C.S. Lewis Conversion

As I was reviewing my notes in preparation for facilitating another table group study through Mere Christianity, I was reminded again of why C.S. Lewis and others (Chesterton, MacDonald, etc.) are so near to my heart:
 

"Remember, I had always wanted, about all things, not to be "interfered with."  I had wanted (mad wish) "to call my soul my own."  I had been far more anxious to avoid suffering than to achieve delight.  I had always aimed at limited liabilities.  The supernatural itself had been to me, first, an illicit dram, and then, as by a drunkard's reaction, nauseous.  Even my recent attempt to live my philosophy had secretly (I now knew) been hedged round by all sorts of reservations.  I had pretty well known that my ideal of virtue would never be allowed to lead me into anything intolerably painful; I would be "reasonable."  But now what had been an ideal became a command; and what might not be expected of one?  Doubtless, by definition, God was Reason itself.  But would he also be "reasonable" in that other, more comfortable, sense?  Not the slightest assurance on that score was offered to me.  Total surrender, the absolute leap in the dark, [was] demanded.  The reality with which no treaty can be made was upon me.  The demand was not even "All or nothing."  I think that stage had been passed, on the bus top when I unbuckled my armor and the snowman started to melt.  Now, the demand was simply "All."

"You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet.  That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me.  In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England.  I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms.  The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet.  But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape?  The words compelle intrare, compel them to come in, have been so abused by wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy.  The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation." (Surprised by Joy, 220-221)

So much of this sticks out to me as I read this.  I think one of the things I most identify with is his statement: I had been far more anxious to avoid suffering than to achieve delight.  If there was a statement that would sum up my life, this is it!

But even if He does not...

I was reading through the book of Daniel and came across the passage about the fiery furnace and the response to Nebuchadnezzar regarding his demand to worship him:

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter.  If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king.  But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." (Daniel 3:16-18)

So these three men are threatened with death by fire if they do not bow down to the king and worship his image of gold.  What struck me about their statement is not their faith that God will save them, but that His saving them from the furnace was not a condition of their obedience to Him.  They were going to obey God regardless of what God did.  If He saved them great; if He did not, they still would obey Him.  What a great example! 

In this story, God did come through.  They were saved from the furnace.  Yet there is another story, celebrated this week, where God did not save His Son.  God the Son "emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond servant, and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:7)  He did so, enduring the fiery "furnace" of the cross, and the rejection of God in order that you and I might be saved.  Here we find that Christ's obedience to the Father was not conditioned upon being saved from the cup that the Father made Him drink--He surrendered His will to the Father and drank it.  "Not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42)

Is my obedience to God conditional upon certain things?  What things are these?  Why am I allowing those things to separate me from Him?  It seems that greater faith is grown through the surrender of expectations and the abandonment of one to Him.  Even if He does or does not, will I follow Him?  Will you?

Wounded Healer Reflection

I recently finished The Wounded Healer by Henri Nouwen and was really convicted by much of what he had to say. The emphasis on the book is not so much trying to heal others as it is to get the reader to understand that without the mutual identification of wounds and entering into the hurt of another, healing cannot take place. I like what he says in the third chapter:

"Who can take away suffering without entering it?" The great illusion of leadership is to think that men can be led out of the desert by someone who has never been there... we have forgotten that no God can save us except a suffering God, and that no man can lead his people except the man who is crushed by its sins.

He then quotes from Carl Rogers, who writes:

[W]hat is most personal and unique in each one of us is probably the very element which would, if it were shared or expressed, speak most deeply to others. This has helped me to understand artists and poets who have dared to express the unique in themselves.

I tend to forget about my wounds, and move on to what I consider bigger things, while losing the memory of where I once was. I think this is one of the reasons you see the pattern in the Bible of telling stories over and over. It is to remind the person of where they came from, what God did in his or her life, and who he or she once was. God commanded the children of Israel to remember:

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Duet. 5:15, see 7:18, 8:2, 8:18, 15:15, 16:12, 24:18, 24:22)

My favorite scene in The Two Towers has Sam saying:

By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you.

Remember where you came from. Remember what He has done. Ministry to others depends on it!

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Is 53:5)

Religion

 Dr. Peck in his well-known book, The Road Less Traveled, has this to say about religion:

 

There is clearly a lot of dirty bath water surrounding the reality of God.  Holy wars.  Inquisitions.  Animal sacrifice.  Human sacrifice.  Superstition.  Stultification.  Dogmatism.  Ignorance.  Hypocrisy.  Self-righteousness.  Rigidity.  Cruelty.  Book-burning.  Witch-burning. Inhibition.  Fear.  Conformity.  Morbid guilt.  Insanity.  The list is almost endless.  But is all this what God has done to humans or what humans have done to God?  It is abundantly evident that belief in God is often destructively dogmatic.  Is the problem, then, that humans tend to believe in God, or is the problem that humans tend to be dogmatic?  Anyone who has known a died-in-the-wool atheist will know that such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief.  Is it belief in God we need to get rid of, or is it dogmatism? (M. Scott. Peck, The Road Less Traveled, my emphasis)

I couldn't agree more. 

Wounded Healer (update)

I've been thinking about what I wrote previously and it bothers me for several reasons: I don't like people who write that way, it is very generic sounding and impractical, and it is very intellectual and "high-minded" which I feel is very arrogant. So I want to make a couple of observations on the Nouwen paragraphs that I hope will be more reflective of me.

I liked what Nouwen said because so often I feel like the approach a Christian gives to those outside the church can be very impractical and mystical. We say that "Christ has the power to change you" and that you can "do everything through Him" and yet I wonder just how well something like that speaks to someone who is unchurched. When we speak about our faith to others, sometimes we make assumptions of mutual understanding that very well may not be there. As one who works in computers, I may speak of such things as tags and markup in describing web pages to someone who has barely used a computer as a word processor, much less surf the internet, and therefore my words have no meaning to this person because he or she can't relate to what I am saying.

This is why I love what Nouwen says. It is critical for us to present the Christian message in a way that is practical and relevant to people in their every-day lives. And for this to be true, I think it has to be practical and relevant to our own lives. Only when we've gone through the discipline of working through Christ's message and applied it to our lives, in our current culture and present context, are we then in a better position to share that same message to others.

Wounded Healer

Why should a man marry and have children, study and build a career; why should he invent new techniques, build new institutions, and develop new ideas--when he doubts if there will be a tomorrow which can guarantee the value of human effort?

Only when man feels himself responsible for the future can he have hope or despair, but when he thinks of himself as a passive victim of an extremely complex technological bureaucracy, his motivation falters and he starts drifting from one moment to the next, making life a long row of randomly chained incidents and accidents.

When we wonder why the language of traditional Christianity has lost its liberating power for nuclear man, we have to realize that most Christian preaching is still based on the presupposition that man sees himself as meaningfully integrated with a history in which God came to us... But when man's historical consciousness is broken, the whole Christian message seems like a lecture about the great pioneers to a boy on an acid trip.

Christianity is not just challenged to adapt itself to a modern age, but is also challenged to ask itself whether its unarticulated suppositions can still form the basis for its redemptive pretensions. (Nouwen in Wounded Healer)

This is a profound set of observations. In an era of post-modernism, meaning has been removed and one is left with nothing. It is difficult to present hope to one who feels as if nothing matters. The last sentence above is one of the best, in my opinion. We cannot simply present the gospel without being aware of our underlying assumptions and beliefs that others do not share and thus changing the way we approach the presentation of the hope of Christ. Our message is meaningless to those who do not share, in Nouwen's words above, a view of ourselves as "meaningfully integrated" in history.

Do you understand your assumptions, your presuppositions, the foundation of your beliefs? How do these differ to what the post-modern man thinks? In reflecting on the differences, what might change in your approach to speaking about your beliefs in a way that might be relevant to the post-modern man?

NOT Evangelism

On Monday, my coworker told me about a conversation he had with a man at a flea market over the weekend. The man put a tract in his hand, asked him if he had ever disagreed with his parents, and told him he was going to hell because he had violated one of the commandments. My coworker is Muslim and politely told the guy that he did not agree and after a few more minutes of conversation, left. I have shortened the story intentionally, because I don't want to focus on the story, but on the method.

I don't even know where to begin with this. This "evangelist", for lack of a better term, makes me sick. How can one even think that approaching someone and telling them they are going to hell will change a lifetime of beliefs? If one's beliefs are swayed so easily, I might question the certainty of one's belief. I'd like to go over the absurdity of this approach.

Being in violation of God's law, in the example of disagreeing with parents, means that you are going to hell and therefore in need of Christ.

1. Who said I believe in God?
2. Who said disagreeing with parents was wrong?
3. Why should I accept the Bible as an authoritative source of truth for me?
4. On what basis do you state that hell exists? See question 3 when you respond.
5. If I did believe hell exists, why is Christ the only way?
6. You are stating things that you believe to be true--and I disagree with your beliefs--why do you think you are right and I am wrong?
7. I believe in X (for a Muslim it would be Allah, who is believed to be the same God as the Jewish and Christian God); why am I wrong?
8. Who is to say that what you claim is God's law is actually God's law? My religious books say otherwise.

Frankly, I am embarrassed by this guy's approach to sharing the gospel. It makes me think of the times when I so firmly believe something and passionately try to tell others, only to find them not as receptive to what I firmly believe is true. Perhaps telling people what we believe isn't a very effective way of communicating our beliefs, especially in the context of not knowing the person. I am finding that the older I get, the less I really ought to talk and the more I really ought to listen. And I am really bad about both.

Heaven

I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard called The Divine Conspiracy and in a section where he discusses going to heaven, I found this particularly convicting:

I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place... There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart? (p. 302)

Willard goes on to suggest that unless our belief results in life transformation, we really haven't believed. My actions will follow my belief and if my actions aren't consistent with what I say I believe in, then what I say I believe in isn't what I really believe in.

I find this convicting because in the last several months, almost a year now, I have slowly allowed things in my life to "slide", excusing myself from following through in areas I am pretty sure a whole-hearted belief in Christ would not be excused. In areas I find myself to act selfishly, rather than ruthlessly going after the selfishness and crucifying the flesh, I tell myself that it doesn't matter anyway--I am single so I can be selfish. In other areas of self-improvement, I have grown lazy and thus have regressed to locations below rock walls that I had once scaled.

Why do my actions not match my beliefs? I have no excuse--"[I]n the final analysis we fail to be disciples only because we do not decide to be. We do not intend to be disciples. (Willard)"

Heaven

I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard called The Divine Conspiracy and in a section where he discusses going to heaven, I found this particularly convicting:

I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place... There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart? (p. 302)

Willard goes on to suggest that unless our belief results in life transformation, we really haven't believed. My actions will follow my belief and if my actions aren't consistent with what I say I believe in, then what I say I believe in isn't what I really believe in.

I find this convicting because in the last several months, almost a year now, I have slowly allowed things in my life to "slide", excusing myself from following through in areas I am pretty sure a whole-hearted belief in Christ would not be excused. In areas I find myself to act selfishly, rather than ruthlessly going after the selfishness and crucifying the flesh, I tell myself that it doesn't matter anyway--I am single so I can be selfish. In other areas of self-improvement, I have grown lazy and thus have regressed to locations below rock walls that I had once scaled.

Why do my actions not match my beliefs? I have no excuse--"[I]n the final analysis we fail to be disciples only because we do not decide to be. We do not intend to be disciples. (Willard)"

Sharing Secrets

I've been so busy following the economic and political news that I have had very little emotional energy to write about other matters.  I am hoping to spend more time writing about other things in addition to financial matters.

In The Silence of Adam, Crabb writes, "There are secrets involving specific events, memories of things others have done to us, or things we have done.  There are secret internal realities: urges, interests, struggles, motives, thoughts, beliefs, or feelings that we regard as unacceptable, that we think would spoil any relationship in which they were known.  Sometimes the things we hide are vague but powerful impressions, usually involving an unnamed but terrifying sense of our own despicableness, as sense that—we fear—others would confirm if given the chance." (italics his, bold mine)

In men's group we had an excellent discussion about secrets, which was the subject of a chapter in the book quoted above.  I am hoping the above quote describes what kind of secrets this is in reference too.  Sharing these kinds of secrets with trusted brothers or sisters can be very beneficial.  I want to list a few of the benefits:

1.      I experience the acceptance of others and through that acceptance, I learn to accept myself.

2.      I discover that I am not alone.

3.      I live in greater freedom.

4.      I let go of pride.

One of the greatest benefits of being able to share with another a secret is the experience of acceptance that is tangible and real.  By telling you a secret of mine and receiving your affirming love and friendship, I am better able to accept myself as I am, secret and all.  I did not say "as I wish I was". 

In addition, I find out that I am not alone.  C.S. Lewis said that friendship begins with the statement "What?  You too?"  It is in isolation that our secrets can become terrifying and in community that we can discover fellowship and support from others.

By sharing secrets with another, I am able to live in greater freedom.  The secret does not dominate my life, it is no longer hidden in this part of me that I can't let anyone see, but I am now in control of it, I am able to share it with those I trust, I am no longer bound to hide, mask, and lie to others.

The last benefit I want to mention here is the letting go of pride.  By acknowledging my humanity to other people, I no longer have to pretend to be someone I am not—I can be who I truly am, warts and all.  This gives me freedom from pride, even the false sense of it.

When might one want to share a secret with another?  For one, such sharing needs to be in a confidential place, with a trusted friend.  One should not share the deepest secret of one's life with a complete stranger.  Is the depth of the secret to be shared appropriate for the intimacy of the friendship.  Second, one should do so in a proper time and place.  Doing so at a loud bar watching a football game is probably not the best place for that kind of conversation.  What events are going on in the lives of the other that might provide distractions?  It may not be wise to share a secret with a friend who is distracted by a layoff.  Is  your friend at an emotional place where he or she can provide such support?

What about for those on the receiving side of the secret?  Recognize that your friend is taking a great risk by revealing him or herself to you in this way.  Listen carefully to what they are sharing.  Ask questions to ensure you understand what is being shared.  Appreciate them for their bravery in taking off their mask.  Verbalize your support and thanks.  Reaffirm with them your friendship and your confidentiality.  If appropriate, share similar experiences or weaknesses in return.  Provide an atmosphere support, not judgment.

Are there secrets in your life that drag you down or make you feel alone and separated from people?  Develop close friendships that can support the release of some of these things.  I think you will find, as I have, that bringing light to dark places drives the shadows away.

Prediction with bail-out

After Congress passed the $700B bail-out about a month ago, I wanted to write down some predictions that I had about the future with the bail-out and financial crises and instead of actually posting this, have sat on these ideas for the last month.  I am posting these finally, although now some seem kind of obvious.

Those who passed this bail-out say that this is all that is needed.  My first prediction is that this will not be enough and that there will be much more needed.  I think it is a joke that they have divided it into an initial $350B package and then being open for requesting for the other half--as if we'd only use half of it.  We are not only going to use the $700B, but we will be adding more money to bail-out additional companies.  It may not come directly as a second or third bail-out package from Congress, but it will be with taxpayer money, either by taxes, deficit spending, or inflation.

Inflation is going to skyrocket.  The prices of goods is going to go up.  You cannot do what the government is doing and result in a net effect of 0 on the value of money (as if our money has any real value anyway).   If the total money supply is $10T and you add another $1T to it, you will have reduced the value of the existing money by 10%.  Now, the effect won't be immediate, but it will happen.

We will see the international community abandon the dollar as the financial "standard" that it has been.  I think we will see the introduction of a world currency and the slow (or fast) collapse of the dollars value as goods such as oil are then valued in that new standard.  It would not surprise me if we end up abandoning the dollar and switching the US to the new currency. 

We will experience a prolonged and ugly recession.  And the more the politicians and financial people try to intervene and throw money into the system to try to prevent it, the longer and worse it will get. 

We will see a significant movement into socialism as the government takes control of more industry.  This will be done in the name of "saving the economy" but what makes us think we can trust politicians more than CEOs?

The stock market is going to continue to go down.  It probably will have up days, but the fundamentals in the market are bad and you simply cannot create money out of nothing and somehow "save" the system in any permanent and lasting way.  It has to correct itself and the correction won't be pleasant.

Government Bank Purchases

The government bought significant interests in several of the largest banks today. According to this article,

Executives of the country's biggest banks were summoned to a remarkable meeting at the Treasury Department on Monday to be briefed on the plan. Paulson basically told the bank CEOs that they had to accept the government stock purchases for the good of the U.S. economy.

This is incredibly disturbing. Some of the banks needed the money, but others did not, and yet the government forced all of the 9 banks to take the money. Does Wells Fargo or Chase need the money? Sure, they could use it, but this money comes in the form of partial ownership of the banks by the government.

What if you owned a house that the government decided to take partial ownership of, in exchange for some money, and gave you no choice in the matter? Or a business owner who is doing fine and was forced to sell part of the ownership in your company to the government?

Yet another step in our march towards socialism.

God and Story

One thing I have been noticing in reading the Bible is how God does not go about things in a simple way.  The small group I am in at the singles group at church just finished a study on the life of Joseph.  As we were going through his life, I realized that God brought Jacob and the entire family of Israel from the promised land down to Egypt, only to rescue them and take them back to the promised land 400 years later.  This is not simple.  All throughout Scripture, we see this build up of an incredible story--one in which God is the centerpiece.  And I think that is the point!  The master artist, to display his handiwork, does not simple put a few strokes on a canvas to display his ability.  Michelangelo spend years working on the Sistine Chapel, David, and the other masterpieces that we now remember him by.  The greater the work, usually the longer it takes.  Could it not be said that the redemption of mankind is, at least from a human perspective, the greatest of all works?  And while God could go about our redemption in a very simple, straight-forward manner, His purpose seems to be greater than that.  In fact, the length of time and the complexity and chapters in the story make us more and more amazed by Him, more in awe of Him, and give Him more glory.  His purpose is to display Himself.  The story is about Him and as such it reflects Him.

Bail-out

I suggest reading the following article and contacting your Representative and Senator with your comments... this is happening TODAY!

 

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/100700/the_fiscally_insane_bailout_bill_might_not_pass_--_here's_5_reasons_it_shouldn't/

 

Contact Info:

 

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=TX

Cornyn, John- (R - TX) (202) 224-2934 - http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922 - http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm

 

White House - comments@whitehouse.gov; 202-456-1111

 

Representative Ken Marchant - (972) 556-0162 - http://www.kennyforcongress.com/ (you may have a different rep)

Housing Meltdown - Explanation

Bailout Plan

In this article , I am in agreement with most of the lawmakers, including the Democrats.  Let me quote parts of this article in references to the proposed (INSANE and STUPID) bail-out plan:

"I understand speed is important, but I'm far more interested in whether or not we get this right," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "There is no second act to this. There is no alternative idea out there with resources available if this does not work," he added.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," ..."We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."

"Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it."

Republicans said the sheer size of the bailout would cost each man, woman and child in the United States $2,300.

If approved and implemented, that could push the government's budget deficit next year into the $1 trillion range — far and away a record.

"This massive bailout is not a solution, It is financial socialism and it's un-American," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

Dodd said the administration's initial proposal would have allowed the Treasury secretary to "act with utter and absolute impunity — without review by any agency or court of law" in deciding how to administer the envisioned bailout program.

"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well," Dodd said.

I agree, I agree, I agree!  I strongly encourage you to contact your congressman and senators and tell them to vote NO for any government intervention in the markets (you can do this electronically).  Do not believe the bs that we don't have any other choice.  When businesses make stupid decisions, they are responsible for the consequences of those decisions, which in this case is bankruptcy.  It is not the responsibility of the government (and us, since we actually support it with our taxes) to bail them out.

Check out mises.org for some good and common-sense economics.

Election Choices

I think the biggest losers in this election season are the people in America (us!).  In a hotly contested race of X versus Y, what most of us don't realize is that the difference between the two candidates isn't even a single letter (to speak figuratively).  We are faced with a "choice" of very liberal or the most liberal.  This isn't a choice.  The idea that we think we even have one is rather amusing.  I've had some good discussions (and disagreement) with my friend David about this and he has made some excellent points about voting for the person you really would want in office.  We aren't just limited to a two-party system.  We aren't required to vote either Democrat or Republican.  We actually can--shock!--make a real choice!

My standard objection to voting for a third party candidate is that it is a throw-away vote.  Or is it?  I suppose it might be more like stepping outside of the box and going against the flow.  Now, it isn't wise to do something because it goes against the flow.  But let me offer one question: when did we get ourselves to a mindset that "this person will do less of X than the other person" and therefore is a better choice, when neither one is a good choice to begin with!  Would this be how we would treat sin?  What is the "lesser" sin I can commit? (I am using an extreme here as an illustration only.)

That all being said.. my last objection to voting third party is that it seems to be a little idealistic.  I still have not been able to answer my own question of: what am I really accomplishing by voting third party?  Would it be to have a clear conscience?  It's not like I would be contributing to the lesser of the evils.  Or would I?  Isn't my vote a message that says I am disgusted with both parties?  Maybe I am just too much of a pessimist to think that enough of those kinds of votes would actually make a difference.  It seems unrealistic and impractical to think it would.

I am curious... what do you think?

IBC, Women, and Changes

I am really sad to read that Dr. Bailey has stepped down from the teaching team at IBC over the recent decision of the elder board regarding women's role in the church. I also read in the Dallas Morning News that Tommy Nelson at Denton Bible has strong disagreement over this decision. The full decision of the elders can be read here, but in brief, "At IBC we recognize that God created both man and woman in His image, that He offers the same Holy Spirit to both men and women at salvation, and that the same spiritual gifts are available to both men and women for service. While the New Testament seems to imply that eldership is reserved for men, the elders of IBC affirm that women in all other roles are scripturally qualified, spiritually blessed, and directly called to use their spiritual gifts to build Christ's Kingdom." Now, this is something that I initially agree with and think it is a good decision. I am stunned that Dr. Bailey would step away from IBC because of it, although in his position as president of DTS, it is not one that would be good for him to be associated with (when did we get to the place where truth, if it is truth, must be avoided because of political or economic reasons? Another subject entirely). I must say I have a great amount of respect for Dr. Bailey and will have him as my teacher starting tomorrow for the Bible Study Methods class I am taking at DTS. I feel really sad about Dr. Bailey not being at IBC or teaching there. I think he added a lot to the teaching staff. I hate to see the church divided over this issue (and yet it is only one of the many). I've been thinking a lot about the decision and have been wondering... Did the elders make the right decision? What was their motivation for doing what they did? And then I realized: I can disagree or agree, as I am convicted and study the subject myself. These are fallible men who make wrong decisions too. Please don't misunderstand me--I am not saying I think they are wrong. I still think they are correct, and if anything, I have serious doubts about why Paul would say some of the things he did about women. But this certainly has caused me to take a step back and think a little more about this. I hope to post more on this in the near future--tonight I just wanted to share what is going through my head and heart as I start to see some of its impact.

Inflation

This article is one that is worth reading and considering carefully:

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/080818/aug2008db20080815021990.html

 

The reality of the market is that inflation has increased significantly and is only getting worse.  From a savings perspective, this means that you have to earn the inflation rate plus what your target earnings is.  If you are trying to earn 10% on your money, you'll need to achieve that plus the inflation rate, bringing your target rate to 20+%.  Other savings vehicles will need to be pursued.

A Lesson in Obedience from a Rock and a Stick

Today in the children's ministry the passage we covered was in Numbers 20:1-13.  The children of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron for bringing them out to the wilderness to die because they had no water.  Moses and Aaron went before the Lord and He told them to gather the people in one place and speak to a rock and the rock would bring forth water for all the people.  Moses was so frustrated with the people that after venting at them, he struck the rock twice with his rod.  Because of this, Moses was not allowed to lead the people into the Promised Land.  I was thinking about this and felt like God was really harsh with Moses.  He changed one little thing and was not allowed to go into the land that he had spent most of his life trying to go too.  But in thinking about the passage, some things came to the surface.

1.      God is serious about obedience, even in areas we might think are small.

2.      My frustration is not an excuse for disobedience or modifications to what God has told me to do.

3.      Moses' disobedience was a public act, not one that was private.  Public acts of disobedience have harsher consequences, because of the increased responsibility of the disobedient individual, due to the visibility of the act.

Why was it so important to speak to the rock instead of hitting it?  Primarily, because God said to.  By hitting the rock, it lessened the miracle of water coming out of it.  There had to be a huge amount of noise around the rock, with thousands of people grumbling and Moses speaking to them so that they could hear, and yet no water came out.  If the rock had been under a tremendous amount of pressure, hitting it, as Moses did, could have weakened it to where it would have burst.  There was more possibility of a natural occurrence by hitting the rock.  God wants the glory for what He does (as He deserves).  By speaking to the rock, the fact that water would come out could only be attributed as a true miracle from God.  This is a rather simplistic thought as to one possibility, but the point remains: obedience is important, and carries more weight in public matters.