HULDAH'S GATE

A MASCULINE RELIGION

2012-02-01T17:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-god-gave-christianity-a-masculine-feel-68385/

John Piper argues that God gave Christianity a 'masculine feel'. This totally ignores the Biblical examples of women and exalts the masculine as divine (see earlier articles on this blog on this).

All worship the Ball!

2012-01-22T11:26:00.000-08:00

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me!"

Idolatry? That is only in pagan nations. That was only in the Old Testament. That does not happen today!

Yet, every season is now consumed by some athletic competition of one type or another. Church and worship services are displaced or turned into events celebrating the seasonal event. School budgets are consumed by the demands of supporting the space, uniforms, coaches, and travel for sports teams even when the academic programs of those schools go begging. Many sports programs have lowered entrance requirements just so students can "play." Young people are taught to live, eat, breath athletics. Older people eternally chase past or imagined glory by following a game. Professional players earn more than most doctors, educator, or pastors. What was at one time a way to enjoy fresh air and activity has become a cult where periodically the devout feast, share fellowship, and stare at players and a ball for hours on end. They adorn themselves with colors, styles and words reflecting their chosen deity. They make great sacrifices, enduring every discomfort, and supporting their teams even through the tough times.

Once, idealist aspirations abounded and banners of "sportsmanship!" waved high and proud. Now, drugs, ethics, sexual misconduct, greed, and dishonesty are the shadows of professional, and even amateur, athletics.

Now, to demonstrate how far this cult has moved, when a Christian ad has run in one of their worship festivals there are cries of it being inappropriate. Gods are jealous. They want their faithful ones to themselves. The cult is calling!

All worship the ball!

Help Stop Global Abuse of Women: The Mordecai Project

2012-01-05T03:19:00.000-08:00

This outstanding ministry seeks to address educating men on sound, balanced, Christian views of male-female relationship. Through conferences, homes, and other facilities woman around the world can begin to live better, more spiritually free, and emotionally healthy lives.

A FACEBOOK KIND OF FAITH

2011-12-27T13:24:00.000-08:00

Social networking is a vital and dynamic element in modern 21st century society. We Facebook, we email, we text, we instant message, we Twitter, we Google+ and probably something else which has not yet been invented! Christians tend to be very purpose driven in their use of these tools. Christians post scriptures, positive motivational posters, and communicate on religious themes or social issues via a spiritual lens.

This "Facebook Faith" is also frequently lacking in any humor, narrow in its tolerance or acceptance of people with different beliefs, and unable to communicate beyond that bumper sticker-hit and run faith communication. Like emails which delight in catching "them" (whoever they might be) out, these posters often seem to also approach communication via a Teddy Roosevelt inspired evangelism...type ponderously and sling a super sized Bible.

Just sharing a Bible verse may satisfy some inner drive to 'share the gospel' but few outside the faith will even read those posts and de-friending will commence. Sharing a frustration or common experience and reflecting a dependence on God is a better witness. Some will complain, some may leave, but your cyber witness will leave a memory of someone in life who reaches out in faith and not just someone spouting verses and dispensing Bible thumping answers.

The Bible invited..."come let us reason together" which infers a discussion, a meeting of disparate minds and varied attitudes.

FAITH AND LEARNING

2011-12-21T08:49:00.000-08:00

Sometimes in life people try to keep their spiritual life and professional life apart. They are like two rooms kept for opposing and specific purpose. When we wish to be "spiritual" we go to the Bible. When we wish to be professional we go to readings addressing professional development.

Many Christian institutions of higher learning are committed to the idea of integrating faith and learning. This means that the two rooms are open and connected allowing a free flow of influence. Spirituality informs how we understand and apply the knowledge we gain. It provides the values, motives, and behaviors for the professional life.

Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible argued that the true soul of the artist is always visible in the art they produce. The same came be said of the academic process when learning and faith are engaged together in consideration of any academic subject.

The lessons and values of scripture are the measuring stick by which we can evaluate and interpret decisions, processes, and in historical or political studies, explore how it influenced those making social or political history.

Rather than being two separate compartments, or rooms, in the integration of faith and learning the two have a healthy and solid relationship.

Scripture is the base and is used to measure the values, actions, problems, and challenges expressed in the text. Spiritual life is personal but it is lived in a highly public and political environment.

To adapt Schaeffer's words: "the true soul of the Christian will be seen in the life they live; the true soul of the nation will be seen in the laws and society it creates."

"The logic and knowledge from every discipline is built upon a set of presuppositions. All such presuppositions must be examined and informed by the truth derived from the revealed Word of God and Christian thinking founded on a Christocentric epistemology, so as to create a coherent body of knowledge, i.e., faith informs all of learning’s presuppositional thinking.” (RW, 2009).

Key Biblical Texts: Romans 12:1-2 and Colossians 1:17.

BEARING FALSE WITNESS

2011-12-18T09:50:00.000-08:00

One of the commandments enjoins people of God to not bear false witness against another person. Fingers are pointed to Potipher's Wife as examples of this sin. Today, could be added the thoughtless forwarding of emails whose sole desire is to discredit a politician or political party.

These are forwarded often with barely concealed glee at having "caught" someone or in having gotten the "upper hand". Yet the Bible tells us to do something very different: (Proverbs 27:17) "do not delight when your enemy falls"; 1 Cor. 13:6 urges people to avoid delighting in evil or when one is caught in evil; As I have loved you, so you must love one another(John 13:34). ... Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

For example the President's birth certificate. Challenges to the birth certificate released by the White House is based on three things: 1) The name of the hospital, 2) the name of the birth country of his father, and 3) the use of the term "African" to refer to his father. Passing this type of information along without verifying the truth or in order to delight in error is not the act of a person of faith. People can question, can learn, and can be silence.

What is the truth? The hospital name was in use at the time of the birth, 2) the name "Kenya" can be found on a 1924 World Atlas and so it is evident the name was in use in the early 1960's, 3) and the term "African" was sometimes used for people born in Africa as opposed to those born in North America.

So stop and think before forwarding some of those posts. More are incorrect and generated in order to malign or bear false witness. Do not contribute to that.

NOT THE MONEY - BUT THE LOVE OF MONEY

2011-12-17T10:34:00.000-08:00

In recent months there has been a lot of protest about the rich vs the poor. The people who have a lot and those who wish they did. The people who are guilty at having things and those willing to increase their guilt. The issue is something else.

A recent television program looked at lottery winners - ordinary people who suddenly found they has 3 to 93 million dollars. Some were even near homeless when they won. As one might expect they immediately rewarded themselves with their new found wealth. Yet, as one man went through his mansion casually tossing off spending $80,000 dollars on a set of dolls for his wife, $160,000 for two chests, buying 24 classic cars and providing them with space. All the toys and self-indulgence was a little cloying.

Excess is, after all, excess.

The problem with wealth is never acquiring the wealth (if done legally) but in what is done with the wealth once acquired.

For all the bad reputation of the old "Robber Barons" of the late 19th century they left a legacy of hospitals, libraries, churches, schools, parks, opera buildings, and many other things.

It was called "noblesse oblige", the idea that if you had been blessed with financial riches or other advantages, you were obligated to enrich your world through good deeds.

When it is considered - each of us is blessed with something and some advantage - we too should feel obligated to enrich the world through service and contribution to those in need. To begin working to help improve life for all. It is a cycle of mutual support, skill building, self-sufficiency, and giving. Instead of demanding what others have, or hoarding what one has, the goal of life should be to do the best you can and be willing to help others.

As the saying goes - 'live simply so others may simply life. The Bible had two important sentiments - the love of money is the root of all evil and it is more blessed to give than to receive. Balance those two and there is a recipe for a successful and happy life.

THE CHURCH OF PEOPLE

2011-12-12T04:14:00.000-08:00

A recent trend is emerging to bring men back to the church, to destroy the feminized church which drives away red-blooded men, and to create 'men-friendly' congregations.

The proponents point to 'foo-foo' decor, sensitive emotional music, and services and ministries designed to get in touch with the softer side of God. This attempt to 'man cave' the church is not a way to dominate women, they say, but to liberate men.

"Ten Ways to Man Up Your Church" offers some interesting ideas but also infers some interesting things as well. What is required is a "manly pastor" - therefore no woman can be a pastor of men simply because they fail in the "manly" category. This also infers that most male pastors are lacking in the testosterone category as well. An insult to many fine male pastors. Next, things should be done excellently or not at all. Another slap in the face of any group anywhere. Also, an easy "out" to not do it. Reminds me of someone whose idea of "picnic" was always so over the top, you would have had to cook for a week to prepare for it, and save a month to pay for it. Simple sandwiches and fun would not do. How many picnics did the family take? None. This may not be the end result of the strive for excellence but it could be. It could also lead to a competitive approach to church..."Now, I want you to go out there this morning for this service, and give a 110%!!!" Issues of giving men "space" and "speaking plain prayers" are valid and needed regardless of gender! The imperative to respect men's time and avoiding services which drag on and on....are equally applicable to either gender. Women probably enjoy long drawn out services no less than men. There should be equal respect and honor of time.

The basic issue is what have we made of church?

What would a church decorated by men look like? A military barracks or monk's cell devoid of anything of the arts or comfort? Would it look like a ubiquitous sports bar? Or, the teenage boy's never cleaned room? Would it be finely appointed or mimalist? Would it appeal only to men?

Would every sermon be filled with sport metaphors and stories? Every prayer time take on the look and feel of a huddle? Would the sanctuary evolve into a men's area around a large screen TV with recliners with women in kitchen or out shopping?

Barna research group indicates, though, women are also leaving the church. It may not be just a gender issue, but a relevance issue. It is not easy to manage, program, and plan for a church of both men and women, young and old, rich and poor, and the like. Too many churches have become like cruise ships offering diverse entertainments and activities to fill the time. We have built long traditions of what has to be in a church service.

Instead of genderizing church even more, even in the name of balance, perhaps the emphasis should be on reshaping church into a more relevant, New Testament place of worship, training, and community.

Winter Poem. M.A.Hudson

2011-12-11T17:12:00.000-08:00

It is the coldest time of the year.

Did anyone think to bring any cheer?

It is the time of sadness everyplace.

Did you try to bring a smile to a face?

There is fear and loneliness everywhere.

Did you help to eradicate despair?

Kindness and peace are in short supply.

Did anyone stop to wonder why?

The long chilly night seems without end.

Will you bring warmth or more bitter wind?

We all hold a candle without any flame.

Will we find the match or bring more of the same?

THE CHRISTMAS PHILODENDRON

2011-12-10T16:37:00.000-08:00

With two teenage boys, my husband and I took a church in a small town several hundred miles away from where we had been living for many years. He would be attending seminary and would pastor the church. All was strange, new, and the pocketbook a little on the lean side. We had left some items in storage because we could not move them and hoped to be able to return for them. They included a tree, ornaments, and some 'extras' we felt were so important to make Christmas real. As the holiday approached though, unexpected expenses made it impossible to retrieve the items in storage before Christmas. In a feeble attempt to keep up the spirit of Christmas, we decorated a large green philodendron in a wicker pot given as a house warming gift by a family in the church.

Tiny gold bulbs and small colored lights flickered on the plant. We laughed as we sang, "Oh, Philodendron" and our version of "Rockin' Around the Christmas Plant". We piled our modest gifts around its base telling each other we were discovering the real Christmas. We created a new tradition of a Christmas eve party after the Christmas Eve Communion Service. The small treats, special breads, and candies given as gifts from co-workers, church people, and employers, we had saved and spread them out for our party. We played games, watched Christmas movies, and had fun - despite the lack of a tree. The gifts were simple and meager but the food was good and the feeling festive.

Sometimes circumstances make it hard to bring the dream up to the level of reality. Money gets short, stresses sap a joyful attitude, and disappointment is the norm; hope may be a mere memory. Attempts to substitute plants for a tree brimming with memories of good times and abundance fall far short.

So what do we do? Do we give in and say "I cannot do this or this because I [have no money, have no job, have no hope, have no joy, have no love, just fill in the blanks]?"

The following Christmas was much different - normalcy was restored - the Earth no longer tilted out of balance. We looked at the green plant as we decorated a traditional tree. But - we kept the family party because what we learned was it was the family that was important and while we were laughing, eating, playing games, and watching funny old movies - we never looked at that Christmas philodendron a single time.

It was the people and not the tree that made Christmas what it needed to be for everyone.

A Child Is a Gift

2011-11-30T04:42:00.000-08:00

Someone in a discussion posed the question, "Is it ever right to separate a child from its mother or father?" In a perfect world the answer is short: no. We do not, however, live in a perfect world. It is right and necessary, for the life of a young and innocent child, to separate the child from one or more family members to avoid:

A two-year old tossed into a creek, still strapped in its carseat, to drown.

An infant being systematically starved to death and in one case allowing a child to starve while they cared for a virtual, online child!
A child returned to troubled, abusive, or disturbed parents to be later killed.
Children subjected to incest rape, torture, and forced sexualization at the hands of family members or strangers (boyfriends) allowed into the home.
Children subjected to emotional abuse, constant belittling, demeanment, and insults.

Jesus said words which should be remembered in Matt.25.40 "... as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

What are we doing as churches, families, friends, and communities to help parents learn the skills they need to parent? Many of these situations arose from lower income to middle class families and those on the fringes of society. How to make a difference:

Start a free parenting class (often local health departments have programs already in place and just need a space) in your school, church, or business.

Establish a support network for parents needing to 'de-stress'. A weekly event where parents can come together to see good behaviors, methods, and techniques modeled for them in their own community and by their neighbors.

Identify needs in the community and advocate for solutions. High drug use, gangs, absent parents, low morals, lack of hope, anger management, empowerment training for women to avoid bad relationships, whatever the problem - work together to find a solution to save the lives of children!

Our smallest and our weakest require us to be our stronger, better selves for them because they often cannot speak for themselves.

A SIMPLE BEADED CROSS

2011-09-18T15:47:00.000-07:00

My mother had been rushed to the hospital with a stroke. I had rushed to her and, after the hospital had sent us away so they could run some test, was resting at her apartment with family.

I had pulled on a Cherokee bead work necklace with a cross on that morning because it reminded me of mother. As we had driven, I had felt it there on my breast and prayed. Now, I merely prayed.

After awhile, a little woman came to the door, another of the elderly living on the block. She was tiny and sprite. She was frail and sassy. She reminded of my mother in as many ways as she did not remind me at all. She asked after mother, expressed her concern and was obviously a friend. She noted the necklace and it was obvious she liked it. I saw her, reminding so much of someone I loved yet not looking anything like her and a total stranger and saw my mother.

I wanted to hold my mother. I wanted to express my love for my mother but I saw only this small, frail woman. I slipped the necklace over my head and onto to her tiny shoulders. Fingers made of pale parchment lifted it up and her old eyes glowed in happiness as she looked at it. She left soon after, we went back to the hospital, and I never saw her again.

Thinking of that, I realized I had looked at her and not seen her at all. Instead, I had seen my mother. I had given something to her because of my love for someone else. In a way, that may describe what happens when God looks at those who have come to believe in Jesus as their Savior. Or to those who want to find forgiveness for their life's errors and sins. God looks at us but sees the sacrifice on our behalf. He looks at us but sees Christ. God looks to the one loved and sees us.

So, perhaps, that is also what we are supposed to do as well. As we weave our way through life meeting people here and there we should have the eyes that do not see the sinner but the savior. That do not see the fault but the forgiveness. Do not see the stranger, but the one we love.

... namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

Ages and Stages

2011-09-09T04:16:00.000-07:00

Some aging babyboomers are reluctant to accept they are getting older. The generation that embraced the might and power of all things youthful is now faced with crow's feet in the mirror. In a life predicated on youth, vigor, sexuality, and me-centric living there are now heel marks where they are fighting against the approach of their own mortality.

This is especially hard on women because in the youth-centric world this generation created there is no room for the grandmother, the older woman, or, eventually the wise woman. Centuries past, in a world long ago, there was an understanding that women were like the seasons and each one brought its own special joys, challenges, and honors. The youth was lithe, innocent, joyous, and filled with growth. The middle ages were strong, sexual, capable, and fecund. The latter ages were wise, intelligent, loving, and powerful because of their years.

Woman has often been depicted in these three stages. She has been child, wife, crone.. She has been Spring, Summer, Fall, She has been youth, mother, hag. Different times and different labels.

It is probably time to re-discover the lost sense of stages over the lost self in ages. We were once young, we were once middle aged, and now we approach the threshold of the wise woman years. Can we live up to it?

Abortion

2011-09-05T18:30:00.001-07:00

This is a delicate issue, fraught with strong emotional responses and political maneuvering. The recent debate over defunding Planned Parenthood is just the latest volley in on ongoing war of ideologies.

Currently in North American there are 23 abortions to every 100 live births.

Pro-Life (Some of the Arguments):

The unborn child is a human being with potential rights of its own.

It is a unique creature created by God and to destroy it for any reason is murder.

It (abortion) becomes nothing but an alternatives method of birth control.

Woman, in her role as carrier and nurturer, becomes the slave owner of the potential life inside her.

Woman alone has say over the creature being formed within her and no one, not even the other DNA contributor, has any business butting in.

When we choose to abort we are devaluing all of life and arbitrarily setting ourselves up to determine who is worthy of life and what constitutes such a life.

Pro-Choice (Some of the Arguments):

It (abortion) saves lives, women died every year from 'back alley' abortions before it was legalized.

Victims of incest, rape, or abusive relationships were forced to carry offspring of these situations.

It is a woman's right to have a say over her own body and its health.

It is a woman's right to determine when she will reproduce and no one else's.

The nascent offspring is merely a collection of cells until it is born - being born grants humanity and not becoming pregnant.

Women would die from being forced to carry a child to term due to health reasons; an emergency abortion is a right and expectation for proper female reproductive health.

Women will be allowed to die without a right to an abortion

There is also a lot of illogic at work due to the emotional component.

For example, supporters of abortion always trot out that 'women will die because emergency abortions were not available.' Yet, no source, citation, or statistic is ever cited to support that emergency abortions for health reasons are a major problem. Such may exist, but they seem to hard to find. How many women actually have to have a medically induced abortion to save their life?

Another example, supporters say 'women will die without having abortions because they did before Roe vs Wade'. Yet, they also die from abortions since Roe vs Wade. The high figures cited by supporters often fails to take into consideration the overall gradual IMPROVEMENT of health care in the decades just before and since abortion was legalized.

A researcher can pull out a statistic on women who died from abortions in the 1920's or 1930's and point to the high numbers as proof of the need for abortions. The high numbers also mirror the statistics in ALL medical procedures during the same time period. Medicine was crappy then and everybody suffered not just women having 'abortions.' Research in England states death rates in rich and poor nations about the same and working from the assumption rich means more progressive, i.e. more civilized and more abortions, that is thought provoking. One study even suggests abortion may be a contributing factor to women's mortality rates.

It is amazing that Planned Parenthood, an organization birthed in the nihilistic eugenics philosophy of the early 20th century, would today bear images on its website of people from the very groups it would have seen selectively eliminated to produce a more perfect human race. Sanger, the erstwhile founder, believed in selectivity in reproduction....

Wikipedia:

In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such asfeebleminded, idiots,morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.[22]

And, following:

Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[22]

And basically, that is where it all comes full circle. The most negative element of abortion is the de-humanization it engenders. So much so that modern philosophers such as Harvard's own faculty can pontificate that parents should be able to determine abortion up till and including the first full month after birth.

WOMAN AS THEOLOGIAN

2011-09-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

God created humanity as both male and female. God gave to both dominion of this world. God used throughout scripture both male and female to accomplish the goals of God's heart. God included men and women, in pointed and definite ways, in the ministry of Jesus Christ. The church was filled with, led by, and spread through the work of both men and women. Women have contributed to the understanding of God throughout time.

Women such as Julian of Norwich, Theresa of Avila, Cathryn Booth, Phoebe Palmer, Elizabeth Achtiemier, Georgia Harkness, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop...well the list could go on ... who will be next to rightly divide the Word of Truth? Who will be the next ones to integrate the male and female experiences into a common, and balanced, understanding of the relationship of God to Human?

LIKE HOLY WOMEN OF OLD...CALLING A HUSBAND 'MASTER'

2011-06-04T17:14:00.000-07:00

Followers off the 'Biblical Womanhood' movement cite 1 Peter 3: 5-6 "...They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master..."

The Wedding. M.Hudson2011

"And it shall be in that day," says the Lord, "..[you] will call me, 'My Husband (Ishi)' and no longer call me, 'My Master (Baali)' (Hosea 2.16).

The clear message is that the way God wishes to interact with His people is not through power, authority, or control. Instead, God's wish is to be intimate, loving, protective, and supportive of His people.

Compare this to the often misused words of Paul in Ephesians 5.22 and Peter's word above, telling women to submit to their husbands. It is often used as a whip to prod women into 'their place' while ignoring the earlier verse about submitting to one another.

This is another excellent example of how scripture informs scripture. If God desires to no longer have his symbolic spouse view him as 'master' - than human men should look to this as their own marital model. It is always better to have relationship than mere reverence.

A YEAR OF BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD

2011-06-04T16:58:00.000-07:00

Author Rachel Held Evans is exploring living by the mandates of 'Biblical Womanhood' in its most literal applications. From making her own clothes to calling her mate 'Master'....well you get the picture. Read about her project here.

A Strange Unity: Modesty and Coverings

2011-05-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

"Modest' for the Bat Israel (Woman of Israel) means to dress 'not frumpy' but with elegance to fulfill their Tznuit (modesty) and bring their husbands joy. Here is a site with samples of their apparel and styles, including headcoverings. This site on orthodox Jewish dress includes both men and women.

"Modest" for some Christian groups has also meant wearing caps, veils, and scarves as seen here. Some are protestant groups based in the Reformation and others are Catholic. The LDS church also has very specific dress guidelines for modesty. For others, it is a recent adaptation as seen here in a business that opened in 2002. They cite adopting the action in obedience to 1 Corinthian 11:1-16. For other groups, being modest has meant plain dress, no makeup, no jewelry, long skirts, and long hair. Some younger women are changing this to emphasis more style while retaining the modesty.

"Modest" for Islamic women includes the scarf (Khimar), the total body covering (Hijab), and the face veil for the most devout (Niqab). You can read some rather detailed explanations of the rationales for wearing each and how they relate to worship by the devout Islamic woman here. This site also, interestingly, reveals the dress codes for men to be considered modest within Islam.

Note, I could find no major websites addressing what it meant to be modest if a Christian man.

What is modesty? In practical terms it is keeping revealed by clothing various parts of the human form which are deemed "private", "titillating", or "unseemly". Thus, the breasts, arms, legs, hips, face, and head/hair are variously in need of coverings. No underwear may be seen through sleeves, no cleavage, and nothing too tight or form fitting to bring attention to the attributes marking the gender. The primary belief among modest Christians is that the good deeds and faith will be the makeup and ornamentations of beauty.

Many will agree modern society has become extreme in its dress and fashion. The human form is constantly on display to promote sales, to evoke sexual thoughts, and to provoke interest. Dance moves have become often mere grotesque pelvic thrusts and bizarre gyrations mimicking animal lust rather than graceful, joyful, or meaningful movements to music. Sexual encounters, references, and acts are seen as part of the normal entertainment cycle in books, music, movies, and on television. Children are being sexualized at earlier and earlier ages. Women have become liberated and yet abuse of women continues. Prostitution a growing business and sexual affairs commonplace. People wear veils, headcoverings, and long hair. They dress in long sleeved dresses and wear no makeup but has that impacted the world for good? Is there any evidence that those exterior 'things' have in any way helped the world, spread the gospel, feed the hungry, aided the poor, or soothed the hurting?

Will being 'modest' alone impact this sorry state of affairs? Will retreating to communities or rural areas living a modest life make changes? Will legalistic-ally demanding compliance to a set of rules as to length of hair, cutting of hair, type of head covering, sleeves or no sleeves, really mean anything in the long run?

If it is really between a woman and her God....it should be between a woman and her God. Her liberty should be to adopt the custom or not with NO outside interference or demands by religious groups.

For more, read my post on Where Did the Glory Go?, Could This Have Been in Paul's Mind? or my book THOSE PESKY VERSES OF PAUL, with a detailed look at 1 Corinthians 11.

BEFORE THE FIRST BITE

2011-05-15T06:02:00.000-07:00

"Before the action comes the thought."

H.C. Leupold wrote commentary over the famous Genesis verses telling of the Fall of Humanity. Of how the "serpent" utilized the first military tactic of 'divide and conquer' by approaching Eve alone in the Garden. Leupold noted that had he approached the couple together they would have mutually supported and protected each other from the clever words which sought to tempt.

Interestingly, Leupold also infers something occurring which brought to mind the words of Jesus.

For religious people of Jesus' day, as long you did not act on the thought you were blameless. So, men might look at a woman with lust but as long as he did nothing to fulfill that lust he was safe. Jesus, however, indicated that impurity in the thoughts was no different than the act..."he who has looked at woman with lust has already committed adultery with her."

Leupold writing in his Exposition of Genesis (Baker, 1945) stated the eating of the fruit was not the sin...it was the result of the sin. The sin was not giving an immediate 'get thee behind me Satan!' As Martin Luther wrote, it was a sin against the word of God - in this case the literal words of God spoken to not eat the fruit of that particular tree. The willingness to listen to the anti-God whispers was the moment of sin.

Sometimes, we can be very self-satisfied that we did not act on the deed or desire that flitted through our minds or our hearts. We can applaud our sense of tolerance and open-mindedness about areas of ambiguousness.

Instead, sometimes old adages such as where there is smoke there is fire should be recalled. Or, the words of Jesus about the thought or desire preceeding the action.

Stop....before the first bite...

NOW SHOWING FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY!

2011-04-03T07:13:00.000-07:00

Getting ready for God to do some BIG things today at [insert name of Church]! Join us at 10am.

I have seen these posted on Facebook and other venues. A couple of things disturb me about them.

1. It is implied that God will only do BIG things in a church service.
2. It is implied that God can be scheduled to perform, like a pet monkey or a trained canary.

If there is one thing I have learned about God in all my years it is this: God cannot be limited, confined, or scheduled. God does not perform or do tricks.

God can do BIG things anywhere and small ones too. Alone or in a crowd God can be found and God can act.

RAISE A GLASS OF ....WHAT?

2011-04-02T17:27:00.000-07:00

Does the Bible prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages? It is a question sure to stir the hearts of people on both sides of the issue. The question is one that has haunted the church for many years.

Those whose churches or experiences stem from the Holiness Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries will give a resounding "No!" Those from other traditions will say, "What's the deal?"

Two principles from the Bible come through clearly: Excess and Behavior.

Consider the following:

The Bible indicates wine 'cheers' both man and God (Judges 9.13)
Wine is a gift of God (Psalms 104.15).
Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine and not any fine, but the finest quality wine (John 2.10).
Lack of wine is considered a punishment or judgement (Jer. 48:43)

Excess Prohibited:

Being drunken brings abandonment of restraint, poor choices, risky behaviors, and stupid mistakes. Prov. 20:1 "Wine is a mocker and strong drink is a brawler; whoever goes astray by them is not wise". How does one go astray? By following the path of no restraint. Gluttony, anger, and other excesses are also to be avoided but somehow we have not been consistent with those.

Behavior:

Romans 14 and 1 Thessalonian 5:22 are both used to insure that no one ever does anything that might offend a weaker Christian or give the appearance of behaviors leading to assumptions. Yet, in both of those elements are the seeds of problems for all - the drinker and the non-drinker.

The non-drinker, who may be weak or who may have a temptation to drink to excess, may be encouraged to participate in self-destructive behaviors. The liberty or ease at which someone else does an act which may cause them to not develop in their spiritual life so that they are made more Christ like and strengthened.

The drinker, or the person who has no problem or is not subject to abuse or excess, is then restrained from an action. Because of the weaker person, the church often stresses, we should avoid all that gives the appearance of evil.

It is that term "evil" that begs questions. If wine is a gift of God - is it really "evil"? Would it not serve to be a better witness to be able to say, "No, I have had enough?" To buck the trend of "drink till you puke"? To show that restraint brings joy without excess and that excess is not a necessity to enjoying a glass of wine.

In a world filled with "Spring Break" madness, documentaries covering the 'World's Sexiest Bars", and similar glorifications of excess, it might be good to reexamine the concepts of excess and behaviors. This would redefine the entire subject of personal righteousness from choices about dress, hair, and other non-essentials to actions of justice, love, peace, kindness, and sacrifice.

We can stand around with high and tight hair, long dresses, no makeup, never attend any 'questionable' activities, never use a swear word, and never taste wine. We can attend church five days a week, sing in the choir, teach classes and serve in leadership. We can also be a grave inside with no true transformation of the heart, filled with secret sins, and all manner of corrupt behaviors and motives.

How we look on the outside and the minor things we might do can never be used to determine spirituality, holiness, or relationship with God.

REDEFINING MISSION WORK

2011-03-20T16:16:00.000-07:00

There is often a disconnect between what groups mean with they use the terms 'missions', 'mission work', and 'missionary.'

For some, the activity is narrowly defined by an evangelistic outreach where emphasis on preaching, crisis salvation, and witnessing on streets, in bars, and in other rough areas. Still others view it as going into a socially, economically, or culturally different environment to bring them salvation, to bring them Biblical teaching and to be involved in the elevation of the society through the gospel.

For some, the activity is narrowly defined as the political, social, and cultural outreach where emphasis is on improving the quality of life, improving medical standards, and expanding the ability of a people to be self-sustaining. Still others view it as revolutionary assistance to change, by force, the negative processes of a political or economic system.

Who is right? The truly be reflective of the Biblical concept of mission work requires there be more depth to how we envision mission work.

Centuries of the Western Church sending missionaries to 'save the heathen' also tended to reflect a paternalistic attitude. The unspoken message was also sometimes racist. How, after all, could the pagan ever be supervisors of the work in their countries? This messiah-like and paternalistic attitude tended to influence all mission work from the 1700's and in some groups continues to this day.

Take responses to catastrophe in recent times. We go to Central or South American, we go to Haiti and preach but do we roll up our sleeves and help in the rebuilding? Do we take medical groups along to provide needed medical assistance as we witness of God's love through actions and words? Do we go to feed, clothe, and care for the unloved and share the Gospel in our actions and not just our words?

What of our everyday opportunities just down the street? The Infant Crisis Center, the Homeless Shelter, the Literacy Project, the Jobs Program, the Meals on Wheels, the Homebound Visitor Program, the Big Brother or Big Sister and so much more. Are we being 'light' in the darkness of our own local backyards?

It is always easy to sweep in someplace with a superhero cape flapping the breeze behind you, looking important, feeling sanctimonious, and yet do nothing purposeful or meaningful to really be the hands and heart of Christ to those in need.

Sometimes it is good to reflect and in reflection redefine what we mean by 'mission work.' Mission work is merely discipleship beyond our comfort zone, it is sharing the gospel and then empowering individuals to assume their roles as evangelists into their world. To do more is to create co-dependent ministry rather than wide spread redemption.

SMALL THINGS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

2011-03-18T19:00:00.001-07:00

There is a story in the book of Judges about a land dispute between two tribes, Ephraim and Gillead, who both needed access to a particular river crossing. As the conflict grew, the litmus test they devised was based on a form of credentialing to to allow access.

You see, the next to the last letter of the Hebrew language is pronounced differently depending on the placement of one small dot (Shin or Sin). The Gilieadites hit upon the idea of having persons who wished to use the ford pronounce the Hebrew word "Shibboleth". The Ephraimites would, by comparison, use the other pronunciations of "Siboleth." It was a simple test - answer correctly you crossed the river and answer incorrectly, by this test, and you died.

How ironic that the great letter, so to speak, they held in common was eclipsed by a small dot.
Now, how does this speak to us today?

Most of Christianity shares one great letter - a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, a loving God, and redemption and atonement for sins - yet often we allow the small, tiny dot to divide rather than unite us.

Most of America shares one great letter - a love of country, state, community, family, and friends - yet often we allow the small, tiny dot to divide rather than unite us.

More importantly - any church - should also share the "big letter" and not be devisive and argue over the "little dot." When we argue over the minor, unimportant things we shame Christ and we are a false witness to the community. When we can't get along because we can't get our way - We are totally unChristian. we are "sinning". Such action requires - no demands - that we repent and we ask forgiveness of those we have wronged.

Could we- personally, corporately, communally - do what those tribal brothers could not do? Can we celebrate today a fresh determination to not allow the tiny dot to eclipse the great shared letter?

CHURCH FIGHTING

2011-03-18T18:58:00.000-07:00

While researching another topic, I happened on this intriging little website. The blog entry of the title caught my eye because it seems lately that churches from all over are all complaining of the same thing: in-fighting, bad feelings, hurt feelings, power plays, and thinking of self. Pastors AND church people are complaining of church bullies and a lack of unity in their congregations. Hmmmm.

Sometimes we tend to want to look at things from a management viewpoint ("if they ran things right around here..."), a leadership issue ("if I was in charge..."), a peace perspective ("..if we can just all get along..."), or the old standby of tradition ("if we did things the way they used to..."), or a fear of change ("they are ruining things!).

In truth, all of these are symptoms of a problem.....but not one solved by meetings, committees, or by study groups. The problems are SPIRITUAL ones...or in truth a lack of God's Spirit in the midst of the congregational life.....some, like demonically incited attitudes of control, ego, unforgiveness, disunity, even problems in accepting that things change over time in music, worship and chruch formats....that can only be solved through "prayer and fasting"....

Let the CHURCH actually be the CHURCH OF GOD and GOODNESS and not EVIL.

"Be angry - but sin not. Do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil. ..Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up...And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God....put away all bittnerness...wrath...anger...and wrangling...and slander, together with malice...and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as GOD IN CHRIST HAS FORGIVEN YOU."-- Eph 4: 25-32.

COUNT IT ALL JOY

2011-03-16T20:08:00.000-07:00

A family had a small boy in kindergarten and chose to keep him ignorant of all the negatives of society, despite the fact his father would be shipping off for Iraq. They did not do their child any favors because there are lessons we have to learn, things we have to come to accept, and things we have to face head on. What happens when this child runs straight into harsh reality? When a father is wounded or killed? When someone dies? When a marriage breaks up? When things do not go as smoothly as mommy and daddy had led them to believe?

They are all around us, Christians who believe that to be Christian is to live a life free of problems, free of issues, or tragedy. When confronted by these realities of life the answer is to blame the individual: if you had more faith, if you had prayed more, if you had lived a better life... The construct they have created denies them ability to accept that being a Christian might include suffering or sacrifice.

It is the sour which brings meaning to the sweet. Without the one the other simply has no meaning. Christian faith is not a pass to a life free of problems but assurance of companionship through the problems. The three Hebrew youths made a decision to serve God in spite of the threat of a death in the fire. They determined that they would do so and if God rescued them fine and i f not, they would be the most faithful men ever consumed in a fire.

REVISITING THE EAGLE

2011-03-14T15:03:00.000-07:00

Christians often like the imagery of the 'eagle' found in scripture. The concept of the bird flying high above the earthly concerns, its innate nobility and pride in the cock of its head, wheeling among the lofty spires, is attractive. For some, it is reflective of a desire to find retreat, to rise above the problems, trials, and burdens of normal life. Is this the image of the eagle?

The eagle is a bird of prey. A hunter. They soar among the heights but they also dive down to snatch their meal.

"Eagles soar through skies of blue and gray.
They tip their wings and then quickly fly away.
They are freedom and grace -
and something hard to name.
Yet,the eagle is a hunter.
It soars to seek its prey;
Soaring through the skies all day.
Food, a meal, a dainty morsel; are only moments away."

WOMEN WHO SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT

2011-03-10T05:23:00.001-08:00

It's March and that means the most under-recognized special emphasis month around, Women's History Month.

As a woman who grew up watching June Cleaver clean stoves wearing a sweater and pearls, and recognizing how far from reality this was, I am increasingly dismayed by what I see today passing as 'liberation' or even 'equality.'

I see women smirking in a superior manner over their idiot husbands in a style made famous in the sitcom 'Bewitched'. Only through the superior skills and intellect of the wife could the husband cope or survive. So, the clueless man has become the stock character in commercials or television. She has migrated to the office, the job, and everywhere else. The cartoon image of the superior woman dealing with cartoonish men. They are so vile men must sequester themselves in 'Man Caves" to escape.

Bang! One bullet down.

I see women wriggle their behinds and roll their hips as they gaze seductively into a camera all while doing erratic pelvic thrusts spouting lyrics rated 'R.' They have ceased to fight being a sex symbol and have embraced their symbolism making it almost caricature. They wear their body scultping, implants, and injections like badges of honor defining their worth. They spout nonsense about doing what they want.....but they are simply doing what someone has deemed important to market to a demographic to further support the stereotype that keeps women as sex objects.

Bang! One bullet down.

I see women adopting stereotypes of people consumed by shopping, hair styles, high heels, and 'attitude'! They shop, they do not think. They talk, they do not think. They are content to merely be and not do. We do all we can to support the ethos that says pretty is better than smart, vapid is better than deep, and flighty is better than strong. We accept a role of butterfly even when we are meant to be eagles and why? Acceptance? Conformity? Expectations? To play to the twisted hyper-masculinity of some men that need empty headed, sex symbols, and not real human women?

Bang! One more bullet down.

"Women's History Month" - the leaders, the warriors, the thinkers, the healers, the women who lead by having the courage to be themselves and to be all they could be. They made the world a better place. They cast off the shackles of limitations, of stereotypes, and dared to be who they were and do what needed to be done. They did not demean themselves into caricatures of superior condescending creatures, sexy ' bitches', or shopping addicts with empty heads. When THEY said they were liberated it meant something else entirely. Self-worth, achievement, courage, and significant action.

Get some bandages; let's stop allowing women to shoot themselves in the foot anymore.

Marilyn A. Hudson

PERPETUA THROUGH A PENTECOSTAL LENS. M. HUDSON

2011-03-09T11:33:00.000-08:00

YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY
Perpetua and Pentecostalism

On a March morning in about the year 202, a twenty-two year old woman walked onto the warm sands of the arena in Carthage, North Africa. There she felt a sword shoved between her ribs and she took the ‘wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat.” Swept up in the purge of Septimus Severus and the edict outlawing conversion to Judaism or Christianity, it has been the

In 1907 a revival spread from a small mission on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California. From humble beginnings, the activities and spiritual dynamic of that place would make its mark on the world. This event would become in essence a commissioning center for what would become one of the twentieth century’s most controversial movements and launch Pentecostalism. To this event people came to observe and took back to their churches both reports and the experience of speaking in other tongues, the experience of prophecy, the experience of signs and wonders not enjoyed in such an all encompassing a manner since the early church.

In one of the services a woman from Pasadena who was already a Christian of faith stood in a Pentecostal meeting, “I do not ask for tongues but I want to love God with all my heart and soul and my neighbor as myself,” and it was reported she “immediately began to speak with tongues.”

These early Pentecostals were accused of being heretics, aligned with the devil, and other labels used during the Azusa Street revival and in events following to malign the participants. To be certain there were extremes and theologies developed that created many problems for the nascent revival movement. One such episode occurred in Oklahoma City in 1906 and it was clearly understood that the people marching naked through the streets and into a hotel lobby were both crazed and ‘holy rollers.” Similar events were reported with various levels of humor, chagrin, or distain in newspapers across the country.

“Enthusiasms” was one term used to define these exuberant manifestations of both spiritual contrition and joy. The early church and its ‘enthusiasms’ had been tamed, labeled primitive, and the church of the new 20th century was hoped to be a place of culture and refinement.

What those early Pentecostals experienced was similar to the experiences of a Christian in the second century. The spiritual life and martyrdom of Perpetua of Carthage
________________________
‘The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas.” The Anti-Nicene Fathers, translation of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Volume 3, Latin Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976, pg. 699f.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley., ed. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Volume VIII. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1959, pg. 466.
Corum, Fred T., ed. Like as of Fire, a reprint of the old Azusa Street papers, Wilmington, Mass.: Fred Corum, 1981, pg. 20 (The Apostolic Faith (November 1906): 2).

JUST WHAT IS MAMMON?

2011-02-27T16:28:00.000-08:00

Matthew 6:24 (King James Version)/ ²⁴No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

In response to a question, 'mammon' has roots in Aramaic and its exact origins are unclear in all respects. It is believed to refer to materialism and greed. Early writers often used the term to imply a god of money or acquisition.

A clearer translation might be - "No one can serve two masters; for they will hate the one or love the other; or else hold to one and despise the other. A person cannot serve God and Materialism."

It speaks to the motivations of the individual and things that are held valued as a result of the motivation. An old Native American story illustrates the concept. An elder explained to a child that each person has inside of them two natures:the human and the wolf. The human loves and works. The wolf hunts and destroys. "Which one will a person become?" asked the child. "The one that is fed."

Every person makes a decision at some time or another as to who they will value. What will motivate them. As the old song goes, "You gotta serve somebody...."

HOW'S YOUR HERMENEUTIC?

2011-02-12T13:31:00.000-08:00

I was following a conversation thread online and was entertained by a random comment about someone taking a hermeneutics class. Immediately someone dived in to talk about how that was boring and how the process of hermeneutics got in the way of listening to a sermon and created a critical spirit. They just wanted the spirit of God to have freedom to move.... They, so they claimed, had no hermeneutic.

I was reminded of those who claim they have no 'creed but Christ' but never realize they have just defined a creed.

How disastrous is it that we 1) believe a hermeneutic interferes with a sermon; 2) believe a hermeneutic hinders the move of God; and 3) believe a hermeneutic creates a critical spirit.

1) Believe a hermeneutic interferes with a sermon

Politicians have been stereotyped for a particular style of campaigning that promised a "chicken in every pot." The constitution says Americans should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Happiness is a cook pot with chicken and so therefore.... This tangled logic is akin to the nature of many sermons preached devoid of any attempt at a hermeneutic. Is that really what the text says? Who has preached without a sound application hermeneutics? Jim Jones, David Koresh, and any of a dozen other leaders of cult groups. Hmmm...is there a connection there between a lack of a sound hermeneutic and straying into what a previous generation termed "error'"?

2) Believe a hermeneutic hinders the move of God

Is this the same God who inspired Bible writers to say all things in worship should be done decently and in order? Even with the interpretation of scripture through a pentecostal or charismatic lens there is an expectation of order and knowledge (when the Spirit fell at Pentecost, Peter was able to preach a sermon and the see many added to the newly born congregation) and never is there any indication that such a blessing is accompanied by uncontrollable, wild, or outlandish actions. Indeed, the move of God is always accompanied by a call to 'test the fruit', to 'reason together', and to 'remember the first things.'

3) Believe a hermeneutic creates a critical spirit.

The largest hazard in churches today mirrors that of the larger culture and is an inability or unwillingness to apply rationale thought or simple thinking skills. We believe whatever we are told, no matter how bizarre, illogical or evil that thing may be. People have accepted preaching that said rape your children, marry your daughters, have sex with other partners, use drugs, and even take this poison and die. Is anyone really naive enough to believe that others preaching - minus a sound hermeneutic - might lead others astray? They might not go to those extremes, but sometimes, history has shown us, those extreme examples were birthed in a free and easy approach to scripture that went unchallenged.

God gave to us a brain - for a reason - and that reason was to learn, to search, to question, to evaluate, and understand. Truth can never be destroyed by the searchlight of examination, the Spirit of God can never be quenched by evaluating the spirits present, and a sermon can never be damaged by a hearers weighing its content and message against the totality of scripture.

ROMAN WOMEN WERE RESTRICTED?

2011-01-05T03:30:00.001-08:00

One of the arguments for the apparent restrictive segments of the NT regarding women has been the model of Roman society. Women in Roman society, we are told, were limited and under the control of the husband.

A 1911 book suggests otherwise.

“many things that among the Greeks are considered improper and unfitting,” wrote Cornelius Nepos in the preface to his “Lives”, “are permitted by our customs. Is there by chance A roman who is ashamed to take his wife to a dinner away from home? Does it happen that the mistress of the house in any family does not enter the anterooms frequented by strangers and show herself amon them? Not so in Greece: there the woman accepts invitations only among families to which she is related, and she remains withdrawn in that inner part of the house called the gynaeceum, where only the nearest relatives are admitted.”

Quoted in The Women of the Caesars. Century Co., 1911 pg. 3.

“When rome became the master state of the Mediterranean world, and especially dyring the last century of the republic, woman…had already acquired legal and economic independence, the condition necessary for social and moral equality.” Pg. 5

“Moreover, in the home the woman was mistress, at the side of and on equality with her husband.” Pg. 10

“…under the republic there existed at Rome a kind of woman’s club, which called itself conventus matronarum and which gathered together the dames of the great families. Finally, it is certain that many times in critical moments the government turned directly and officially to the great ladies of Rome for help to overcome the dangers that menaced public affairs…” pg. 12

39 Articles (16th century)

2010-12-18T07:57:00.000-08:00

These form the basis for several prominant religious groups including, but not limited to, the Church of England and the Methodist Church.

Read them here.

Athanasian Creed (4th Century)

2010-12-18T07:48:00.003-08:00

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Purpose: To oppose Arianism and defend the concept of the Trinity

Nicene Creed (325)

2010-12-18T07:39:00.001-08:00

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

When formulated: 325 A.D., Nicea, (Note creed means elements of belief)
In response to what challenge or threat: Gnosticism and the denial of the humanity of Jesus.

Apostle's Creed

2010-12-18T07:33:00.000-08:00

The Apostles' Creed
I believe = the first action is actually learning enough to say you believe. Learning, considering, evaluating, praying, and living then I can affirm I have belief

1. In God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

3. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

4. the Holy Catholic Church, the universal church that is the Body of Christ,
5. the communion of saints,
6. the forgiveness of sins,
7. the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Amen.

IS THE DURA EUROPOS CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE?

2010-12-17T04:31:00.000-08:00

While some suggest anyone questioning the representational aspects of Dura Europos as imbecilic, the facts are clear. There is no reason not to accept the church at face value as one vital face of early Christianity. The better question is how often have house churches been overlooked because they did not meet some preconceived expectation of arrangement, location, decoration, or setting?

It is clear that the worship centers in this part of Syria were unconventional; the use of art in the synagoue goes against accepted understandings of worship decor. Yet, Francis Schaeffer in the 1970's was challenging the overly conservative view of the prevelance of the plain and simple in both Judaism and early Christianity. His thesis for the reclaimation of the arts by the faithful may have been an echo of what was a reality so long ago in Syria.

Perhaps, like the middle ages church came to recognize, as an area became cosmopolitan, diverse, and educationally differentiated the role of the image as instruction could not be ignored. The 'stories in stone and wood' presented by the cathedrals, the icons, and frescoes may have been used to good cause in the wanning days of the first and second centuries in places such as Dura Europos.

Unfortunately, most of this church was carted off to Yale where it is hidden in a musuem. The value of investigating the form and context of this church are largely ignored outside arcane archaelogical journals. What is clear is it was a lovely and unique chapter of early church history that has been overlooked and ignored. The presence of women in the imagery - and all that the presence of them in representational instructional art implies - has been gagged this many long centuries. The story they present may be one some do not want to accept. The implied inclusion and value of women a story they want silenced. Yet, it is one that needs to be heard and soon to restore the balance and equity of the Gospel ethos to the Christian community.

EARLY HOUSE CHURCH: WHAT DURA EUROPOS HAS TO SAY TO US

2010-12-16T05:13:00.001-08:00

Dura-Europos was a Christian house church dating to 235 A.D.

In it are frescos depicting Adam and Eve, what is assumed to be the three Mary's approaching the tomb, and the Good Shepherd image. The fact women were included on the walls of this house of corporate worship could be simple cultural style or may reflect something more. The fact their participation in significant Gospel scenes is noteworthy and should be considered against the more grating refrains chanting: " a woman must be silent", etc. Eve, and all of her daughters, would be constant and visual teachers of the Gospel message via the artwork.

The house consists of living quarters, afew smaller rooms, and a common room but apparently lacks the sexual segregation aspects often assumed of the synagoues. There is a baptismal area with a shallow pool indicating probably immersion was not practised in the house but this could have happened, as many have noted, in the river nearby if a believer or doctrine required.

This is important because it indicates something different was going on in the Christian worship site. While authors argue woman was segregated and the disciples addressed the males in their pastoral epistles, the house church seems to undermine that argument.

As one of the earliest church houses and containing important images (the earliest image of Christ was found there), the site is largely unknown. Far greater emphasis is on the Jewish synagogue and the implications of the Christian worship center are laregely ignored.

[Image public domain ]

HEY YOU GUYS!

2010-12-16T05:09:00.000-08:00

"Brothers" or "Brothers and Sisters"?

As a child growing up in Kansas, the term ‘Guys’ had no connection to gender it was more an informal collective noun referring to any group of people regardless to sex. “Hey guys, let’s go play on the swings.” “Those guys over there want to play a game.” “Guys!!!! Wait up…..”

I remember the first time I used this outside of Kansas. Half of the assembled group responded with an irate: “What! We’re not guys!”

I wonder if someone had been writing down all the times I, and others like me, used the term informally as ‘people’, would they one day interpret that I had meant only the men? Maybe that is just what the issue of the New Testament use of the term ‘Brothers’ (adelphos) implies. Ancient sources reveal evidence that the masculine plural forms of the noun could, depending on contexts, have a gender-neutral sense and mean both sexes (see the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon (2nd ed., 1979).

A review of the uses of the term translated “Brothers”, indicates few instances where gender is an issue unless one is overly concerned with issues of male superiority, authority, or propriety. There are, however, in applying a strict rule, repeated problems challenging the scope of the Gospel presented, the membership of the ‘church’, and the attitude of the disciples to the followers.

Scope of the Gospel
Internal logic alone calls into question the strict use of a male specific rendering of adelphos as a steadfast rule. If there is evidence in other sources of a gender-neutral use of the term, could there also be an informal and general use of the term similar to the way ‘guys’ can be used? If not, there is a massive exclusion of women in the New Testament pastorals which conflicts with the actions and words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

Membership in the “Church”
The Pauline corpus uses the term “brothers’ (adelphos) heavily, yet included in many of the letters are instances of a larger intended audience. Some authors argue that the early church was gender segregated and cite the remains of the synagogue at the Syrian Dura-Europos . Yet, one of the early house churches (this one dated to ca 235 A.D.) is also located there complete with a single hall and frescos depicting Gospel events, Adam and Eve, and utilizing the imagery of the “Good Shepherd”. Some even depict women of the Gospels and show the three Mary’s approaching the tomb.

Attitude of the Disciples
To Be Continued.....

See Also: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/dura_europos/

LIVING UNDER A CURSE

2010-12-12T07:48:00.000-08:00

Recently, I was reviewing a situation, and the only answer to the problems presented seemed to be the possibility of a curse. Now, I am not one to lightly bandy that term around. I feel it has been misused in the past and used far too glibly. Yet, in this situation it seems to fit.

At issue: An institution unable to get ahead, unable to achieve any of its goals, to become what its destiny implied, unable to identify and follow a vision with honor, and an institution with a track record of viewing its human resources as a disposable commodity. This last element, especially, seems the most likely vehicle by which a "curse" or similar proclamation may have been levied.

Such actions tend to generate discord, if not downright hate, and from such hurt and pain arise careless actions or words. Such actions also tend to violate solid Christian principles of righteous actions and fundamental principles of ethics, love, and concern.

CURSING ELEMENTS

How were those O.T. curses voiced? They often included declarations that -

1. Your Plans would come to naught. Despite strategic plans, goals, well orchestrated emphasis, and visions of possibilities, there is in the end complete failure. The target is not reached. Every effort falls terribly short of its intended goal despite all efforts to the contrary.

2. Your Wells would go dry. Wells provide nourishment, they enhance life by their existence (shade and life emerge around the well or watering place). The water is symbolic of new life, of cleansing, and renewal with new purpose.

3. Your Herds would not increase. The herd can be symbolic of economic stability and blessing. The herd can be symbolic of discipleship and growth. The herd is the future and the reproduction, addition, and improving of that herd were keys to stability, growth, and future life.

4. You are spurned. Like Cain there seems to be a sign reading 'loser' or some other sign that keeps quality customers at bay but attracts negativity. Over all, there is the sense that the darkness embraces even as the light spurns the business, group, or agency.

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS

These objects of prophetic pronouncements often seemed to share some common characteristics as well.

1. They closed their ears. They did not listen to advice, warnings, or words of wisdom to change their ways, correct their course, or rethink their strategies. Pride had stepped in to steal their humility. They did not hear the cries for compassion, help, or mercy. They did not hear the warnings or the counsel.

2. They closed their eyes. They did not see what was before them, pr they chose to be too selective in what they did see. They saw what they wanted to see and they urged movement to the wrong landmarks as a result. They did not hear the cries of the widows, the orphans, the hungry, or the injured (physical or metaphorical).

3. They closed their mouths. They did not speak up when they saw error, sin, or crime on every side. They did not dare to disagree when the decisions were made that headed them toward the shoals of unethical actions, unscriptural conduct, or illogical thinking.

In uncontrolled power lies the bitter root of sin, the lure of hubris, and the inevitable outcome of pain. In power lies the ability to generate fear and control. This Fear keeps the ears, eyes, and mouths closed. Fear gives the ungodly control. Fear is the tool of those who who seek to destroy. As the Bible says where there is envy and strife, and selfish ambition, there is “confusion and every evil work” (James 3:16).

In WW2 a pastor, Martin Niemoller write a poem...."In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Fear, unconcern, and the refusal to be fully aware of what is going on around combine to create a deadly situation. This is the opposite of what the Bible says the Christian is to be and to do.

"But the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and hypocrisy" (James 3:16-17).

The hurting person who intentionally or unknowingly lays down a curse can only place that curse on those who do not operate in that "wisdom that is from above". Those who are being pure, peaceable, gentle, merciful, without partiality or hypocrisy, have nothing to fear.

THE CURE

"Come let us reason together" and 1) search the heart of the self, the institution, and the cause to determine if there is a curse and why it is able to negatively impact our setting. 2) Then, corporately repent, 3) seek out those wronged and make restitution or seek forgiveness, and 4) then make the changes necessary to be a Godly, righteous, and ethical place.

Then....and only then....will real advancement or achievemenets be made.

I LIKE IT OUT IN THE OPEN: SENSUAL IMAGERY AND WOMEN

2010-10-09T13:01:00.000-07:00

A recent furor has been raised by the 'suggestive' postings of women on social networking sites. The problem appears to rest not so much with what is said but how people interpret what is said. Words are worrisome things and can hinder as well as help clear communication.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder than just as surely lustful thoughts, suggestive inflections, and tawdry intepretations may be influenced by the human filter through which they pass. Namely, you and I. I have known people who if the word 'red' was written on a wall they would inhale, cover the eyes of small children, and hurry away, tongue clicking at the indecency. I have seen those same people mock, belittle, denigrate, slander, insult, and ridicule with words and 'suggestive' inflections without anyone calling them to account.

Larger issues of cultural confusion, Christian cultural confusion, cloud the issue. Through layers of church history, inferior interpretations, and hare-brained hermenuetic there is often a view of women as 'creators' of lust, temptresses, inferior mental stamina, and vapid moral character.

For some, who mis-read Paul and Peter's words in the New Testament and largely ignore those of Jesus, Woman is eternally standing in the Garden offering poor, innocent Adam a forbidden fruit.

Woman, as the being created by God, has been maligned and in so doing so too has the Man. The Song of Solomon celebrates the physical nature of human sexual interaction as a joyful, playful and satisfying experience. What we have done is blame one gender over another, instill artifical standards of purity, and build walls that tend to heighten rather than control natural sexual responses.

Holiness - in life, thoughts, and actions - is more than being surrounded by people in non-revealing clothing. If that were the case, the Victorian era would have been one of the holiest and yet sexual sin was rampant in the day when a glimpse of ankle was scandalous. If that were the case, the lives of peoples in cultures where clothing is mimimal or missing would be torrid centers of scandalous living - yet they are most often the opposite. Pacific Islanders did have trouble with women going topless in pre-colonial Hawaii; the Missionaries and others who worked there had the problems and how they responded was a means of safeguarding themselves rather than those they sought to minister to.

When we assume that anything sexual is sinful we set ourselves up for a series of problems. When we assume we can do anything sexual we set ourselves up for a series of problems. It is the middle, in the balance, where we must reside to safeguard healthy, God-given reactions with the ability to control animalistic urges. This is done through character, ethics, respect, and Christ working within the man or the woman to see the best of God's creation.

ONE CHOCOLATE BAR SACRIFICES

2010-09-05T18:00:00.001-07:00

I remember hearing or reading an interview of French film personality, Leslie Caron talking about the deprivations she and her country had suffered under Hitler. She recalled the soldiers coming through and giving them their extra chocolate bars. They were treats but later she observed that one of the main differences in their relative experiences was for the American it was simply losing one of two bars but for her and her countrymen it was having no chocolate bar at all.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, killed in WW2, also recognized that sometimes we can be guilty of wanting a cheap grace with a small price tag. As he said:"To endure the cross is not tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ.” As a man ultimately killed for his position standing against the Nazi and his faithful beliefs, Bonhoeffer had understanding of the reality of suffering and a cross in the life of the believer.

As Jesus, 'take up your cross' if one desired to follow him. The way is not easy, what good thing comes without pain, sweat, or cost?

Our problem may be we have lived overly long with the sacrifice of one of our two candy bars. Sacrifice is what someone else does. Sacrifice is an abstract which holds little reality in our instant gratification paradigm of normalcy.

Muzzeling the Ox: Women Today

2010-09-01T09:22:00.000-07:00

There is statement in the Bible reminding people of the unwise move of muzzeling the ox that is working to grind the corn or the grain to be made into bread. Life and economic vitality depended on the strength of the ox to work at the thankless task.

I was struck lately with how apt an illustration that is for woman in the church sometimes. She is hidden away, working thankless and repeatitive duties, and some want to muzzle her as well.

What happens when an ox gets hungry? When it is not cared for or tended to with respect? It looses strength, withers and dies, OR it can grow frustrated, anxious and break out to escape the servitude of its bondage.

SEEING AND SEEING. M.HUDSON

2010-06-13T04:36:00.000-07:00

"Twelve baskets, Master," they told Him."If I could supply the need then, what is to stop me from doing the same now?" Noticing the blank looks still on their faces he asked: "How is it that you do not yet understand?" There is a difference in seeing and really taking in what is seen. One merely catches the visual impressions. The other catches it and analyzes it. Then the person comes to an understanding. Some people never get past the "surface- skimming" stage. From a human standpoint Jesus might well have despaired that his followers-those twelve, hand-picked men, who would turn the world upside down-would ever graduate past the skimming stage. But Christ was, among other things, their Teacher. Almost immediately, He set about to impress something on those men. In a group gathered to one side of the road the disciples watched as Jesus took the blind man by the hand to lead him away from the town. Jesus spat upon the eyes and asked him what he could see. The man looked around: "I see men who are like walking trees. It is all very unclear." As he finished speaking Jesus placed his hands on the man's eyes and told him to look again. "I can see! I can see clearly now!" He cried to the crowd as his sight was restored, "I can finally see."

The man had been blind, unable to see the sky, his friends, or even his own family; however, Jesus didn't heal him right away as he had in other cases. Instead, He touched him once and then the man reported that he saw but the images were obscure and out of focus. Perhaps Jesus looked at his disciples then, wondering if they
were grasping the analogy.

Earlier, on board the ship they had "seen" what Jesus said, but it was out of focus, badly distorted. They loved Jesus but they had not come to the place where they did more than skim the surface of the relationship available to the Son of God.

Like you and me, the disciples had caught the visual impression on the soul's retina, so they bickered, murmured, were jealous and unkind until, they, like the blind man, were touched anew and cast off their spiritual blindness to see really see-the meaning behind the coming, the teaching, and the victorious death of Jesus Christ. It is the difference between merely making a casual acceptance of Christ's teachings, and taking in what He taught, studying it, and coming to an understanding of God's will and plans for life. It is the difference in living a life of sight in spiritual concern and maturity, or remaining blinded.

It is the difference between seeing ... and really seeing

HIS BOW ABODE IN STRENGTH.

2010-06-13T04:29:00.000-07:00

HIS BOW ABODE IN STRENGTH

It was done.
The sun hid its face behind countless grieving clouds. The wind quickened to carry the word of mourning. The earth arose as if it wept. Laughing, vulgar faces abruptly ceased their reveling as darkness and fear sent them scurrying down the road seeking safety.

A small group remained, infinitesimal in comparison to the cheering crowds of just a few days before. A mother, a friend, a handful of women, an unknown number of acquaintances.

How, we ask, could those desert Him who followed Him for months, even years. How could the press of the crowds clamoring after the miracles, the healings, and the words He spoke, be reduced to a lonely handful on a hill?

We know the answer - for it is within ourselves. Their human frailty is our weakness. Their lack of faith is our absence of trust, Their humanity is ours.

In our doubt and unbelief, do we run to hide in a cave. When about us the ungodly grow full of earth's best, do we grumble at what we feel should be he spoils of this life? When we are straining beneath the load of, do we complain because one walks unfettered? When the way grows hard or our sun hidden by grief, do we hurry to bury our faces beneath the cover of solace?

The Cross. His cross and our cross. Can we stay by the side of Jesus regardless of outside influences or apprehensions? Can we be described in the terms Jacob used in his death-bed blessing of Joseph:
. . . the archers sorely grieved him, and shot him and hated him,
but his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were
made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob
(Genesis 49:23, 24).

M.HUDSON

SEEING AND SEEING. MARILYN A. HUDSON

2010-05-24T19:28:00.000-07:00

SEEING AND SEEING
The disciples looked at one another; someone had forgotten to bring the food. After a check of the ship they found only a single loaf of bread to be shared between them. Each one's glance drifted guiltily to where Jesus stood at the side of the ship looking toward the far shore. Since leaving the group of Pharisees who had tried to waylay him with their tricks and questions he had stood like that. He was probably even more hungry than they, and all they had was a loaf of bread.

From where they were grouped they heard Jesus speak in a tone he used when there was something he particularly wanted them to know. "Listen to what I have to say," he commanded them. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod."

Talking among themselves they decided that Jesus knew they had not made provision for food and that he was displeased with them. Although they Had spoken in whispers, Jesus turned to them asking: "Why do you think that I spoke about the absence of food? Do you not understand yet-do you not grasp what I mean? Are your hearts hardened to me already? "You have eyes, can you not see? You have ears, can't you hear, and do you so soon forget all that I have spoken to you? When I broke the five loaves of bread among the five thousand who had come to hear me teach, how many baskets full of food were taken up after all had eaten?"
"Twelve baskets, Master," they told Him."If I could supply the need then, what is to stop me from doing the same now?" Noticing the blank looks still on their faces he asked: "How is it that you do not yet understand?" There is a difference in seeing and really taking in what is seen. One merely catches the visual impressions. The other catches it and analyzes it. Then the person comes to an understanding. Some people never get past the "surface- skimming" stage. From a human standpoint Jesus might well have despaired that his followers-those twelve, hand-picked men, who would turn the world upside down-would ever graduate past the skimming stage. But Christ was, among other things, their Teacher. Almost immediately, He set about to impress something on those men. In a group gathered to one side of the road the disciples watched as Jesus took the blind man by the hand to lead him away from the town. Jesus spat upon the eyes and asked him what he could see. The man looked around: "I see men who are like walking trees. It is all very unclear." As he finished speaking Jesus placed his hands on the man's eyes and told him to look again. "I can see! I can see clearly now!" He cried to the crowd as his sight was restored, "I can finally see."

The man had been blind, unable to see the sky, his friends, or even his own family; however, Jesus didn't heal him right away as he had in other cases. Instead, He touched him once and then the man reported that he saw but the images were obscure and out of focus. Perhaps Jesus looked at his disciples then, wondering if they
were grasping the analogy.

Earlier, on board the ship they had "seen" what Jesus said, but it was out of focus, badly distorted. They loved Jesus but they had not come to the place where they did more than skim the surface of the relationship available to the Son of God.

Like you and me, the disciples had caught the visual impression on the soul's retina, so they bickered, murmured, were jealous and unkind until, they, like the blind man, were touched anew and cast off their spiritual blindness to see really see-the meaning behind the coming, the teaching, and the victorious death of Jesus Christ. It is the difference between merely making a casual acceptance of Christ's teachings, and taking in what He taught, studying it, and coming to an understanding of God's will and plans for life. It is the difference in living a life of sight in spiritual concern and maturity, or remaining blinded. It is the difference between seeing ... and really seeing

NO LONGER MASTER

2010-03-14T06:22:00.000-07:00

In the prophetic book of Hosea, God speaks to his people using the language of metaphor and marriage. The promise of better relationships with God was expressed in terms clearly identifying the nature of the interaction as being love, and not power, based.

"And it shall be in that day," says the Lord, "...will call me, 'My Husband (Ishi)' and no longer call me, 'My Master (Baali)' (Hosea 2.16).

The clear message is that the way God wishes to interact with His people is not through power, authority, or control. Instead, God's wish is to be intimate, loving, protective, and supportive of His people.

Compare this to the often misused words of Paul in Ephesians 5.22 telling women to submit to their husbands. It is often used as a whip to prod women into 'their place' while ignoring the earlier verse about submitting to one another.

This is another excellent example of how scripture informs scripture. If God desires to no longer have his symbolic spouse view him as 'master' - than human men should look to this as their model. It is always better to have relationship than mere reverence.

The Tea Cup

2010-03-11T14:25:00.000-08:00

FROM THE EMAIL - NO IDEA WHO THE AUTHOR IS, WILL CREDIT AND PROMOTE IF NOTIFIED OR REMOVE AS REQUIRED...I love this story - you will not be able to have tea in a tea cup again without thinking of this.

There was a couple who took a trip to England to shop in a beautiful antique store to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. They both liked antiques and pottery, and especially teacups. Spotting an exceptional cup, they asked, "May we see that? We've never seen a cup quite so beautiful."

As the lady handed it to them, suddenly the teacup spoke, "You don't understand. I have not always been a teacup There was a time when I was just a lump of red clay. My master took me and rolled me, pounded and patted me over and over and I yelled out, "Don't do that. "I don't like it! Leave me alone," but he only smiled, and gently said, "Not yet!"

Then WHAM! I was placed on a spinning wheel and suddenly I was spun around and around and around. "Stop it! I'm getting so dizzy! I'm going to be sick!," I screamed. But the master only nodded and said quietly. 'Not yet.'

He spun me and poked and prodded and bent me out of shape to suit himself and then he put me in the oven. I never felt such heat.. I yelled and knocked and pounded at the door. "Help! Get me out of here!" I could see him through the opening and I could read his lips as he shook his head from side to side, 'Not yet'.

When I thought I couldn't bear it another minute, the door opened. He carefully took me out and put me on the shelf, and I began to cool. Oh, that felt so good! "Ah, this is much better," I thought. But after I cooled he picked me up and he brushed and painted me all over. The fumes were horrible. I thought I would gag. "Oh, please, stop it, stop," I cried. He only shook his head and said. 'Not yet!'.

Then suddenly he put me back in to the oven. Only it was not like the first one.. This was twice as hot and I just knew I would suffocate. I begged. I pleaded. I screamed. I cried. I was convinced I would never make it. I was ready to give up. Just then the door opened and he took me out and again placed me on the shelf where I cooled and waited and waited, wondering "What's he going to do to me next?"

An hour later he handed me a mirror and said 'Look at yourself.' And I did. I said, "That's not me; that couldn't be me. It's beautiful. I'm beautiful!!!"

Quietly he spoke: 'I want you to remember, then,' he said, 'I know it hurt to be rolled and pounded and patted, but had I just left you alone, you'd have dried up. I know it made you dizzy to spin around on the wheel, but if I had stopped, you would have crumbled. I know it hurt and it was hot and disagreeable in the oven, but if I hadn't put you there, you would have cracked. I know the fumes were bad when I brushed and painted you all over, but if I hadn't done that, you never would have hardened. You would not have had any color in your life. If I hadn't put you back in that second oven, you wouldn't have survived for long because the hardness would not have held. Now you are a finished product. Now you are what I had in mind when I first began with you.'

The moral of this story is this:
God knows what He's doing for each of us. He is the potter, and we are His clay. He will mold us and make us and expose us to just enough pressures of just the right kinds that we may be made into a flawless piece of work to fulfill His good, pleasing and perfect will.

So when life seems hard, and you are being pounded and patted and pushed almost beyond endurance; when your world seems to be spinning out of control; when you feel like you are in a fiery furnace of trials; when life seems to "stink", try this:

Brew a cup of your favorite tea in your prettiest tea cup, sit down and think on this story and then, have a little talk with the Potter

PRAYER FOR GOD'S WILL: UKRAINE

2010-02-07T07:14:00.000-08:00

From a missionary who has worked in the country:

"THIS IS A CRUCIAL MOMENT IN UKRAINE. The SITUATION IS TENSE in Kiev, the capital, and throughout the country as the run off for President of Ukraine is about to begin. In mere hours (10 PM PST) the polls will open for people to decide between Pro-Western Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko and Pro-Moscow opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich.

Ukraine has been the freest nation in the former Soviet Union and one of the freest in Europe. There is freedom of religion as in no other nation in the region. Ukrainian missionaries have been the pioneers of many, if not most churches in Russia (even during the Soviet Union). Without getting into the important geopolitical position of Ukraine, this nation is very very important in many ways in the region.

The pastors and churches in Ukraine are fasting and praying for these elections and they ask the Body of Christ to do the same. The Prime Minister has had good relations with the Christian Churches and has Pastors as advisers, whereas the opposition leader has promised the Russian Orthodox Church that he would curb the growth of protestant movements and rein in their current liberties, bringing in similar restrictions to those that currently exist in Russia.

We had a dynamic start to the Bible Training school in the Ukraine (80 Students). Ukraine. Please pray for the students and teachers. Shortly 2 schools will start in Siberia, Russia. Last year over 200 new churches were started as a result of these training programs. "

THE SENT ONES

2009-12-29T05:18:00.000-08:00

The term 'apostle' is a term from the Greek referring to one 'sent out' as in a messanger or representative carrying out a duty or errand. Traditionally, the church has used the term to refer to the disciples who were sent by Jesus on a mission (errand) to share the witness of the Gospel, just as he had been sent by God (Heb.3.1

Ephesians states they are a gift to the Body of Christ: "He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry"(Eph. 4.11-12).

So, let us examine the story in John of Mary Magdalene, called the "Apostle to the Apostles".

In John 20.14-18 is the story.

Jesus is encountered in the garden, not as a corpse but as glorified redeemer and tells her..."go (poreuou) to my brothers (adelphous) and say (eipe) to them."....

Mary went and "announced (angellousa)...I have seen the Lord and he had said these things to her."

It becomes clear that Jesus
a) could have told them himself but instead uses a messanger and the messenger was Mary;
b) he gave clear instructions in the message to inform his absent followers of the fulfilment of his teachings;
c) Mary shares her witness (I have seen the Lord) and he said these things....

This was the role of the apostle - to be the messanger of the good news to share the message, to share their personal knowledge and witness of its truth, and to share the words ( teachings) of the one who sent them.....

For a century or more after the time of Jesus this was understood as a role of people in the church. Yet, it became narrowly defined to mean only those who had seen -w ith their own eyes - the works of Jesus and his first disiciples. Two hundred years later it is already being replaced as an active role in the new church.

Just as, over 2,000 years later, it is being narrowly defined as referring only to the male followers of Jesus.

The disciples (student learners) were, at the Great Commission, the Upper Room, and various other places transformed into apostles. They were sent people with a mission and a message.

How could Mary Magadalene be anything else than an Apostle?

MARY THE MISLABELED

2009-12-16T04:39:00.000-08:00

Mary Magdelene has been victimized over the centuries. She has been labeled a prostitute, fallen woman, and other fanciful descriptions which reveal more about the scholars than about her.

1. Are we guilty of bearing false witness against this woman?

2. Why has it been so easy to label this woman as 'fallen' when nothing in scripture leads to that description?

What we know from scripture is that she was from a place called Magdela, she had seven demons which Jesus cast from her, and she was a faithful and constant presence in his ministry from then until she ran to inform his male followers he had risen from the dead.

1. Why do we first assume she was a young, vital, and beautiful woman? The success of the theory assuming Jesus and Mary were a couple is predicated on the assumption she was young, but on what is this based?

2. Earliest chuch writers recognized her first as 'the apostle to the apostles' yet soon she was denigraded to a fallen woman....and we have allowed her to stay there since then.

After that, events are less clear. Some sources based on early legends of the church say she became a companion to Mary the Mother, may have assisted John in writing his Gospel and may have traveled to Epheseus.

1. If she was an more mature woman there would be fewer 'stories' of her post-resurrection because she would have died.

2. The strong model of the 'wise woman' and the 'mother in Israel' from Judaism and the O.T. needs to be considered when interpreting the role of women in the nascent Christ-followers. This is something early, Greek and Roman and European scholars and clerics, may have totally missed. Women did have those roles or honors in those societies so naturally in the early formalized church these roles are minimized and controled and eventually eliminated.

I AM NOT A FEMINIST - I AM A CHRISTIAN

2009-10-28T05:05:00.000-07:00

Every Bible scholar must face a moment where they ask themselves, 'is my bias showing?' To fail to do this risks them compromising their scholarship. Yet, history is replete with people who never asked themself the hard questions about what their own prejudices, biases, and stupid ideas were!

The patriarchal scholar reads and sees women as faint figures in the Biblical background. They are firmly placed in gendered spheres to serve, mend, pleasure, and support the life of men.

The so-called feminist scholar reads the same texts and see women being taught, commissioned, blessed, called, and valued. They tend to see the role of women may even be equal to that of the men.

When looked at in its totality the Bible supports women in strong leadership roles. From the prophets and queens of the Old Testment to the disciples and apostles of the New, women are there at work being used and guided to act by God.

Looking at the Old Testament we can see women who may have been warriors, we see women as prophets, national leaders ('Mother of Israel'), political leaders, and playing vital roles in the spiritual life of the people.

Looking at the New Testament, just in the Gospels, we can see women who where never 'put in their place', who were spoken to as equals and engaged in serious conversations, received the instruction of a disciple.

No, I am not a feminist (although some of their research has been valuable and groundbreaking) but I am a Christian. Christ, ministered and called all people, and so to be inclusive of both sexes is to be Christian.

WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT?

2009-10-22T05:33:00.000-07:00

A list of the qualities of a pastor includes diverse traits and reveal of conflicted view of the role. The pastor should love to visit, be involved with the lives of people, be a sparkplug, make hospital and house calls, listen with sympathy and understanding, be a dynamic speaker, teacher, leader, and vision caster, work with the community, reach out to the needy, preach the word courageously, go toe-to-toe with culture, be active, attentive, and available!

Years ago there was cartoon ( I have no source) but it revealed the perfect pastor. One side of the pastor filled the demands of one segment and the other suited the demands of another segment. From eye color to the way the pastor's hair was combed there were conflicting desires.

One of the problems is that the concept of the pastor and that of leader are often in conflict. We want one person to actually be doing the work of one or more people.

Notice too that many of the traits we want in a pastor are also ones we equate with the feminine! We want relationship, we want comfort, we want attention, visits, and passive activity in isolated areas. The pastor must visit, talk, eat, listen, and care about all the details of everybody's life (from large events to smallest detail). The leader is expected to set the pace, lead, vision, motivate, drive, and push the church forward. These in the same person? Really?

"Diakonia"

2009-10-14T12:49:00.000-07:00

I just finished a dynamic and deep book, "Diakonia: Re-intrepreting the Ancient Sources" by John N. Collins ( Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-539602-7). It is a book reflecting the authors long study of the original language, the use of the term 'diakonia' in both Biblical and non-Biblical sources. The result is challenging and filled with additional questions that I am sure researchers will rush to interact with over the coming years.

Why is this word of note? It is the word that is used to define our current understandings of the word "ministry" and it is the word that has been used to keep women forever in the outer courts of Christian ministry and leadership.

It is the word in Romans where Paul speaks of the Christian woman sent to him with letters and purpose, Phoebe.

It is a word that leaders, translators, and preachers have played a shell game with in order to keep women out of the ministry.

For you see, the word means "servant" in some uses and therefore a reader with a preconception that women can not serve God in leadership or ministry will translate the term to mean Phoebe came as a servant, a slave, a helper.

Elsewhere,where the exact word is used in reference to men it is translated as minister, preacher, and priest.

This shell game of meaning can be found throughout commentaries, writings, sermons, and other sources over the last 1900 years.

If the sweeping work of Collins is taken with the seriousness it deserves, the word also has deep implications for the very nature of the ministry and those who act in those roles in the church.

ANTICHRIST NAMED?

2009-10-01T04:47:00.000-07:00

Recently an email came across my desk and a friend asked for my opinion on the video linked in the mailing. A video that presented the concept that Christ had named the Anti-Christ. Leaving the decision to the viewer, the video presented a word study of a single verse in scripture. These words in the their original language, in theory, bear a resemblance to the name 'Barack Obama.'

So I reviewed the video and here are my conclusions:

"After reviewing the film, asking some scholars, and reviewing the text I would conclude the video is very interesting, challenging, and apparently logical. That is only half of the story however, since whenever one goes to the Biblical text, the first questions to be asked are not minute, arcane word meanings, but rather, 1) what is the context for this statement? and 2) how did the original speaker or audience understand this text?

That is where the video breaks down somewhat. The second point is context. The cited text (Luke 10:18), as a reference to the Antichrist, is an error.

The context of the statement (and context must always be considered in interpreting scripture) seems to refer only to the original fall of Satan (the Isaiah reference in the video) and there is nothing (no traditional prophetic clue words, etc.) that indicate this is a prophecy about the antichrist in any way.

Jesus appears to be citing something in the past - and not in the future.

Instead, Jesus chides them that instead of boasting over the power they welded as His emissaries (the demons quaked, Lord) they should instead be simply thankful of their salvation because it was HE WHO SAW the original fall of the troublemaker...in other words...'it's not you guys doing any of this but the might and the power of God."

Further, the statement that Aramaic was the earliest form of Hebrew is also in error. Most sources confirm that was a dialect related but which emerged in the northwest boundaries of the Semitic territories. It appears to have been a dialect of the Palestinian region and separate from the traditional Hebrew of scripture, especially early Hebrew. It was a common language of trade and the marketplace just as Koine Greek was the 'universal language; of Mediterranean commerce.

Children learned a more formal Hebrew for the sacred reading of the Torah in service, a more extreme version of how American children once learned a more formal language in Elizabethan English than the language they spoke daily. Moreover, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek - regardless of what language the speakers might have spoken. The common language for communication and commerce was Greek. Looking for word meanings in Hebrew (or related dialects) for insight into the Greek text is faulty logic.

Words change and shift in such evolution of language. Skakespeare's use of 'naughty' in the 1500's meant severely wicked.....now it means slightly impolite. Thus the importance of understanding how an original audience heard and understood the words."

I would also add that it is a worrying thing - this tendency to identify and label one as "The AntiChrist". A decade ago it was George Bush, before that Bill Clinton, and before that.... the list is endless. Why should we care? Should not our focus - as Christians - be on the task to be Christ like to those around us? To preach the gospel? To feed the hungry? To clothe the naked? To be the image of Christ to those around us?

One of the most thought provoking books of the last century was a small, mostly obscure work, that challenged people to really cause trouble by asking, "What would Jesus do?"

What indeed.

OUR HEARTS GO OUT: Carole Daniels

2009-08-31T13:43:00.000-07:00

A horrific crime has taken the life of a dear saint of God, Carole Daniels. Her family and friends grieve for her passing. Her life was taken in an act of malice in the very church where she labored for the souls of men and women.

It was a simple and small pentecostal church in a poor southwest Oklahoma community of Anadarko, but it was her pastorate, where she ministered. She traveled there from Oklahoma City even when no one attended.

Our prayers join to uplift her loved ones and to aide law enforcement in bringing the perpetrator to justice. This is the time for all people of faith to band together and prayer as one.

News Story

THE CULT IS BACK!

2009-08-24T09:01:00.000-07:00

FEMALE VS FEMINITY: THE CULT IS BACK
The recent episode with the South African runner highlights the social constructs we place on gender. It also emphasizes how we as people tend to want to 'read the book by its cover'.

What we are in our body determines if we are “male” or “female”. What we are on the outside is largely a social construct created by the prevailing cultural mores of the day. Do we wear gloves? Do we wear slacks? Do we wear makeup? Do we study hard? Do we value our looks? Do we value our minds? These are a determination of the culture in which we reside.

In the Victorian Era was one recent “cult of femininity”. This was an attempt to develop “hyper” males and “hyper” females – within a certain social class. This was something that was not seen as important for men and women in lower class, poorer, or foreign populations. The second large move was during the Edwardian Era before WWI, the famous Gibson Girl, was the poster girl for this movement.

At the close of WW2 the men came back to home and jobs. "Rosie the Riviter" was sent home. The women who’d been keeping things going in the workplace were told to go back to husband and children (even when they had neither). A new cult of hyper or “uber” femininity developed. The poster girl for this false construct was the mother from the “Leave It To Beaver” television show. In one episode, she was wearing a string of pearls while cleaning the oven!

The problem was, it was all lies. Victorian men, as a group, were no more true and good as husbands because of the super-femininity of their wives. There was still domestic abuse and rates of venereal disease were still high. The Victorian woman - and man - was living a lie.

The Gibson Girl was a lie as well, since it too was a front to the true problems in a society based on dominance and control. The fifties was also a social mask hiding the marriages built on lies, the basic dissatisfaction people felt with their lives, and the same social problems bubbled under the surface. This was the decade that birthed “Playboy” – the cult of femininity taken to its extreme because at the root of the cult is the idea that woman’s one purpose in life is to please – at any cost – a man.

This placed within the hands of men the determination of what was beauty, what was feminine and what was permissible among women. The fifties is the parent of the social unrest of the 1960’s because young people saw the injustice and hypocrisy of the relationships around them.
http://www.positivelyfeminine.org/Beautiful/beautiful.htm
http://somethinggreaterblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/what-is-femininity/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Womens+Page/feminism_verses_femininity.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Womens%20Page/womens_page.htm

In the present day, the message has been twisted to inform women and young girls that their tossing aside of virtues of modesty, self-worth and pride are to be valued. How much skin they show as they advertize their sexuality in the bumps and grinds that were once only seen in sleezy back strip joints, becomes the standard for feminine freedom and equality.

I don't think so.

The same off-kilter values that created the hyper-femininity have also created the hyper-sexuality of today's woman. Neither is the true essence of the creature fashioned by God and in God's own image.

Each individual is a unique being, with special purpose and value to God. Shake off the shackles of the cult of hyper-feminity and the cult of hyper sexuality to become a true woman of God! A woman's value is not determined by any man, any group, or any society. A woman's value is determined by the relationship she has with God, other people, and the face that stares back at her in the mirror each morning.

"Nothing is happy until it fulfills the purpose for which it was created by God." What was your purpose? To love and serve God. Not a man, not a family, and not a legalism.

"A man's main business is God; a woman's main business is the man." - Pastor Jack Hyles Dont be distanced from relationship with God by slanted ideas that you are a 'second class creation'. God created humans and said "It was good."

That includes you.

IDENTIFYING MISTAKES

2009-08-02T19:53:00.000-07:00

In doing online research I have been baffled by some of the ‘instant expert sites.” These are webpages where anyone can provide ‘expert’ answers (i.e., opinions) on any number of questions. Several would lay claim to ‘all Pentecostal women’ wearing long skirts and long hair. (
http://pentecostzone.com/blog/view/id_6647/title_the-basics-of-why-pentecostal-girls-do-what-they/)

The truth of the matter is that this answer is wrong. Not all Pentecostal women wear long skirts or long hair. The truth of the matter is that there are many denominations that identify themselves as “Pentecostal” (in fact Wikipedia lists several: Assemblies of God (The largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, 57 million adherents worldwide; Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) over 6 million, the Church of God in Christ has a membership of 5.5 million, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel has 5 million members, the United Pentecostal Church International has a membership of over 4 million,[35] and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church has over 3 million members. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism.

Just as it is impossible to say ‘all Baptists’ or ‘all Catholics’, Pentecostalism has its doctrinal and social nuances. It is impossible to say ‘all Pentecostals’ because no one group, person, or statement applies to all varieties of the movement.

Most of the current doctrinal divergences cluster around : the use of the name of Jesus in Baptism, the necessity of water baptism to salvation, and the role of speaking in tongues in the salvation process.
So, who does, among Pentecostals, is most likely to be seen sporting long skirts and long hair?
The United Pentecostal Church believes in modest dress by both genders, but has a list for women on their webpage at United Pentecostal Church : http://www.upci.org/doctrine/scripturesModesty.asp. They also have a different concept of the Godhead, believing in baptism only in the name of Jesus and members have been known (personal observation) to wear long dresses and long hair.

A group of Pentecostal churches known as the “Apostolic Pentecostal Churches” do claim this dress code, as expressed on a blog, The Ninety-Nine Ninety and nine, Apostolic women : http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20060828/cover.htm . (Note, the term is flexible as is seen in http://www.apostolic-movement.com/video2.php?format=; caution should be used when seeing the term ‘Apostolic’).

From the ‘Apostolic Pentecostal Directory’ (http://www.apostolic-churches.com/about.html) the doctrinal nuances are outlined: “This Apostolic Pentecostal Doctrine being the Bible standard of full salvation, which is the absolute essentiality of repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. (Acts 2:1-4, 2:37-39); We believe the Bibles teaches that the above statement to be essential and not subsequent to salvation.”

So beware the next time you read ‘all Pentecostal women’ do this or that, because the person is most likely speaking only a small handful of members of the Pentecostal movement or they are merely reflecting their own, quite limited, understanding of who is a Pentecostal.

CAN A WOMAN BE INTELLIGENT AND CHRISTIAN?

2009-07-16T05:58:00.001-07:00

Apparently not, according to a survey of hits of Internet sites. A woman can be 'obedient','submissive', 'godly', 'faithful', 'liberated', 'sexy', and yet not 'intelligent'.

What does this say about the Christian faith? What does this say about Christian men? What does this say to daughters and grand-daughters needing guidance for maturity?

In the 21st century, why cannot a woman of faith be all of that? God created her to be intelligent (in the image of God includes mental ability), strong, and loving. She can be many things (just as a man is capable of being many things) - so why the stark absence of discussion/mention/recognition about 'intellegent Christian women?"

Did find one 2008 blog entry on the subject worth reading: http://letsbehonesthere.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/im-a-christian-woman-who-thinks-anyone-else-with-me/

Are We Workers in the Light?

2009-07-05T13:00:00.000-07:00

In a recent conversation it became apparent that many people are basically very confused about what their presence in the world as Christians truly means. Over the last few years I have observed a disturbing increase in the number of dysfunctional churches, fallen leaders, and psychotic attacks on the church and her people. Once, the idea that someone would walk into a church and kill pastors or people would have been unthinkable. Yet, it has happened far too many times in just the last two years.

The world is an influence like dirty water....tip a paper cloth into the water and it is quickly contaminated. It is our life with Christ that prevents that total absorption into the values and motives of 'the world'. That contamination of all that is opposed to the message of the Gospel of love, hope, salvation, redemption, forgiveness, and new life.

For the spiritually minded, there is a new sense of something in the air. Too much is changing, realignments are taking place, things are moving into a predestined place to fulfil the will of God...all of these is sensed at a deep spiritual level.

Positive thought, global consciousness, and paranormal thought are replacing what was once a common belief system. One popular book asks the question in the title. All that is good is positive, affirming, and light washed and all that is evil is negative, negating, and hidden in ebony shadows where they cannot be easily seen. This simplistic duality calls to mind that in the New Testament the Church is warned of those who would masquerade as light beings and confuse people as to who was really "good."

When "Christians" can hate one another, cause others intentional harm, and make themselves the god of their life, is it any wonder that workers of evil might be confused with good?

As Jesus taught, what we do is as much a gauge as who we say we are. Our 'fruit" is proof of our light because to know right and to not do it is human. To know right and to do it despite ridicule, danger, or discomfort - that is what it means to be a Christian.

Could This Have Been in Paul's MInd?

2009-06-05T06:49:00.000-07:00

James Frazier, writing in his classic book on the history of religion and magic, The Golden Bough (NY: Macmillan, 1951) notes that at Byblus, people were required to shave their head in annual mourning for Adonis. Women who refused had to serve as temple prostitutes. (pg. 384).

This may inform the thinking in Paul's confusing comments in 1 Corinthians 11. In Ephesus, where the many Gods were actively worshipped, something similar may have been required. In Paul's quest to balance Jewish ideals of propriety and local culture with the new faith - this may explain his comments.

Is The US No Longer A "Christian" Nation?

2009-06-05T04:18:00.000-07:00

These recent words by the US President are not reflected in major demographic sources. According to Adherents and Pew Forum, the US has approximately 76% (159,030,000) of its population identified as "Christian." Islam comprises about 1% (1,104,000) of the population.

Of note, 'mainline' protestantism is listed as 18%, Catholics 24%, and Evengelicals at 26%. The remainder (4.5%) are Mormon, Jehovah Witness, etc.

QUIVERING CHRISTIANS

2009-05-07T14:24:00.001-07:00

Almost everyone has seen the Duggars on cable tv - all twenty of them. It has been assumed that they are members of a movement of Christian patriarchy called "Quiverfull". This movement places emphasis on having as many children as possible - thereby defining a quiverfull - as a very, very large family. Is this Biblical? Is it sensible?

No where in scripture does the Bible identify a large family as perferred, despite the wording of the scripture cited on their website. The Bible is filled with instances of people who did not have large families, but were very clearly blessed. What of people unable to have children - is God's blessing withheld? Or, should they, as was the answer in several Old Testament scenerios, simply find a secondary wife to birth more children?

One person's 'full quiver' may be the two or three children God blesses them with in their marriage. In the normal course of life up til this century, infant mortality was high (as it still is in small or third world nations). In the 19th century, many families had 10-12 children but only 5-7 of them might actually live to adulthood.

Perhaps less emphasis should be placed on the Old Testament and more on the New Testament - where there was concern about the total community and on growing the family of the saints instead of super-sized family groups.

Is it selfish to bring more children into the world - when all around are children abandoned and alone longing for someone to bring them love and hope?

'JUNIPER TREE' EVENT: A Time of Refreshing for Ministers

2009-05-05T05:16:00.000-07:00

REFRESH RENEW RETURN

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Come to a renewing time as the first "JUNIPER TREE" event is hosted at the
First United Methodist Church in Oklahoma City. Come enjoy an evening of non-denominational worship, fellowship, and praise designed to restore some joy to your faith life! Any Christian minister is welcome to attend.

Great uplifting contemporary music....
with a common bond of faith in Jesus Christ.

Come - instead of ministering to others - be ministered to.......Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009

Location: Hosted at First United Methodist Church, OKC
131 N.W. 4th Street, OKC, 73102
Time: 7 p.m.

Need information?
Contact : Marvin Hudson at 405-275-1556Email: wesleymarvin@sbcglobal.com

LESSONS FROM CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY

2009-05-03T05:05:00.000-07:00

In ancient Greek mythology there was a prophet, Cassandra, doomed to have a true prophecy that would never be understood, accepted, or believed. Since mythology is often created from the things commonly understood to be truth or the understanding of their time and place, what can we learn about human nature and the process of prophecy for today?

The Bible clearly teaches that a prophet is proven true if what they prophesy comes to pass. Simple enough, you say, but is that always as simple a thing as is supposed?

What the lesson of Cassandra reveals is that there has to be a people who , in the words of Jesus, "have eyes to see" or "ears to hear". There has to be a people astute and spiritually in tune to recognize and understand the witness of the prophetic truth for the prophet to be verified.

Is it possible for a prophecy to speak the truth as impressed by the spirit of God and those hearing it not understand, accept, or believe? Can it be ....the promise is lost...because those hearing did not 'hear'?

According to Jesus, yes! Their ears are closed, their discernment nil, and their hearts hardened to the spiritual world.

(To learn more : the story of Cassandra).

THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST....

2009-05-02T10:23:00.000-07:00

At a recent event attended by church people the words of Jesus came to me....those who would be first shall be last....and also some words from Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

I saw these people hurry to line up, grab seats and claim priviledge. Meanwhile, guests were made to wait as seats were found and while some stood because they had waited to see others served first - only one person offered one of those their seat. One group- church leaders all-raced to the table with a "1" on it , even though the seating was "open".

Issues of good manners aside, this reflects a more disturbing problem among people who confess Jesus as Lord. Jesus who made himself servant and sacrifice for all....who said if they take your coat give them your jacket too.

Something to think about when out and about, even among other Christians. What is my behavior saying to others? Do I reflect Christ's last in line leadership or am I racing to make sure others know how important I am?

DOES GOD HONOR THIS?

2009-04-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

This is a recent email making the rounds...

"This is the simplest test. If You Love God... And, are not ashamed of all the marvelous things HE has done for you.... Send this to ten people and the person who sent it to you!

WHY IS THERE A TEST? WHY IS THE BLIND SENDING OF UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM STRANGERS TO STRANGERS BETTER THAN ONE-ON-ONE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION .

Now do you have the time to pass it on? Make sure that you scroll through to the end. Easy vs. Hard Why is it so hard to tell the truth but Yet so easy to tell a lie? Why are we so sleepy in church but Right when the sermon is over we suddenly wake up? Why is it so easy to delete a Godly e-mail, but yet we forward all of the nasty ones? Of all the free gifts we may receive, Prayer is the very best one.... There are no costs, but wonderful rewards... GOD BLESS! Isn't it funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Isn't it funny how someone can say 'I believe in God' but still follow Satan (who, by the way, also 'believes' in God). Isn't it funny how you can send a thousand jokes through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about .

THE LACK OF LOGIC AND CONNECTION TO THE MAIN MESSAGE MAY BE WHY SOME WOULD NOT FORWARD THIS. IF THE STORY IS A TRUE MIRACLE - THE NEWS WILL SPREAD. IF IT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED - THAN MAYBE IT IS NOT AS STRONG A MIRACLE OR SIGN AS SUPPOSED.

Sharing Isn't it funny how when you go to forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them Isn't it funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me. I pray, for everyone who sends this to 20 or their entire address book, they will be blessed by God in a way special for them.

IS A SPIRITUAL CHAIN LETTER BETTER THAN ONE ASKING FOR MONEY?

And send it back to the person who sent it, to let them know that indeed it was sent out to many more."

THE SAD FACT IS THAT OFTEN THESE TYPES OF EMAIL ARE PHISHING EXPEDITION BY UNSAVORY TYPES LOOKING FOR EMAILS THAT CAN BE HIJACKED AND USED FOR SPAMMING PURPOSES (AND OTHER UNSAVORY PURPOSES).

Mary and the Tomb

2009-04-12T08:09:00.000-07:00

As another Dan Brown book is being turned into a move, many people are once again looking at the storyline of the DaVinci Code and its theme of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married.

A work of fiction is a work of fiction. This is something we should never forget. It says something about the nature of the people who look at the story and assume so much that is simply not in the Biblical account. Even the extra-Biblical accounts are not clear that there was anything beyond a simple teacher-discipline relationship.

Mary was not a prostitute - that was the later addition of an an early church Pope. She had demons and that may have included some sexual misconduct...but it is never expressed. The label comes from presuppositions about the town where she lived (a sort of Vegas of Galilee well known for its women of relative virtue) and the presuppositions based on the value of women in general.

Consider these things: no age is given, no direct implication of sexual misconduct is inferred, and she is recognized as one of the most steadfast and loyal of the disciples.

It may be she was an older woman - more of aunt figure - because no one seemed to be concerned that she and the other women were following. This seems to infer that they may have been in a stage of life where they had some autonomy: wife, widow, or older woman.

What is known is that the first post-resurrection Apostle - one sent with a message -was this Mary.

All else is conjecture. She chose to serve the Risen savior....and her decision challenges each of us to do the same.

CAMELS AT THE OASIS

2009-03-31T13:44:00.000-07:00

Jesus, in Matthew 23: 23-24, warned a certain type of person about their actions. These are words we need to remember today. All around are people who fill their time with making sure others "measure up", that others are doing right, and that others are doing what they should.

These micromanagers of others spiritual worth and life, are often guilty of not seeing their own problem, and applying their own advice to their life. They "swallow camels" and "strain at gnats" in the words of Jesus.

What are some of these "camels" that get swallowed so easily?

The camel of intolerance: spiritual, domestic, social, relational....you name it.
The came of control: 'my way or the highway'
The camel of unforgivenessa: still hauling around the baggage from hurts from 50 years ago!
The camel of greed: me first and what I want
The camel of stasis: "not gonna change, no way" ; Hasn't changed in 50 years and is proud of it

What are some of these "gnats" that choke them up so much?

The gnat of agreement and peace; recognizing that there are some areas we can disagree on and still be brothers and sisters in the faith
The gnat of partnership and cooperation: the confusion of power, control and leadership
The gnat of forgiveness: to forgive is to forget and move on, to heal, and this they cannot do
The gnat of giving: to place others needs and desires above self, to sacrifice like Christ for others
The gnat of love: to love is to accept, to protect, to sacrifice, and to provide for spiritually, emotionally, phsyically, and (among friends and stranges) even fiscally at times
The gnat of response and growth: to live is to change, grow, and develop; the Christian should not be the same person or have the same faith of 50 years ago...it should be deeper, richer, broader, more gracefilled, and knowledgeable.

What did Jesus mean by all of this camels and gnats? Think about it for a moment. Camels are known for holding a lot of water, traveling a long distance, and carrying a large load. Gnats are light and fast.

We are what we consume......are we full of camels....heavy, slow moving, weighed down with a lot of "junk" or are we quick, fast moving, efficient - gnats?

MAH

SCU PLANS NEW COURSE ON STORYTELLING

2009-03-17T12:23:00.001-07:00

The Academic Council of Southwestern Christian University in Bethany, Oklahoma recently approved adding an elective on Christian Storytelling. This exciting elective will look at the traditional art of oral storytelling, its role and uses in history (including the Bible), and its potential to communicate values and themes to a post modern society - across careers and vocations. It will stress the use of storytelling in communication, family entertainment, education, healing arts, business, and as dynamic ministry tool. Students will hear and interview guest professional storytellers and prepare to perform their own stories in public. SCU is an accredited educational institution in the state of Oklahoma and the course will be for college credit. Financial aid (State and Federal) may be available to assist with tuition costs for potential students meeting requirements.
Target date for the class will be Spring 2010.
For info contact: Marilyn A. Hudson, 405-789-7661 x3451 or email: marilyn.hudson@swcu.edu

The Hornet and the Bee

2009-03-10T18:27:00.000-07:00

God sent Hornets into the land….
In three O.T. passages there are references to strange ‘hornets’ sent into the land to prepare the way for the Children of Moses to proceed into their promised land. It is assumed that anything ranging from a plague of hornets to a military tactic was used. There is, however, another possibility. The Hornets might have been guerrilla warriors sent into disable and terrify the populace. Since there is mention of clean food and water maybe they used some form of artifice to convince the population that leprosy or some other problem had emerged and they must flee.

Now, fast forward to the Judges where a woman known as “Deborah” sat at the tree of judgment serving as prophet and judge of the people. Why did she become a Judge? How was she a leader, aside from her role as a prophet? Her name has been interpreted as “Bee”….and the root words, according to some sources, for Bee and Hornet appear to be related. It has been suggested that such a group of women warriors did exist as an honor guard before the wilderness tabernacle. Did they also serve in other ways as well? Had she achieved her place of respect and honor because she had been a small Hornet…a bee…a woman warrior used to helping drive the occupants from the land?

When Deborah called the soldier to her from his mountain home...his readiness to come and his eagerness for her to come with him....make incredible and sudden sense. She had been a warrior, she knew the way of the soldier and the tactics employed, and had great experience in battle. Coupled with her prophetic skills, this experienced warrior woman would have been greatly respected, honored, and followed. No wonder she rose to the position of a Judge in the land...and no wonder the land had peace for forty years.....

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

2009-03-08T13:03:00.000-07:00

The minister of God must show he or she is adept at the holy scriptures. They know the "Book" as the witness of God through the ages. The have learned it front to back in mind and soul. They apply it to their life...they may stumble...they may make mistakes (just as anyone can) ...but they raise to their knees and seek the face and forgiveness of God.

To not do so opens the door to abuse, ridicule, and hardship for others in the faith. This is rightly so. When a minister provides fodder to websites dedicated to detroying the the Gospel or destroying the work of God it is a shame.

Mistakes in the Message. The Bible verses listed on this explaination of blessings to be garnered from celebrating passover with offerings cause large questions to arise :http://www.stevemunsey.org/index.php?p=passovermore

Should Christians Keep the Rituals of Passover?

2009-03-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

Some dispute the day selected for observing the Passover as a Christian. They ask are you observing the Exodus event or the New Testament event in your Passover schedule. Others challenge why a Christian would keep a ritual firmly part of another – although related - faith tradition?

Although rooted in Judaism, the religion of Jesus and his followers – Christians -are named for the very difference that sets them apart from their kin within Judaism. We honor, respect, and pray for all our cousins in Judaism that God bless and keep them. The faithful child of the Jewish faith has a special place in the heart of God. Christians, however, accept that Jesus is the Messiah so long promised and that he came to take away the sin of the world.

John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and declared, “Look! the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” The Gospels note that Jesus died at the time of Passover, and they associate the Last Supper with the Passover meal itself.

Peter uses the language of Passover in 1 Pet 1:18f, when he says that we (Christians and those willing to accept Jesus) were redeemed ‘with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.’ Paul in 1 Cor 5:7, supports that when he writes that -‘Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.’

The O.T. Passover became an annual sacrifice. Christians believe that Christ’s sacrifice is once for all people who believe. Heb 7:27, ‘Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices repeatedly. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.’

These crucial theological differences meant that the Christian view and classic Judaism could not co-exist. So, like many other reforming, renewing, or revolutionary movements, these new Christians left the Jewish synagogue to form their own “house churches”.

Early Christians had the choice to remain a small splinter sub-group of Judaism (like the earlier Essenes) and this was debated hotly in a conference in Jerusalem. The Christians – through the witness of converts from the Gentiles, dreams by Peter, and the success of mission outreach to the far flung corners of the Roman Empire – agreed to expand their fellowship to the non-Jew. As the ministry of people such as Paul exploded among the Gentiles, as the new faith was threatened by false teachers, people trying to bring the converts back into Judaism, and other issues assaulted the growing Christians, inevitable changes continued.

So, should Christians continue the Jewish observance of the Passover? As a teaching tool, as a means of illustrating the stories of the scriptures, and as a means of encouraging reflection and worship the observance is appropriate for Christians.

As valuable as it is to remember the ancient story, to thank God for His miracles and grace, and to recognize the actions of Christ with his closest followers, it is even more crucial that we remember that as Christians it is the action of the Crux fixation and the Sabbath morning that bring meaning to the Christian faith. Christians are, more than anything else, Resurrection People.

OUR PRAYERS GO OUT....

2009-03-08T12:04:00.001-07:00

Once the idea of a gunman walking into a church and opening fire was impossible to contemplate. The idea was unfeasible. Yet, today one more such incident joins the growing number of such episodes over the last five years. Our prayers go out to the church, the families, and the communities effected by these tragedies and especially the most recent event in Illinois.

NEW LIFE COACHING PROGRAM LAUNCHED

2009-03-01T00:11:00.000-08:00

"Oklahoma City, a place known for its wind-swept plains, red dirt and horrendous tornadoes, now has a new distinction. It is home to one of the fewer than fifty universities in the nation that offers an accredited, graduate level degree in Life Coaching. Southwestern Christian University Graduate School began offering a Master's Degree in Life Coaching in the spring of 2008. Since its inception, the program has seen over 70 people who have either attended a coaching class or gone through a certification module.

The degree is a two year modular program that is regionally accredited, and is composed of thirty-six credit hours. The students also receive their coaching certification through Lifeforming Leadership Coaching as part of their degree requirements.

John Chasteen Sr., the assistant dean of the graduate school, is the director of SCU's Life Coaching program. Chasteen says his passion for coaching stems from several "divine connections" that God initiated in his life over the past several years. He shares, "I somehow intuitively knew that God was leading me into the arena of life coaching and immediately began to take steps to prepare myself to become a leader in the industry." Chasteen is a certified life coach and trainer with Lifeforming Leadership Coaching.

Chasteen believes that leaders world-wide are embracing this ancient/modern principle of life coaching. He deems that a silent undercurrent of preparation is now evolving that will release an army of coaches into the body of Christ worldwide. He also shares that many organizations including businesses, churches, and denominations are scrambling to catch up with the coaching wave and that the relevancy of coaching, reaches from the board room to the break room.

Coach John also shares his fervor for the life coaching movement through a monthly column with Ministry Today called Hey Coach John. He also has a popular blog with numerous resources and personal articles on the topic; it can be accessed at www.heycoachjohn.com.

Need more information on life coaching? You may contact the Southwestern Christian University Graduate School, or Coach John, at 405-789-7661 ext, 3447. His email address is: john.chasteen@swcu.edu.

SCU also offers certification training for those interested in coaching, but do not need the college degree side of the program.

Who Was the First Woman Apostle?

2009-02-19T05:14:00.000-08:00

In the O.T. God walked in the garden with his creations fashioned in his image. Sin separated the relationship and the intimacy of the garden. Not until Christ, walking once more with the humans, is the way to restore that original intimacy made more visible. Jesus proclaimed in his opening salvo announcing his ministry that he was a fulfillment of the prophet Isaiah's words and was preaching hope to the hopeless, powerless, and outcast.

This perfectly expressed the state of woman in the N.T. To the Greeks she was often sub-human, to the Romans a necessary evil, and to the Jew a means to an end (the path of the eventual Messiah). She was a commodity to be bought, sold, used, ignored, and discarded. She could testify in court, often could do not business, and faced daily the limitations of being a woman in a "man's world".

Throughout the gospels one woman is found following Jesus with great dedication, she is at the cross, and she is at the tomb. The definition of the term 'apostle' is one sent with a mission. So Mary Magdalene, when Jesus told her to "go and tell"...became the first apostle.

So, by the time that Paul in Romans is calling Junia an apostle....it is not a new thing....but it has, apparently over the centuries, become the forgotten thing.

"NOT WITH BRAIDED HAIR"

2009-02-19T04:48:00.001-08:00

One of the misconceptions made over the centuries in Biblical interpretation has been in the reading of 1 Timonthy 2.8-10: "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands with out anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness - with good works." A similar verse is found in 1 Peter 3:1-4.

So what did these verses mean? They have been interpreted to demand long hair, lack of ornaments or jewlery, unfashionable clothes, and no makeup for women. Is this what it meant however to its initial audience? That is the question that must always be asked of Biblical texts.

If these texts were written at the end of the 1st century (and some do dispute that date), than what was going on then in the larger Roman society? It was the dominant culture of the times. The Flavian period in Roman history is notable for the appearance of complicated and outlandish hairstyles that incorrporated long, long coils of hair, often twisted with pearls and other ornaments. The front was pushed high up like a tiara and was worn by the "fashionables" of society. Compare it to the hair styles of the French Court of Marie Antoinette. It required servants, time, money, and an emphasis on self.

So when the writer of the book talks about a woman not braiding her hair he did not mean just braiding the hair - good women had done that for centuries. What was inferred - and no doubt well understood by the audience - was the Christ-like woman will have better things to do than follow the crazy fashions based on status and ego. Instead of sitting for hours using resources of staff and time to sport an incredible hair do - she will use her time to do good works, spread the gospel, and minister kindness to her world.

Additional reading/viewing:

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/flavian.html

P.S. - It is interesting to note that some of the groups who have so mandated strict adherence to these rules of holiness ignore 1 Tim.2.8 " ...men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or quarreling..." Kind of makes you go "hmmmm"?

WHERE DID THE GLORY GO?

2009-02-16T05:11:00.000-08:00

One of the cultural matters of the New Testament that lingers on to be defined as spiritual imperative is the issue of 1 Corinthians 11..."But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering..." As I discuss in depth in "Those Pesky Verses of Paul" it becomes clear that Paul is not giving a mandate for women to "be covered". One example of why this is true is that it states the hair is a covering...but if it were a covering why is it inferior? Women, just like men are subject to health issues that rob them of their hair. If God demanded such coverings and the Bible is true her hair "was given for a covering" why does it thin and fall out? If the Bible is true, and hair falls out and thins, it becomes clear that something else is meant by the section in 1 Cor. 11. It becomes clear when Paul sums up the whole discussion by indicating that they have no such mandatory veiling customs in any of the Christian fellowships. This verse 16 cannot be talking about being "contentious" because the entire book is written because the church at Corinth was exactly that. The section deals with an issue of women prophesying and praying with heads "uncovered" and whether this was appropriate or if they should continue the Jewish custom of wearing a headcovering in public. The emphasis is on the freedom in Christ and the mutual responsibility of Christians to other Christians.

[Image copyright mah/used with permission]

POWER

2009-02-14T06:18:00.000-08:00

"You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership." - Dwight D. Eisenhower (20th century)

"Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish." - Anne Bradstreet. (17th century)

Learning At The Gate: Deacon, Deacon Who Is A Deacon?

2009-02-14T06:14:00.001-08:00

“Man has responsibility, not power.” Elie Wiesel

The term Deacon comes from the Greek term DIAKONOS. The term means “one who serves” and it is the term from which the concept of minister is derived. A minister is defined literally as “one who serves”.

The term is used of Christ in Romans 15.8 and of the followers of Christ in teaching, preaching, and working to support the goals of Christ in 1 Cor. 3.5 and Romans 16.1-2.

The qualifications for deacons, drawn from 1 Timothy 3:8-13 ,”Deacons, likewise, must be….’
Male deacons are to be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much (polio) wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, hold their faith with a clear conscience and they should be tested and if blameless, they may serve…

Female deacons (1 Tim. 3.11) “Women likewise” must be dignified, not slanders, sober-minded, and faithful in all things. (The word can be translated either ‘wives” or “women” and the decision which to use often reflects the biases of the translator and not the clear intent of the text.)

All deacons – male and female – are to be in a stable, committed marriage and with a family life commending well their character and faith. They are role models of actions and faith (1 Tim. 3.13).

Learning At The Gate: Let The Elders Among You...

2009-02-14T06:12:00.001-08:00

The term elders comes from the Greek word, PRESBUTEROS. Wisdom, stability, experience, and teaching are found among the aged. Younger people are to honor and learn from them. Out of this aged, experienced pool of individuals come those who would oversee the Christian community. In Luke 22.66, an assembly of the aged was PRESBUTERION and this is found in Acts 22.5 and 1 Tim. 4.14.

Learning At The Gate: Overseeing the Needs of the Church

2009-02-14T06:10:00.000-08:00

The terms “bishop” and “overseer” are often used interchangeably. The word for bishop is EPISKOPOS. This term is used to refer to one who “oversees” or manages an organization or group. It is called an office or work that people might choose within the church in 1 Timothy 3.1f and 1 Peter 5.2 Qualifications for the role of “Bishop” or “Overseer” from 1 Tim. 3.1-7 : “If anyone (gr. ‘tis’) aspires to the office of overseer (espicopes), they desire a noble task..” These individuals are to be above reproach, have one spouse, be sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, their home must reflect management with dignity keeping children submissive (hypotage), not a recent convert to avoid pride, have a good reputation.

From Titus 1.6 this person is to be: above reproach, husband of one wife, children are believers, must not be arrogant, must not be quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain, must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, disciplined, holds to their faith, able to teach sound doctrine, and able to rebuke others who contradict the sound doctrine.

Learning at the Gate: He Leads Me Beside Still Waters

2009-02-14T06:07:00.000-08:00

Based in the 23 Psalm and the words of Christ (“I Am the Good Shepherd” and his command to Peter to “feed my sheep”) the Pastor/Shepherd – Greek POIMEN – is one who cares for the flock, feeds the flock, and protects the flock. In Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 is indication this role may have been seen by some as a task of the elder/bishop corp.

'Sacred books for Men! Storybooks for Women!"

2009-02-07T09:29:00.000-08:00

In the 1983 film Yentl, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yentl) a bookseller with his cart cries that line as he maneuvers through crowded and muddy streets in Eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th century. I was reminded of this as I explored a popular level Christian book source. Theology and, the more intellectual tomes, were clearly marketed to men: colors, images, expressions, and symbols were tilted toward a male perception. Curious, I ran a search for “women” looking for the type and scope of resources that search might find. The results were illuminating. Fictional romance, beauty, and friendship were the first results.

The Rambling Prophet blog (http://ramblingprophet.blogspot.com/2007/01/where-are-christian-intellectuals.html) addresses the tendency for evangelicals to be viewed as under-achievers and to view themselves in that light. One comment on his entry asked ‘where are the intellectual Christian women?’ Where indeed.

Where are the Dorothy Sayers? Mildred Bangs Wynkoops? Elizabeth Achtimeirs? The Catherine Booths? Julia Smith? The Anna Maria van Schurmans? So many others…

They may, however, be like the four women theologians of Union Seminary (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/burke/archives/awts/exhibit.html), present but invisible and unacceptable. Women who worked, studied, and never achieved the recognition or respect their work no doubt merited.

Further Reading:
Anna Maria van Schurman: Whether a Christian Woman Should Be Educated and Other Writings from Her Intellectual Circle. Edited and Translated by Joyce L. Irwin (174 pages, 6 x 9 © 1998 Series: The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe . Cloth $45.00
ISBN: 9780226849980 Published November 1998 ; Paper $20.00 ;ISBN: 9780226849997 Published November 1998 ) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=42720

"One Flesh"?

2009-02-02T04:52:00.000-08:00

So what is the solution to issues of male and female tension? Who is in control? How should the two sexes interact and how does the Bible indicate that men and women in marriage are to relate to one another?

ONE FLESH. A mystery hidden within a mystery that has been under explored and under appreciated as a revelation about the nature of relationship between humanity and God, Christ and His Church, and between husbands and wives.

In the beginning, God was in essence ONE FLESH, the God of Creator-Redeemer-Comforter called variously the Trinity or the Godhead or the PARENT-CHILD. This ONE FLESH GOD said "let us make humans in our image : male and female...." They were created and then immediately the Bible says "for this reason."...a man shall leave his family and cling to his woman...a woman will move from the allegiance of her birth family to this new unit....they shall be "ONE FLESH". The one flesh was the standard - the concept of the reuniting of separates that were unique in and of themselves but whose completeness was best realized in a reunion of the halves to make a new whole.

In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirms the importance of this marital relationship by repeating that they shall be "ONE FLESH". Why? Because that ideal, that concept, was fundamental to His own relationship to "GOD" and the relationship he wanted to have with his "BRIDE" - the followers who would become the Church.

Paul indicates this with his own repeated imagery of the "Body" with its parts all working in coordinated harmony. He indicates it with his discussion of husbands and wives. He indicates this with his imagery of the 'ev Christos' of Galatians 3.27-29. There he paints the picture of moving from one sphere of existence into a new, totally different sphere. In that new spehere is where the believer merges, integrates, blends, disappears into, becoming the new creation of Jesus Christ. All a consistent imagery reflecting that same ONE FLESH revealed since the creation account.

-- [from Those Pesky Verses of Paul by Marilyn A. Hudson, used by permission]

The Women Apostles

2009-02-02T03:46:00.000-08:00

Mary Magdelene was the first female apostle and in Romans Paul identitfies another in Junia. An excellent article discusses this spiritual or actual "kinswoman" of Paul ,<article>. It will be noted that many of the same arguments used to claim "prophetess" was merely the wife of a prophet or otherwise somehow less than a "real" prophet, are used in this argument as well. An apostle was defined as one who had seen the Lord and received a commission or was sent out on a special task. In the garden, Mary was sent by the Lord to tell the others of what she had seen. Since Jesus had included women in his teachings and had intentionally included women in his ministry, it should not be surprising that he did so. Nor, should it be surprising that women would be deacons and apostles and bishops in the new church.

"Elders" Were Not Just Men

2009-01-28T13:24:00.000-08:00

As has been shown from the O.T. examples, there were "elders" and "wise women" in just the same manner as male elders and leaders. Indeed, in the New Testament the term used as "elder" merely means "older people" and the same term or its relative is used when referring to both old men and old women. In Acts 2.17 when Peter quotes the prophet Joel, "your old men shall dream dreams..." it is "your presbuteros shall dream....". There is no formal "office" suggested in many of these texts as well..

Research Question: Are the "offices" divinely ordained?

2009-01-28T13:22:00.001-08:00

A researcher has suggested that the issue of women not being in leadership is the difference between "gifts" which are given to all believers and "offices" that are specifically set aside for men (Bishop, Deacon, Elder, etc.). If that true, however, and can it be proven from scripture and history? An intriguing question indeed.

Who Sinned First?

2009-01-28T08:52:00.000-08:00

There are many Biblical chestnuts pulled out to limit woman’s participation in the Christian Church. Women cannot be in leadership, cannot preach, cannot teach, and cannot speak because of such verses as 1 Timothy 2:14 (King James Version):”And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression”.

The message is clear that Eve sinned and therefore she should not act in any of those roles mentioned or utilize any gifts for the corporate body. Adam in this verse is an innocent.

Timothy I & II are commonly attributed to Paul and it is suggested the books were written about 60 C.E. – some thirty years after the death of Jesus. This statement, however, appears to contradict other statements by Paul found in Romans (dated to the 50’s C.E.).[1]

Let’s review the account of the sin in Genesis 3. The Tempter in the guise of the serpent came to the woman. Why the woman? This section falls directly after the second creation account explaining her origins and after how they are now to be ‘one flesh’ She had been told the rule…but apparently not taught its significance yet. The couple eats of the fruit, move from a state of innocence to one of awareness, and hide from God. When God locates them, he asks by what means they came to lose their state ignorance and innocence. The man then says, “The woman you gave me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” A strong argument of ignorance can be made for the woman but for the man is a conscious decision to both do that which he knew to be wrong and then to try to avoid his own responsibility.

In God’s eyes, the HUMAN was both male and female crafted in the image of God. Only later, through rabbinic commentaries, philosophers, and other writings will Adam be shown in the same light as in 1 Timothy. Indeed, some writings show Adam as an “angel” who remained untainted despite Eve’s fall.[2]

Romans 5.12-21, carries a discussion of sin and the need and means of repentance. In verse 12 Paul writes “by one man sin entered into the world” and v.17 ‘by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace…” and v. 19 “for as one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” In 1 Corinthians 15: 21-2 Paul clearly writes “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of them that slept. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The word used is quite often the more generic Greek term, meaning humans or humankind. It is thus clear, that Paul’s understanding in Romans was that by the first human (seen as one flesh and thus gender was unimportant?) sin entered into the world

Why then would Paul say something so diametrically opposed to his early statements? Why would he switch the blame to Eve in such a manner? Paul refers to Eve in 2 Corinthians 11:3 but clearly says by his great subtlety the serpent “beguiled” Eve and he was fearful that the Christians at Corinth might be equally deceived. To be “beguiled” is to deceive, to give false impressions, or to present oneself as something different. The word is found elsewhere in reference to someone being deceived by riches, by false teachers, etc.

Looking at the section in 1 Timothy in context it is apparent something else may be at work. The verses preceding it . Chapter 2 begins with a call to prayer for the blessings of kings that all may live “quiet and peaceable life”.

In verse 8, the writer calls for all men to “lift up holy hands, without wrath and doubting”. Then the writer plunges into verses 9-15 dealing with the conduct of women “professing godliness”. Issues of hair and appearance are in verse 9 “modest apparel”, “not with braided hair” or “gold, or pearls, or costly array”. These were not normally a part of the grooming of women at that time. Indeed, if 1st Corinthians 11 actually teaches, as some suggest, that Paul demands women be veiled – why this directive at all? Why does not the apostle simply say to the women “wear a veil”?

So - when did women braid their hair with gold and pearls?

It is known that in the late 1st century and into the early part of the 2nd century the Roman Flavian dynasty (see images at http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/flavian.html) set a trend with a flamboyant hairstyles on aristocratic women. They were so elaborate and strange that the satirist Juvenal even wrote about them.

The section just following this, verses 11-14, contradict Pauline statements in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere. Rather than women being forbidden to speak, teach, or be active in other ways, Paul accepts as a norm in 1 Corinthians 11 that women will preach and pray (the prophecy refers to communication, or speech, of a divine imperative). Why does Paul contradict himself?

Finally, verse15 is a confusing and troubling verse that has vexed scholars for centuries. It infers that women are saved, not through faith in the salvation work of Jesus Christ, but through having children. This directly conflicts with Peter’s statements in Acts 4:12 that “neither is there salvation in any other…” Childbirth, clearly is not a means to salvation.

Second, it infers that the so called sin of Eve (v. 14) becomes an “unpardonable sin” from which womankind is never to find redemption. Compare this to Paul’s statement in Romans 3:24-25 “ Being justified freely by his grace through faith in his propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past…”

All this would suggest that the section in question may be a later addition to the letter or the letter may be a letter written by someone using the authority of Paul’s name (a common practice in the time). If not, there is a troubling contradiction of Paul’s writings and theology. Given the fact that a later time is suggested by the reference to the ornate hair styles, there is contradictory theology present in v. 15, and the fact that in the very next chapter (I Tim. 3) is a discussion of “offices” in the church, it is probable that the book was written later.

So, who sinned first? If one believes to be deceived is a sin then the text is that Eve sinned first. If one believes that that to be deceived is an act of ignorance and that to intentionally do that which is understood to be wrong, than Adam clearly sinned first. Yet, the emphasis is not one or the other. Both were seen to have sinned, both received punishments, and both had to be redeemed.

[1] New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NIB). Abingdon, 2003.
[2] R. C.J. “Adam.” Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Harper & Row, 1985.

WARTS AND ALL

2009-01-27T15:40:00.001-08:00

Are you perfect? Not me. I have two options, I can take myself very seriously or I can learn to laugh at myself. In our faith or religious convictions do sometimes take ourselves (or our forebears) a little too serious? They were not perfect - no matter how wonderful they were. We should beware placing anyone on a pedestal...it invites calamity and disappointment. They are human and they will prove it. Glossing over their foibles, mistakes, or outright sins is not more noble or Christian. Recognize in their humanity your own. See in their own faults and failures the potential in yourself to be less than you can be. The result will be less judgement, more understanding, and a lot less disappointment. Learn to see the truth, accept the good, reject the bad, and laugh at the warts.

A WOMAN'S VOICE

2009-01-27T03:50:00.000-08:00

With age, come many observations how little things ever seem to change. In the early 1970's and 1980's there was great discussion about the evils of "feminism" and how it would destroy the world and the church. People would make fun of business women donning their 'business suits' (so often shapeless copies of male apparel) so they could be taken seriously around the office. In the '80-'90s came a rediscovery of color for women in the office and a sense it was okay for a woman to look like a woman and still be taken seriously in the workplace.

Strangely, there was less discussion about the evils of "prejudice" or "male oppression" in those early days . Less awareness or concern of their impact on that same society of world and religion. I note that even in religious groups that have tacitly accepted formally women as leaders, pastors, and in other roles in their ranks, there is lingering attitudes that go unchecked.

One I noticed many years ago and am troubled to see it still around. It is measuring a woman's ability to preach by the way men preach. For a woman to be expected to preach in just the same manner as a man will be to deny her value as a uniquely crafted being reflecting the image of God. Some basic factors will remain: the need for a good hermeneutic, the need to follow the rules of a good communication, and the need for a firm theological foundation. Yet, delivery, viewpoints, and conclusions may be different because a woman will approach the topic from a different worldview, a different set of experiences, and a different set of values.

That is what is needed - that variety of viewpoint that minds and hearts to come together in unity.

What is the result of all this imbalance of the genders? One extreme is hyper-femininity i.e., (June Cleaver cleaning the oven in pearls, the hyper-modest) and hyper-masculinity (Hugh Hefner, the man-cave, and girls-gone-wild). One extreme is a woman having to mimic a man in order to be seriously accepted and respected (the man-suits). Women for centuries have seen the Gospel through the lens of a male preacher and have had to accept that as the norm. The result is myopic, blinkered, and out of kilter faith.

The goal instead should be the embracing of the variety of voices and views found when both genders share their spiritual insights. Man and Woman are like children on two sides of their Heavenly parent - both see God but from a slightly different perspective. It is only when they are joined that a more total picture of God emerges...

Anna - Role Model for Women Prophets

2009-01-26T04:56:00.000-08:00

When the infant Jesus was brought to the Temple to fulfill the obligations of the Mosaic law, he was acknowledged by two prophets. One was an old man who came to the Temple. The other was an old widow who lived at the Temple.

Anna is role model for any woman of God. She lived at the Temple and devoted her self to a life of prayer and fasting. She constantly sought the face of God. Her prophecy would have been given to any and to all who came to the Temple fulfilling the numerous rituals of the Jewish faith. How many words of encouragement did she share? How many warnings did she give? How many tiny fires of hope did she fan to stronger life? How many small griefs and fleeting joys did she witness over the years? How many nights did she cry out to God on behalf of some soul in distress, on behalf of some national threat, or on behalf of some person's deep grief?

Are we living at the Temple? Are we giving our self constantly to a life of intercession? Are we listening for the voice of God? Are we bearing one another's burdens, loving each other as Christ commanded, or strengthening up the feeble hands all around us?

Look to Anna, the prophet, who lived at the place where God and Creation commune.

Understanding Jezebel

2009-01-20T04:38:00.001-08:00

"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the Antichrist. Be on your guard..anyone who does not abide in the teachings of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God. Do not...welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person." 2 John 1:7-10

In the O.T., she was the Priestess-Queen from Tyre married to Israel’s King Ahab. As a daughter of a foreign king, no doubt trained from birth, she could be described as being politically forceful and astute, she exercised a real position of authority (based on her use of the a royal seal and her hosting the false prophets at her own table), and being committed to, and actively engaged in, her pagan faith. As a religious leader (priestess) in this pagan religion, she actively promoted it, threatened the prophets of God, played host to the priests of the pagan faith, led the worship in this pagan faith, and actively persecuted the prophets of God. (Brenner, Athalya. The Israelite Woman. JST, 1985).

The next instance of the name, crops up in Revelation 2, where it is symbolically to represent a false leader in the church at Thyatira. The characteristics of this false leader are claiming prophetic authority to teach “fornication” and “to eat meat sacrificed to idols.” The person represented by the term Jezebel (it may be a man or a woman) has emerged from a church filled with good works (love, faith, service, and patience endurance, and obvious growth in discipleship).

Several ideas of interpretation exist concerning the book of Revelation. One is that the messages of the book are directed more to the time period and not to future events. If that is the case, it is known that several strands of Gnosticism and Montanism (an ecstatic philosophy of personal revelation and prophesy) were at work in the communities around Thyatira. It is also interesting to note that the terms “fornication” and “meats offered to idols” are in Acts 15:22-29 where the Jerusalem Council asked that of all the new Gentile believers they only follow those “essentials”.

So it seems most logical that the “Jezebel” of Revelation was a person who was promoting a “different Gospel” (based on one of the philosophies mentioned) and was tolerated by the otherwise worthy church. The mention of the terms “fornication” and “meats offered to idols” would seem to indicate the issue was doctrinal. The person, the “Jezebel” (male or female), was preaching a false doctrine and being tolerated. Perhaps, even as Ezekiel was frightened off by the first Jezebel (in 1 Kings 17), this Jezebel was frightening off or intimidating people (even true prophets) by their attitude of hyper-religiousness via these new revelations or special knowledge. The “orthodox” was being overtaken by the Gnostic and its hyper-mysticism and special knowledge teaching or the Montanist super-revelation and emphasis on the supernatural.

Instead of being some ‘demon” or “spirit”, as some teach, the Revelation Jezebel would seem to suggest that the church had forgotten the teachings of Jesus that a tree is known by its fruit, of Peter that the believer must test the teaching of the false teachers and prophets, and the reminder that “all scripture” is given for “instruction”. There is no need for secret teachings, mysterious rites of initiation, or “new revelation” and to allow such teachings , as John states, "does not have God."

What Is The False Prophet?

2009-01-19T10:59:00.000-08:00

Throughout the Bible the concept of the false prophet is found. In the Old Testament this person was one who -

1. prophesied from their own imagination, or heart, instead of saying what God instructed

2. prophets of another God

3. prophets who would only prophesy when paid to do so

4. prophets whose words went against the words of God

In the New Testament, there is also the term 'false teachers' and these referred to the people who went about the emergent church and preached 'another gospel' (such as Gnosticism or any of the known heresies). Sometimes these were Jewish-Christians who wanted the church to retain the laws and rituals of Judaism. Sometimes these were individuals who taught something that did not follow the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles. Sometimes these were followers of pagan Gods who wanted to draw the Christians into, or back into, the pagan rituals.

Not Feminism - Biblical Inclusion

2009-01-19T06:24:00.000-08:00

For many people the term "feminism" carries with many negatives and even attempts to limit that to a "biblical feminism" have spawned their own problems. The term is too political for many, and too limiting for others. Even the more precise term "Biblical egalitarianism" finds itself in the same place - balanced between a rock and a hard palce. I much prefer the term "Biblical inclusion". I define it as "an awareness that God created all humans in the divine image; made them part of the divine plan; and includes them in the redemptive and missional process; God also includes them in the gifting process for the benefit of the total Body of Christ."

Biblical Inclusion is an awareness that mistakes in the translation of the Bible have often reflected male biases and current contemporary prejudices. For example, many times the Greek term meaning 'people' has been translated to read 'men' or 'man' to the exclusion of the intended mixed gender audience. So, for example, when 1 Timothy 3:1 is translated to say " Any man who desires the office of bishop..." it is incorrect and should read, "Anyone who desires the office of bishop..." Early church records from historic studies indicate that there were indeed women bishops and deacons in the church.

Serving At The Meeting Place of God

2009-01-17T08:41:00.000-08:00

Ex. 38:8 " He made basin and stand of bronze from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting". In reading this I was struck by how odd that "servants" (as many commentaries labeled them) would be camped out in front of this most holy area. It would be like the kitchen staff parked by the front doors to the White House...it made so little sense. Surely they were not cooking, washing, sewing, or nursing children in such a location?

Then reading Wilda C. Gafney's book 'Daughters of Miriam: Women Prophets in Ancient Israel' it became much more clear. She indicates that the Hebrew in use there infers more the image of a guild of Prophet-Warriors. The Hebrew used - to reflect how God is termed a "Sovereign of Warriors" - infers a martial connotation: an honor guard or 'sanctuary guadians" (Gafney, 153) comprised of prophetic-warrior women. The mirrors, rather than being stereotypical icons of their womanly vanity (as some commentators have offered) become than possible warrior tools of signal or prophetic tools or icons of their roles as "seers" of a vision. (Gafney, pg.153-157). It then causes one to question if this was not a role that was in place in Ancient Israel right up through the time of Christ - in one form or another?

1 Sam. 2:22 " Now Samuel was very old and he heard how his sons were abusing the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting." Commentators have often labeled these women as serving girls, or even temple prostitutes allowed to infliltrate the temple life, but more likely is that they were women continuing the tradition of serving as prophets attached to the religious house as guardians, gatekeepers, prophets, and spiritual guides.

2 Chron. 34: 22 "...went to the prophet Huldah...who lived in Jerusalem in the 2nd Quarter, or the place of instruction." Authors have attempted to demote this prophet for centuries for various reasons and using various rationales. Recent attempts have been to demote her to a "librarian" (as a professional librarian I find this attempt to demean the prophet as particularly insulting - it infers that to be a librarian would have been a lesser, menial, or non important role. I think they mean to imply ( revealing their lack of research - I think they mean that she may have been a scribe or copyist). The truth is simple - she was a prophet attached to the temple, in a place known as a center of religious instruction and knowledge, her prophecies were respected, and she was honored for centuries after by having the nearby gates named for her.

Luke 2: 36-38 "There was also a prophet, Anna....she never left the temple but worshiped therewith fasting and prayer night and day...." The tendency has been to protray this woman as a shuffling old frail lady with nothing else to do but go live at the Temple - images of the widow and her mite are evoked. Simeon, the other prophet in the story, has to go to the temple but the woman is there already. I believe she was in the place of the women in Exodus, Huldah and in Samuel. A member of the prophet-warriors, prophet-teachers, prophet-prayers in which women had served the Lord for centuries....

Perhaps....the reason Jesus dealt with women was to restore them to their place in the worship of God as well? Those overlooked and nameless women who followed, as well as the named followers, were also "serving" at the place of meeting God and in a similar fashion. Not merely women who were "camp followers" but women who were disciples, prophets, guild members serving as "warriors", "guardians", and "disciples". If they saw themselves as a new phase of the old system of guardians - that would explain their presence at the cross in a most meaningful way...truly serving at the meeting place of God.

New Read: "Daughters of Miriam: Women Prophets in Ancient Israel"

2009-01-16T04:40:00.000-08:00

Author Wilda C. Gafney has crafted a scholarly and insightful work on a neglected and even avoided subject. A short book - 222 pages of text - it covers an overview of female prophets in Israel and the ancient Middle East, it explores the female prophets in scriptures, the female prophetic guilds (funerary/musical and scribal), the term in Rabbinc and Christian texts, and looks at the prophetic constructions. (Fortress, 2008, ISBN 978-080006-6258-5).

For the Shelf: Ten Lies the Church Tells Women

2009-01-16T04:38:00.000-08:00

Grady's book (http://strangdirect.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17508) is excllent and needed.

Add to Your Reference Shelf

2009-01-16T04:25:00.000-08:00

The IVP Women's Bible Commentary / ed. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans . ISBN: 978-0-8308-1437-4

Available from the publisher (IVP Press) or from Amazon.

A Mind is A Terrible Thing to Waste

2009-01-16T04:11:00.000-08:00

Prov. 31:26 "She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue." In the last century, it was common advice for someone to tell a young girl to never let a man know how smart she was. Brains were among the things that a young woman was told would drive off a man. Since 'getting a man' was her chief reason for being, this was important advice. So along with the old adages that " a girl who wears glasses will never get passes" and "blonds have more fun" was " a girl with a brain is always a drain." So - never be or appear smarter or as smart as a man, never be quicker, stronger, better, more capable, or skilled: lie if you had to, after all, all is fair in love and war. Too many woman did just that and entered into relations based on lies and denigration of identity. Women were to enter joyfully into an eternal childhood where they would always need a man to take care of them, control them, and use them. Women were inculcated with coping skills based on the manipulative struggle between Lucy and Desi on "I Love Lucy", the sex and siren of the Hollywood "sex kittens". the lies and trickery resorted to by Samantha on "Bewitched" or a dozen other twisted images of the relationship between men and women. Today there are still too many who continue this attitude. "Deep thoughts" are for men...they are something that woman should not "worry her pretty head over." God gave women brains and intellect to be used and to allow them to wither or be stunted so they fit the box of a sinful society or a manipulative hermeneutic is a waste...and maybe even a sin.

Biblical Scholarship in Perspective

2009-01-16T04:01:00.000-08:00

An English professor wrote the words. "A woman without her man is nothing" on the board and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.

All the male students in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

All the female students in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

Punctuation is powerful.

This story illustrates what has often happened in Biblical scholarship. In many sections of the scriptures where decisions like the one above had to be made the biases, prejudices, and views of the scholars became clear. In using "men", for one example, in text portions where the correct term would be instead "people" or "humans", the meaning of the text was subtly shifted.