into the new child of God. When saving grace is bestowed and the new Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who and what we were in the world becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus. Does this mean that we will never again sin? Does this great, miraculous transformation make us perfect beings? Certainly not, but it does mean that our outlook changes. It means that we view our sin differently. It means that, while we may not necessarily commit any less sin, we know that it is in fact sin. It means that we abhor our sins and that we trust in the power of the love and sacrifice of our God and His Son to save us and heal us from them. It means that, since we do recognize our wrongdoings for what they are, we will strive to do better. Paraphrasing St. Paul the Apostle, “I do the things I do not want to do, and I do not do the things I want to do.” St. Paul’s statement illustrates the human condition where sin is concerned, as well as his change of heart.

Modern, liberal Christianity teaches that God “loves and accepts us as we are….” While this is true, as far as it goes, it is but one side of the coin. God does love us and accept us just exactly as we are, sin and all. The Holy Scripture teaches us that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. This is a testimony to His great love for humanity. However, what is dismissed by liberal theology as closed-mindedness and bigotry, the belief in the transformation of salvation, is as great a testimony as the former to the awesome love of God for His people. Our Lord taught us that God is the Father of His people. He taught us that we can call upon God as “abbah,” which is a familiar term for father. The ideal relationship between earthly fathers and sons is modeled on the relationship between God the Father and His Son. Our earthly fathers accept us as we are because they love us; however, the love of a father leads him to wish for that which is best for his son. If a son has things in his life which are detrimental to his well-being, his father would want and expect him to change or do away with those things. The father’s love for his son compels him to see the best in his son while at the same time wishing for better things. Our heavenly Father is no different…or He is different in that His love is greater and more perfect than any earthly father’s could be. Our heavenly Father loves us, seeks us, and accepts us just as we are – sins and all. However, His love compels Him to expect us to change or eliminate that which is detrimental to us for our own sakes.

This brings us to another fundamental disagreement – how do we know what behavior is sinful? Here we have a question which should be easily answered. It is generally held within Christianity that the Bible, the Holy Scriptures, is God’s Word written for us. This being said, we should be able to read God’s words to us and know what He deems right or wrong. From the books of Moses to the Gospels of our Lord and the epistles of His Apostles we have a congruous witness to the will of God for His people spanning several thousands of years. Recently, however, (and by recently I mean over the last half century) there has emerged a movement within mainline Christianity, which puts forth the notion that God “is doing a new thing.” New methods of Biblical criticism subvert the teachings of the apostles in favor of social trends and political correctness. In short, God is now, after all these millennia, contradicting Himself. Since the earliest times we have seen societies shaped by theological truth, where now we see theology shaped by sociological truth. We see claims that science has proven the genetic predisposition of some people to “alternate orientations”. “Science” has said that our genetic make-up determines if we will be predisposed to addiction (to alcohol, narcotics, nicotine, sex, etc.), infidelity, homosexuality, as well as other, unaccepted (not to mention illegal) activities to include homicide and pedophilia. Now, before anyone misunderstands, I am not equating any one of the aforementioned “conditions” with any other. I am simply relating some of those things with which DNA is credited to one extent or another. The truth of the matter is that every single one of the things listed above is an activity, an action, a behavior, a choice - with the exception of one, which will be explained later. While addiction may or may not be genetic, the person with that predisposition has the choice as to whether or not he/she will act on it. If the person chooses to act on that predisposition the addiction manifests. Conversely, if the addict, after having allowed the addiction to manifest itself, wishes to break the addiction, he/she must choose to do so. Basically the same things can be said of the other listings. A spouse must choose to be unfaithful and then act on that choice in order for infidelity to occur. Homicide and pedophilia, both illegal and immoral acts to be sure, genetic predisposition being of no consequence, are behaviors which must be chosen by the perpetrators. These are universally considered wrong behaviors by societal norms despite whatever genetic predisposition may exist, although infidelity is viewed less harshly than the others and may be accepted as normative by many. I have purposely left homosexuality for last.

Sexual orientation is most often explained as a preference for one type of partner or another. Heterosexuality obviously denotes the preference for a partner of the opposite sex, while homosexuality obviously denotes the preference for a partner of the same sex. The fact of the matter is that whether or not either of these is due to genetics is of no import. Being attracted to one person or another is not at issue because it is not a behavior. However, acting on that attraction is a behavior. Holy Scripture tells us that sex of any kind outside the bonds of marriage is sinful, which brings us back to the question posed earlier: “how do we know what behavior is sinful?”. Or more specifically, “what is marriage?”…

To be continued…

Protestant or Catholic - Anglicans Must Decide

2008-05-15T22:59:00.004-05:00

From "To All the World..." - Robert S. Munday, Dean of Nashotah House Theol. Seminary

Ruth Gledhill, of the London Times, reports:

"Hard words for Anglicans from the head of the Council for Christian Unity in Rome. Cardinal Walter Kasper has told the Catholic Herald that now, with Lambeth approaching, is the time for Anglicans to decide whether they are Catholic or Protestant. 'Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?' he said. 'Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.' The genius of Anglicanism has always been its ability to straddle the divide, but maybe the Cardinal is right and the Communion's present difficulties reflect the impossibility of continuing to do this."

Recovering the faith that was held universally, from antiquity, and by all, is what many of the Reformers believed they were doing in protesting against the medieval innovations and errors of the Roman Church. While the Radical Reformers did not care whether they rejected Rome and catholicity as well, our Anglican forebears were careful to demonstrate that their teaching was in accord with both Holy Scripture as it was understood and interpreted by the early Church Fathers and Councils of the undivided (Catholic) Church. So are Anglicans Protestant? Yes, in that our forebears protested against Rome's departure from true catholicity. Are Anglicans Catholic? Yes, in that our forebears always sought to maintain the Catholic Faith--as Vincent of Lerins would have recognized.

Read it all here.

Cain slew Abel, part 2

2008-04-11T04:11:00.002-05:00

Gen 4:10 ~ Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.

We discussed last time that Cain’s first wrong was that he most likely did not take as much care in his choice of offerings to God. His second wrong was that he refused to take responsibility for his own actions. According to the text, his next two wrongs were these: that he used his brother’s trust to lure him to a field, and that once they were there, he killed his brother. Finally, instead of confessing his crime to God, he hid the whole business.

I would like to deal with Cain’s question, “am I my brother’s keeper?” The world tells us that we need only think of ourselves, and the only thought that we should give to others is to keep up with their successes so that we might do better. The fact of the matter is that the answer to Cain’s question is yes, we are our brothers’ keepers. The Law of Moses required land-owners to leave the edges of their fields un-harvested in order that the poor would have something to eat, among other things.

Our Lord had a few things to say on this as well:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him well be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matt 25:31-46 (ESV)

The only conclusion to be gleaned is that we are, indeed, our brothers’ keepers. The purpose of one man’s strength is to lift up his neighbor who is weaker…or less strong if the word weak offends your sensibilities. To quote Mel Gibson’s character, William Wallace, in the movie Braveheart while speaking to Robert the Bruce, “You believe the people exist to provide you with possession, but I believe your possession exists to provide the people with freedom.” This is a specific way of lifting up our brother, but you get the point. Here’s another: “much is expected of those to whom much is given.” These are both ways of saying the same thing: the things we have – possessions, talents, blessings – are given to us so that we might pass them on to those who do not have them.

Peace,
Jerry
<><

Cain slew Abel, part 1

2008-04-11T04:07:00.000-05:00

The second chapter of Genesis tells us the story of Cain and his brother, Abel. We know that Cain was born first, followed by Abel. We also know that Cain was a farmer and that Abel was a shepherd. The biblical text continues to tell us that Cain brought to God an offering of the “fruit of the ground,” and Abel brought an offering “of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions.” God looked favorably on Abel’s offering but not on Cain’s. Of course, the first question is, “Why?” Why did God find favor with one and not the other? I think one possible answer lies in the words themselves. Cain brought an offering of the fruit, but Abel brought an offering of the firstborn and of their “fat portions.” This might imply that Abel brought the best of what he had while Cain was less discerning with his offering.

Cain was angry and jealous. He was angry that he had been embarrassed by his younger brother, and he envied the favor that his brother had received from God. What God says next (Gen 4:6-7) is very important, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Could it be that he was angry with himself? This is entirely possible; however, in true human fashion, he could not allow himself to take responsibility for his own actions. He could not possibly be to blame for his falling short. It had to be someone else’s fault. It had to be Abel’s fault. Abel stole God’s favor from him.

This has particular significance in today’s society. We live in a culture in which no one wants to assume responsibility for his/her own actions. People blame restaurants for their spilling hot coffee in their own laps. Burglars sue homeowners when they are injured in the commission of their crimes. Many blame their parents for their crimes – mom and dad didn’t show enough attention, or they gave too much. Rapists and pedophiles blame their victims. People who choose “alternate lifestyles” blame genetics. Oh, but if only it ended there….Juries award millions of dollars for “butter fingers” and clumsy crooks. Psychologists encourage the idea that mom and dad can be to blame for the crimes of the son. We the people are quick to judge a woman or girl who might happen to dress provocatively or act with less than perfect moral purity as though she might have caused the brutal and dehumanizing attack on herself. I think one reason many people are so willing to believe all these things is that if they are true, then maybe we are not responsible for our own shortcomings.

Notice in the biblical text that there is no mention of the role of Adam and Eve in the actions of Cain when he chose his offering to God. It does not tell us that Eve neglected Cain in favor of his brother, causing a festering jealousy of Abel waiting to be triggered by one too many rejections. It does not say that Adam physically abused Cain, bringing a great anger in Cain waiting to be triggered by being out-shone by his brother. The lesson in these two verses is that we are responsible for our own actions. If we do well, will we not be accepted? And if we do not, is it not our own shortcomings that we are responsible for overcoming? Did we try hard enough? Did we give it our all? Were our efforts in line with the will of God?

The bad news is that we have to accept the guilt for the things we do. The consequences of our actions are our own. The good news is that once we do this, the Bible tells us that we can turn our guilt over to God. The good news is that our debt has already been paid. If we confess to (agree with) God that we have sinned (done wrong) and believe that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, then we will be forgiven of our sins and receive eternal life. The problem with today’s society is that the common belief is that “it is someone else’s fault.” Instead of accepting and dealing with our sin, we find ways to rationalize it.

The next question that often arises is “how could you be so narrow-minded as to believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?” I would answer this question with one of my own. Knowing that God has said the penalty for sin is death, why would He offer us a way of salvation at all? And given that God is willing to offer us a way of redemption, why would He not have the right to determine what that Way will be? The fact is that He did not have to offer us a way at all. He could have made us to lie in the bed that we have made, but He made a way for reconciliation instead. He basically said, “you deserve death, but I will give you a way out.” One only has to look at the scriptures to see that God has historically been very specific in His instructions to His people. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Mt. Moriah before providing a ram to be sacrificed in his place. God gave specific instructions to the Israelites during the Passover in order for them to avoid the fate of the Egyptians – they were to sacrifice a lamb and spread its blood over the doors of their houses. God gave specific instructions in the Law of Moses concerning not only sin, but also day-to-day living. Why would we think that He would be any less specific with His instructions on salvation? God said that we would die for our wrongdoings, but He provided a Lamb to be sacrificed in our place.

To be continued…

Peace
Jerry
<><

Translations and Theology - Fr. Robert Hart

2008-03-11T03:10:00.002-05:00

from The Continuum

"I was responding to a comment in another post, and realized that this subject justifies a bit more than one blog comment. We will begin with the comment I was writing in response:

Raphael wrote:

[The Douay-Rheims translation] has been in use since its first edition in 1610. It is a near as possible word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate, being the work of St. Jerome (342-420). St. Jerome's work is a careful, word-for-word translation of the original texts.

We do owe a lot to St. Jerome, but here we see a need for better scholarship than was possible in his age. 1 The traditional translation of the First commandment provides a splendid example of what I mean.

My own literal translation of the first commandment, directly from the Hebrew with the original syntax, goes like this:

"No having to you other gods over the face."

This translation is absolutely exact, and it makes no sense. Now, the word I have translated literally as "over" means, by implication, "in front of." This can be summed up in one word: "Before;" that is, as long as we understand that "before" means "in the presence of." Now, from the original, we have a problem. Does the commandment mean, "No having to you other gods before your face," or "before my face," in line the accepted standard translation ("before Me")?

The traditional translation is drawn from the larger theological understanding that God's presence fills the whole earth, and indeed, all creation. And so, the translation, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," requires this added revelation, termed by theology as omnipresence. Also, the distinction between having other gods, and having idols, is a distinction between the first and second commandment that helps us learn the subtle difference between a false god and an idol. This may not have been as clear in the days of Moses as it would be later. The Gnostics did not have literal idols, but rather false gods by definition. The ultimate false god that has no idol, that is, no image before which the devotee bows in worship, is the god of Mohamed.

The traditional rendering of the first commandment, consistent with the Latin translation (The Vulgate) is quite helpful in one respect, and not at all helpful in another. By helping us to see that worship of any other god is a sin even without an idol (as would be lost with our alternative option, “before your face”), we are able to grasp the fuller meaning of scripture. It is just as wrong to worship conceptual gods, as Marcion and Mohamed proclaimed, as it is to worship a deity represented by an idol. Unfortunately, the same customary translation that helps us in this respect also fails us by combining the first and second commandment into one commandment (followed by the equally mistaken custom of dividing the tenth commandment into two separate commandments), weakening the strength of this teaching. This was corrected by the Church of England, both in its very first Book of Common Prayer and in the early translations of the Bible into English

Raphael wrote also:

For this reason [by which he refers to what he said about the Vulgate], the Douay-Rheims is considered the definitive translation.

I prefer the translation of 1611. "Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's special command." The translators were aided by their use of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. On the other hand, their conservatism kept them from making arbitrary and radical changes in traditional meaning. Without the second part, their diligence in comparison to former translations, they may have felt free to use translation as an excuse to be overly creative. That is, not that accurate translation would have been the problem, but the feeling and assumption of poetic license. This presumption of too much authority by some modern translators has led to utterly false renderings. In a previous article, I provided the following example (about the first error in one of the worst versions of the Bible available in English):

“ The first mistranslation in the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) combines the first two verses of Genesis into one sentence, adding wrongly the word 'when,' as if the world existed before God’s creation. ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form…’ The Hebrew simply does not justify this ‘translation’ ... The first two sentences are not joined in the original Hebrew. The older “And, the earth was without form and void...” is literally correct, and it cannot be used to suggest Pantheism.”

The mistranslation I cited has become quite trendy among people who seem bent on trying to destroy the revealed doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, and so the NRSV is not the only example of this particular abuse. The problem here is either one of deliberate mistranslation, or an exaggerated regard for poetic license. Either way, it flies in the face of the two things that steered the translators of The Authorised Version (the King James). It would have been prevented by a sincere principle to “translate out of the original tongues" added by the second principle as a safeguard, namely, “and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” What marked the King James as setting the standard for Bible translation was that combination of accuracy and humility. Accuracy of language and meaning, aided by the humility to learn from the work of past generations. Furthermore, this requires both an education in languages and in theology.

1.About St. Jerome, here is an interesting passage from a book. “'The flesh I might try to break with frequent fasting: but my mind was seething with imagination: so to tame it, I gave myself up for training to one of the brethren, a Hebrew who had come to the faith. And, so after the subtlety of Quintilian, the flowing of Cicero, the gravity of Fronto and the gentleness of Pliny, I began to learn another alphabet, and meditate on words that hissed and words that gasped' The final vintage was to be the Vulgate translation of the Old Testament: he was still working on Hebrew in his old age.”Helen Waddell, The Desert Fathers, (New York, 1998), p.33"

Conversion vs. Surrender

2008-03-11T02:25:00.003-05:00

I have been debating with myself over the differences between conversion to Christianity and surrender to Christ. Are there differences between them, and if so, what are they?

I would begin by defining the difference between conversion and surrender as the difference between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” – the difference between learning the truth and KNOWING the TRUTH. When we hear about the Lord Jesus, and accept that it is the truth, that He is the Truth, we are converted. Does surrender also happen at this time? I am sure that it does in some cases, but not in all. It is true that conversion involves surrender to a degree, more with some than with others. We surrender to the knowledge that we cannot be our own saviors. We surrender to the knowledge that Christ Jesus is our only hope of salvation. To say that we recognize the surrender of control of our lives to His divine direction would be to get ahead of ourselves, however, because most do not. We all have our little “secreted” things, which we try to keep to ourselves. It is human nature to wish to be in control, and to fight “tooth and nail” against losing control in even the smallest measure.

But what would it look like if one were to fully surrender one’s life to the Lordship of Christ? As much as I would like to say “this” or “that,” I cannot because, as much as it pains me to say, I cannot honestly say that I have completely given my life over to the Lord. Every day the Holy Spirit shows me something of my old life to which I am clinging. Every day He convicts me of something to which I keep to myself. Every day I hear myself saying, “Yes, Lord, I want to, but I cannot,” or “Yes, Lord, I want to, but I do not know how.” Do I want to reach that maturity of faith, which leads to total surrender? Do I continue to grow and come closer? Do I believe that I will one day attain that ideal relationship with my Lord? Yes to all three of these. How long will it take? Maybe the rest of my life, but it will be worth it in the end.

Protestants emphasize evangelism, witnessing to those who do not know the Lord in order that they might be “saved.” Unfortunately, their focus usually ends here. Once they have seen that the convert has professed faith in Christ and is baptized, they move on to the next lost soul in order that he might find salvation. Many new Christians are left floundering in the dark, not knowing which way to turn. Many even fall away from religion, thinking it unnecessary. This truly is a shame – these “baby” Christians never mature in the faith. They never graduate from the “milk” of the Gospel to the “meat” of the word. They spend the remainder of their lives in a holding pattern, never really understanding the possibilities of a full, knowing, loving relationship with their newly found Savior.

While some Catholics understand a mission in evangelism, the majority of Catholicism concentrates on Catechizing the converted, or the children thereof, in the ways of the Church. Again this presents a problem in that, should a “seeker” find the Church, they do not tend to receive the totality of teaching required to reach maturity in the faith, not to mention that the concept is lacking on the other end of the spectrum from the Protestants. Again this leads to a falling away from the church by many, if not most.

My point is that, without continued education, new Christians cannot know enough to lead them to the point of spiritual maturity required for full surrender to Christ. In order to KNOW Him, we must know OF Him. But we cannot stop with simply knowing of Him.

Anyone with any experience in most mainline Protestant churches will recognize the term “altar call.” For those who do not, I will offer a brief explanation. After a hearty and sometimes emotional sermon, the pastor will usually call for any who wish to accept Christ as Savior. Accompanying his pleas, the choir, and oft times the congregation, will sing an “Invitation Hymn.” One of my favorites was “I Surrender All.” It is in part petition and in part a great profession of faith, but it speaks to the type of surrender of which I speak. May we all come to surrender to our Lord and depend upon Him, trusting that He will never lead us astray.

Jerry
<><

PS. I've added the lyrics below, as well as a link to a new rendition by a popular "Christian artist."

I Surrender All

All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

Refrain

I surrender all,
I surrender all,
All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
I surrender all.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power;
Let Thy blessing fall on me.

Refrain

All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!

Refrain

Love Your Neighbor as Yourself...

2008-01-18T03:17:00.000-06:00

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Easy, right? Really? As stated by Jesus, these two commandments are the summation of the Law and the prophets, and as we know the law was given to show man his sin. We are not meant to be able to follow the law in and of ourselves. In fact, there has been only one person who has kept the law perfectly…Jesus the Christ. Following this logic, we cannot love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds without help from Him. Just as the gift of God’s grace gives us the desire and ability to believe unto salvation, that same grace gives us the ability to agapaō God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. What about the mandate that we are to agapaō our neighbor as ourselves? The same must, of course, apply. I would add to that the following: one cannot love his neighbor as himself unless he loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind; and one cannot love God with all his heart, soul, and mind without loving his neighbor as himself.

Do I love my neighbor as myself? I certainly try, but I will be the first to admit that I find difficulties in that from time to time. What does that say about my love for God? I think it means that while God has begun a good work in me, it is not yet finished. I am a work in progress. Do I love God? Emphatically, yes! Is it the perfect love that He demands? Sadly, no. How can I, an imperfect being, have perfect love? As I said, God gives the ability, I try, and eventually God will help me (allow me?) to get it right.

Lord I believe…please, help my unbelief!

Jerry
<><

Newbie Anglican - A Resolution and a Plea

2008-01-03T11:03:00.000-06:00

I found this piece on the Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon’s blog and thought it very appropriate for the times in which we live. I’m including a link to the site, as well as adding it to my "Blogs" section.

Peace,
Jerry
<><

A Resolution and a Plea

I perhaps should have made this post on New Years Day or before. But I’ve struggled with how to approach what I think needs to be said and still do even as I type this (which will probably show). Those who peruse the big Anglican blogs know that “Communion Conservatives” (those who advocate contending for the faith by staying in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion) and “Federal Conservatives” (those who are convinced one or both of those bodies are too far gone to the point they think it best orthodox at least prepare to leave) are rather close to each other’s throats at the moment. To be honest, I have my opinion as to which side is most at blame, but that’s not my concern right now. This post may even seem a bit vague because I don’t want to engage in figure pointing. For my concern is that anger between the two sides is getting to and past the point that it will make it difficult for these two sides of orthodox Anglicans to work together in the future. That distresses me. If it turns out the Federal Conservatives are right and the Communion Conservative eventually find staying in TEC and the like to be untenable, I want the Comm-Cons to feel they have a refuge in Common Cause and/or whatever church bodies the Fed-Cons form. Likewise, if a miracle happens and the Anglican Communion or even the Episcopal Church sufficiently reforms, I want Fed-Cons to feel they can return. I hope the current divisions between the two are temporary. And even if Comm-Cons and Fed-Cons remain on different tracks, I want them to be able still to work together on those things they can. For the sake of current and future unity and witness, both sides should step back and engage in self-criticism instead of undercutting the other side. And, yes, there has been willful undercutting of the efforts of faithful orthodox Anglicans by other committed orthodox Anglicans. That must stop. Communion Conservatives should focus on what they are going to do in the current situation instead of undercutting what the Federal Conservatives are doing. Likewise, Federal Conservatives should focus on their direction and not ridicule the strategy of Communion Conservatives or say they are in any way unfaithful for staying. And I include myself in that. I find some Communion Conservatives exasperating at times, and when I get in rant mode, my words can be rather sharp. So if I’ve said anything unhelpful about the Comm-Cons, I apologize. I will exercise the utmost care in what I write about them from henceforth, and I invite my good readers to hold me accountable in that. Both sides need likewise to step back and repent or at least relent lest we become an ugly spectacle that makes our divisions harsher and more permanent and causes long lasting damage to orthodox Anglican unity and witness.
~~Wannabe~~ Newbie Anglican

On Salvation, Part II

2007-12-29T09:28:00.000-06:00

Through my Baptist upbringing, I was taught that once a person was “saved” – in other words: once one had accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord thereby beginning a personal relationship with Him – they would always be saved, no matter what, hence the mantra “once saved, always saved.” There are biblical references made in support of this doctrine, of course, just as there are those that support the differing view held by many that one can fall from their salvation. Calvin held that continued salvation was dependant on continued faith. Roman Catholic teaching, as far as I understand, holds that continued salvation depends upon continued good works.

What follows is not based on literal reading of the Holy Scripture. It is, however, based on interpretation of scripture and history as I have heard it.

In the days in which our Lord walked on Earth, it was the practice of shepherds in the Holy Land to bring their sheep into the sheepfold for the night. This enclosure lacked a door. The reason for this was because the shepherd, himself, would sit or lie down in that space and would function as the door. This served two purposes. The first was to keep out predators and thieves. The second was to keep the sheep within the fold.

In the Gospel according to St. John 10:14 (KJV), our Lord says, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” If a shepherd, a mere man, make of himself a door to keep his sheep within the sheepfold, then doesn’t it stand to reason that our Lord, the Good Shepherd, would do the same for His sheep? Once He takes us into the fold, does He not make of Himself a door to keep the devil (thief) out and to keep us safely within? The second half of this verse doesn’t necessarily lend itself to this discussion, per se. However, when one looks at another…

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew 7:11 (KJV), our Lord says, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall you Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” By the same reasoning, if a shepherd, a mere man, will place himself in the doorway to keep his sheep inside the fold, safe from the thieves and predators, “how much more” shall the Good Shepherd, our Lord Jesus, keep us inside His fold and save us from the great thief?

Greater and more learned minds than mine have debated this question and come to differing conclusions. When I first quit running from the Holy Spirit, about one and one-half years ago, I began studying and attempting to justify the faith of my youth with actual scriptural truth. I started with an open mind, fully prepared to learn that I had been wrong for the greater part of my life. This is one of the issues with which I struggled, and I believe that this is the answer God wanted me to find.

Amen.

Happy Christmas

2007-12-25T02:51:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to share one of my favorite songs of the season. I have no commentary to add; I only hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Feel free to comment if you like.

Pax,
Jerry
<><

In This Storm

2007-12-20T05:46:00.000-06:00

I don’t know who put this video together, but they did an excellent job. This has been one of my favorite songs for some time. It really speaks to me. We all have storms in life, times when things seem to be going terribly wrong. Not only can we not seem to get out of those times, we can’t see any end in sight. Reason fails us…our strength wanes. The lightning illuminates just enough to make things look worse than they really are, and the thunder mocks us and our inabilities. We are at the mercy of the wind and waves, or so it seems.

As with the apostles, caught in a storm on the Sea of Galilee, and the Master was asleep. They panicked, they fretted, they did everything in their power to save the boat and their lives with it. Finally, when they had lost all hope, they called on the Master in their darkest hour. I can almost hear Him now: ”O ye of little faith…did you honestly think I would let you come to harm? If only you had come to me first, you could have been spared from all of this worry and heartache.”

But that is the problem with us humans: we think we can do everything ourselves, or at least that we should be able to. Not until all seems lost do we go to the only One who can give us the strength, the grace to come through our storms. The sovereign God is in control. We have to trust that there is a purpose for the storms of our lives, that God is helping us to grow through them. Nothing can grow without the rain…no blade of steel can be made without first going through the fire. We are to praise Him in the storms of this life because it is through the rain that we grow…it is through the fires that we become strong.

Examples

2007-12-18T11:48:00.000-06:00

On an ordinary Sunday at the First (insert denominational preference here) Church, the congregation had just finished the last hymn before the sermon. The pastor stood behind the pulpit and prepared to speak. He welcomed everyone and invited them to open their Bibles to the passage from whence his message would come. It was at this time that a young man entered. He was wearing dingy and torn denims and a T-shirt depicting a rock band, and his hair was disheveled and in desperate need of cutting. The young man began to walk up the center aisle in search of a seat, much to the disapproval of the parishioners, who were whispering not-so-quietly their displeasure that such a specimen had trespassed on their new plush carpet to disrupt their worship. The pastor paused to allow the young man to find a seat, hoping that the congregation would then settle down enough to hear the sermon. The young man walked to all the way to the front pew, searching for a seat; however, there were none to be had. Without missing a beat, the visitor sat in the floor of the aisle, directly between the front two pews and crossed his legs, looking up expectantly at the pastor. Finally a deacon, quite possibly the oldest man in the building and one of the best dressed with his suit perfectly tailored and his hair and mustache perfectly trimmed, began to make his way from the rear toward the young man. The whispers changed from contempt to relief that something would finally be done to remove the vagabond. The old man marched directly to the visitor and, to the surprise of the crowd and the glee of the pastor, sat down on the floor beside the lad. With a tear in his eye, the pastor said, “Deacon Smith has just taught us, through his example, a better lesson that any I could have prepared for today.” The pastor lifted his sermon notes and tore them in half, and then he began speaking to his flock on the love of Christ.

I heard this anecdote as part of a sermon some time ago, but I cannot remember from whom. For some reason it came back to me and I thought I would share it. We, as humans, tend to become a bit proud of our buildings and accoutrements. Sometimes we forget that our purpose as the Church is to take the love of Christ to others. God does not care that we cannot afford the finer things in life. In the grand scheme of things, the shabby state of our attire is of no matter because while we look without, He looks within.

Peace,
Jerry
<><

On Salvation

2007-12-09T02:55:00.000-06:00

While browsing Vindicated: The Amazing Blog of Kyle Potter I found some comments concerning salvation. Specifically, a couple of comments to a post dealt with the question: “What is salvation?” Of course we all know that there are myriad ideas concerning this ever important concept. We have all heard the familiar slogans: sola fide, sola gratia, “no salvation outside the church”…just to name a few.

As I was raised as a Southern Baptist from childhood, let us first discuss the common Protestant Evangelical doctrine of salvation. St. Paul said that salvation was not due to our own works or merit, but by grace through faith [in Christ Jesus]. He also said that, in order that we could not boast on any level that we had any hand in our own salvation, that faith, which brings God’s grace to us, is a gift from Him. Let’s break this down a bit. Salvation (deliverance, rescue, recovery, escape) is a result of [undeserved] grace (kindness, favor, mercy, charity…) made possible by our faith (trust, reliance, belief, devotion, loyalty)[in Christ], which is given as a gift from God. Basically, it is all God’s doing. We cannot even boast that the required faith is of ourselves. So, if we can’t even be counted upon to provide faith for our own salvation, how can anything else we could possibly do contribute in any way toward our salvation? I am at a loss as to how that could be accomplished. Also, let me say that I agree with this, as far as it goes anyway.

Most Protestant Evangelicals stop just there. In fact, that is precisely where I stopped when I was approximately twelve years old. This is how it went for me: I was sitting in the pew in Sunday worship, listening to the pastor’s sermon. At the end of his sermon, just as every other sermon, there was an “altar call.” For those who have no idea what that means, in the church where I grew up, this meant that the piano and organ would play and the congregation would sing a hymn while the pastor pled with any and all for them to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior by reciting a prayer and walking forward to make a profession of faith. This particular Sunday, I felt more than heard that still, small voice calling me. I prayed that prayer, asked God to forgive me of my sins, and, with tears in my eyes, walked to where the pastor was standing just below the pulpit. There was the announcement that I had become a child of God, there was much shaking of hands, the proud parents were called to stand with me, and I was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity by full emersion at the following Wednesday-night service. It was at this point, as stated earlier, that my growth in the kingdom of God ceased.

While I called myself a “born again Christian”, there was nothing in my life to show this. In answer to that famous question, there was not enough evidence in my life for a court to convict me of being a Christian. This brings me to another question: What does it mean to be “born again”? In the tradition of the church catholic, it is believed that one is born again at baptism. It is through this sacrament that grace is imputed to the baptized from the Holy Ghost. It symbolizes our identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord in that we die to sin, are “buried” under the water, and are raised up as new creatures in Christ. But what if there is more?

Our Lord said that if our righteousness is not greater than that of the Pharisees, we will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. What does that mean, considering that the Pharisees were known as the most righteous people on earth? It was their sole ambition in life to keep the Law perfectly…they were legalists. What’s more, their righteousness was not enough. How could one be more righteous than a person who lives a lifestyle of righteousness? Evangelical theologians have used this to support the idea of sola gratia, grace alone. If in order to be saved one must be more righteous than the most righteous people on earth, there is no way for any to be saved…except. Except that upon our acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord, we receive and are covered by His righteousness. This is a grand thought, that He loves us so much that He, knowing that we cannot do it ourselves, does it for us. He knows that we do not have enough righteousness of our own, so He gives us His. But what if there is yet more?

What if the “our righteousness” means just that…not His righteousness? What if He meant that, after being born again, we receive the grace to have that righteousness? Or if you do not like that one, try this: The Pharisees’ righteousness was for their own sakes. While they may have begun with proper intentions, by the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry they did it for the recognition it brought them. What if God gives us the grace to seek righteousness for His sake? That would make our righteousness greater than the Pharisees’. Or would it? What if it is a combination of both?

We know that we are saved by grace and that works play no part in our salvation in that works do not save us. However, there is too much mention of works for there to be no connection. Our Lord said that those who love Him will keep His commandments. Love denotes faith, which would mean that faith requires action in keeping the commandments of Jesus. He said that he would separate the sheep from the goats according to their works. James (for our Roman Catholic friends) said that “faith without works is dead”. These are just a few of the references to the necessity of good works in relation to salvation. Are good works required for salvation? Not according to St. Paul, but St. Paul's writings agree with the others that they, good works, are required of the saved.

Finally, in case you are wondering after all of this questioning on my part, I am in total agreement with St. Paul. We are saved by grace through faith to do good works. As to the question of righteousness, I know without doubt that I am wholly incapable of righteousness without the grace of God. I believe that what makes our righteousness greater than that of the Pharisees is the fact that by the grace of God our quest for righteousness is for His sake and not our own, which makes us to strive for more. I believe that our good works are part of that righteousness, and that God works through our deeds to bring others to Himself. Do I think that these works, this “social gospel”, are a substitute for the True Gospel as some would have us believe? Heaven forbid! Lest we forget that one of the commandments of our Lord was to preach the Gospel. And as for my over use of the very Protestant term “acceptance”, I firmly believe that a conscious decision of acceptance must be made. Remember I said that faith requires action? Just as we are given the opportunity to decide not to accept the gift, we are required to decide to accept the gift if we are to see the kingdom of God. I found in my own experience that, just as I made that choice in the Baptist church of my youth, I choose everyday to follow the path set before me by our Lord. I choose to seek His face instead of the face of the world. I choose to strive for righteousness for His sake. I choose Him because He chose me. Amen.

Ten Things to Know About Romans

2007-11-30T10:10:00.000-06:00

1. Romans is the Gospel According to Paul.

Granted, it doesn't look like Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, in the way their Gospels told the story of Jesus' earthly ministry and interspersed it with His teachings. Paul does it in his own way.

Why is that important to know? Ah, we have the answer to that!

Right now, there are people promoting their religion in your neighborhood who want to give a new interpretation to Holy Scripture. One such group tells of an angel appearing to their founder with golden tablets on which had been written an ancient story. The angel provided special glasses for the man to look through and decipher the writings. The result was their new book, their new doctrine, and their new twist on the message of Christ.

Now, in Galatians chapter 1, we find this from the Apostle Paul: "Even though we OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN preach any other gospel to you that what we preached, let him be accursed."

And then, as though underscoring what he had just said, Paul repeated it. (Gal. 1:8-9)

The point of that is this: we hold in our hands the very message Paul preached up and down the Roman Empire. It's called "The Epistle to the Romans." And Paul says anyone preaching anything other than that is declaring a lie and headed for judgment. Slice it any way you please and it comes up that way!

That's why it's crucial we help our people to get an understanding of Romans.

Someone asked the bank teller, "How do they teach you to recognize all the counterfeit money people try to slip past you?" She answered, "They don't. They just teach us to recognize the real thing. Once we know that, it's a simple matter to catch the fakes."

In teaching Romans, we are helping our people to know and recognize the real gospel of Jesus Christ. There could be no better preparation for dealing with the shams and fakes combing the streets of your neighborhood looking for the naive and unsuspecting.

2. Romans is deep.

Ah, but you knew that. You've started reading it, determining to enjoy it and learn from it, to grow deeper in Christ. Pretty soon, you're deep all right--in over your head, and you're not out of the first chapter! Welcome to the writings of Paul.

Romans is left-brain material. All logic and reason and well-thought out arguments based on revelations of God in the Old Testament as enlightened by the Holy Spirit. There's not a single funny story in the entire epistle! No jokes, no illustrations to speak of, and not a single cartoon if you can believe that--nothing but solid reasoning. Pure truth. It's vintage Paul all the way through.

You may remember what the Apostle Peter said about Paul's writings. Assuming Peter to be the author of the Second Epistle that goes by his name--the scholars are not in agreement over that; although it is most definitely God's Word to us--down toward the end of chapter three, we read:

"...just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (II Peter 3:15-16)

We notice three things in Peter's one-sentence commentary on Paul's writings.

(1) There are some things hard to understand. We knew that; we're just glad someone else admits it!

(2) People without adequate understanding misinterpret Paul's writings and get in big trouble. If you question this, tune in any of the hundreds of radio or television preachers and stand amazed at what you hear.

(3) Paul's writings are scripture. Granted, the word "scripture" simply means "writings," but early on, the word was used by believers to refer to Holy Scripture. Biblical historians tell us the early church elevated these writings to Scripture status quickly.

Although "Romans" is deep, it's not all over your head. Much of it is accessible to new believers and those without a biblical background. You don't have to know Greek or have a seminary degree to appreciate chapter 8 of Romans, one of the most sublime chapters in any writings of any time. Scattered throughout the rest of the epistle are gems which the Holy Spirit distributed to encourage us to come on in, open your mind and heart, for what's ahead is well worth the effort.

--Dr. Joe McKeever

Dr. Joe McKeever is a Preacher, Cartoonist, and the Director of Missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans.

http://www.joemckeever.com/mt/

And hopefully more to come.

Jerry
<><

Field of Dreams...

2007-11-15T21:37:00.000-06:00

I was speaking to a friend on the eve of All Hallows, and we were discussing the state of Anglican orthodoxy in our town. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no truly conservative, non-ECUSA, Anglican presence in our town. In fact, the closest parish is a REC parish located approximately forty minutes away. I find myself of two minds on the matter of this REC parish.

I have spoken privately with the rector and listened to a couple of his sermons; and I find him much to my liking. They are a small but growing congregation with active children’s and youth programs. The rector leads a “prayer walk” through the neighborhood every Sunday afternoon. I see many good things in this parish’s future. Conversely, while some in the congregation have been quite gracious, I have encountered some who would be considered less than welcoming. Another point against is the fact that my wife is less than thrilled with the situation.

I have spent much time in prayer and contemplation on prospects for my family’s place of worship and learning; and the more I think on the subject, the more the thought comes back to me that what we, my family and another, are meant to do is plant a mission. This would, despite the obvious logistical obstacles, solve several problems, only one of which would be a lack of conservative, non-ECUSA Anglicanism.

One huge problem with this idea is the lack of potential parishioners. Our area is served by one Episcopal parish and one mission, of which most of the average Sunday communicants are unlikely to leave their comfortable pews.

Which brings us to the title of this post…a Field of Dreams. Yes, that’s right…the movie, or at least one specific line from it. “If you build it, they will come.” If it is truly meant to be, if it is God’s will, the presence of a new Anglican mission should bring disgruntled Anglicans out of the woodwork. We cannot be the only nine people in this town who are dissatisfied with the state of ECUSA. If we give them an alternative where the true Gospel is taught, won’t they come running? Won’t they come?

Am I completely convinced that this is the way to go? No, this is probably the second most difficult decision I’ve ever faced (the first is one for a later post). One thing of which I am absolutely certain in this question is that it would be easier said than done. I don’t know the first thing about building a mission, being a “founding father” as someone once said. Another is that, if it is His will, God will do all the work…all we have to do is let Him.

Pax
Jerry

Thanks, Grandma O

2007-11-09T05:34:00.000-06:00

I received the following poem in an email today and thought I would share it. Let me know what you think.

Peace,
Jerry

YOU ASK WHY I FOLLOW THIS JESUS?

You ask why I follow this Jesus?
Why I love Him the way I do?
When the world's turned away from His teachings
And the people who serve Him are few.

It's not the rewards I'm after
Or gifts that I hope to receive
It's the Presence that calls for commitment
It's the Spirit I trust and believe.

The Lord doesn't shelter His faithful
Or spare them all suffering and pain,
Like everyone else I have burdens,
And walk through my share of rain.

Yet He gives me a plan and a purpose,
And that joy only Christians have known,
I never know what comes tomorrow,
But I do know I'm never alone.

It's the love always there when you need it;
It's the words that redeem and inspire,
It's the longing to ever be with Him
That burns in my heart like a fire.

So you ask why I love my Lord Jesus?
Well, friend, that's so easy to see,
But the one thing that fills me with wonder is
Why Jesus loves someone like me.

-- Author Unknown

Thanksgiving

2007-11-08T08:41:00.000-06:00

4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ. [I Corinthians 1.4]

Every year, on the fourth Thursday in November, we Americans celebrate, as a nation, a day of Thanksgiving. My question is this: Why do we, a people who largely confess affection for God, need a governmentally mandated day on which we are to give thanks? The Holy Scriptures are chock full of references to thanksgiving. Are we in a better state than David? Or the Apostles? Or even our Lord Christ Jesus, Himself? If it is true that God rules over all things and provides all things, then it stands to reason that we should give thanks to Him for all that we have. Consider this also: if God rules over all things and provides all things, and if it is also true that God uses all things to the good for those who love Him, then we should further praise and thank him for those things that we perceive as bad, since He will doubtless ensure a good outcome. We should, for lack of better expression, thank God for those things that we do not have, as it is for His glory that we have or have not.

10 Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. 11 Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. 12 Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. 13 Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name. 14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? For all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. [I Chronicles 29.10-14]

These questions are even more challenging when we consider them in the context of David’s prayer of thanksgiving from I Chronicles 29:10-14. David recognizes that all things come from God the Father Almighty and by extension recognizes his obligation to give thanks for all, taking his logic to its most rational conclusion. The text, in verse 14, shows David’s realization that, since all things come from God, then even the ability to give thanks is a gift of God.

Why would God give us a gift, which He does not expect us to use? The short, and most obvious answer is: He wouldn’t.

And please do not think from this post that I consider myself above my own criticism. Quite to the contrary, I most wholeheartedly include myself. I know that I do not thank and praise God nearly enough. Try with me to remember God's goodness all year round, not just every fourth Thursday in November.

Let us give thanks unto our Lord God, for it is meet and right so to do. Amen.

Confusion

2007-11-03T13:21:00.000-05:00

Confusion can be a wonderful thing, should one choose to use it properly. It can provide for us motivation to explore and learn, which is surely the purpose God has in mind for it. Confusion is His way of telling us that we don't know as much as we think. We don't have it all together. If we recognize this, and look in the right direction (meaning toward God), we can come to greater truths than we ever thought possible; we can come to a greater knowledge of our Lord.

Confusion has its down side, too. More often than not, confusion becomes an excuse to leave something alone. We think to ourselves, "I'm confused and I don't know where to turn. Forget it; I'm done with this religion stuff." There is also the likelihood of confusion leading us astray. There are so many different resources available to the searcher, some good and others not so good, that many take the wrong paths.

There is a term used in the courts, which applies to the question of confusion: "the totality of circumstances." One must consider the totality of the circumstances, the sum of the facts, when deciding the question of truth. The amazing thing about our faith is its historicity. Not the denominational question, as there are good points and bad in all the true Christian denominations, but the matter of our orthodoxy - our beliefs. There is a risen Christ, and He was seen in this world by hundreds of eyewitnesses. We can look into historical texts, as well as religious, to aid us in our quest for the truth.

Now, before I confuse myself, I'll stop rambling for now.

Pax et bonum