G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Friday, April 4, 2014
Religion
A religion by definition is a humanly constructed spiritual placebo that insulates the believer from an intimacy with God. The God of the galaxies is a jealous God and will never condone a religious zeal that separates the Shepherd from the sheep. We are the sheep and not the shepherd!
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Anti-Christ
This is a doctrine of a segment of the Christian Church that says that the future of all mankind on this earth is inevitably linked to a future powerful personage. The one who opposes Christ, so it is said, will lead all of us into a doomsday scenario that only the righteous will survive in the next world. There are conflicting revelations as to what form the evil Anti-Christ will manifest himself but the doctrine itself has sketchy basis in scripture. The slice of the Church that so believes may be proved correct in future events but how should we believe now? More importantly, should the Church be passive or actively confront this present today’s evil?
The doctrine is ripe to be used as an excuse for noninvolvement in the human affairs of this world. It is much easier to accept the inevitable than to stand and confront evil. It is much easier to confront personal evil than to stand and confront corporate evil intentions. Will the righteous hide behind a doctrine or fight the good fight?
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca.
The doctrine is ripe to be used as an excuse for noninvolvement in the human affairs of this world. It is much easier to accept the inevitable than to stand and confront evil. It is much easier to confront personal evil than to stand and confront corporate evil intentions. Will the righteous hide behind a doctrine or fight the good fight?
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Pastors
As a generalization, a pastor is not a thinker but an intellectual regurgitator. They think they have something important to say only when someone else has said it first. Knowing the selective literature is the pastor’s highest priority. When they do think, they will not share it for fear that the saying will upset the folk. A case in point is William Barclay, a conservative, evangelical, Scottish exegete and commentator on the Greek New Testament, whose career spanned three quarters of the last century. Dr. Barclay’s scholarship is unquestioned and his book by book commentaries on the New Testament were a standard source fifty years ago.
The only downside to his work is a sense that what he was saying was tailored to fit his audience. This is not a crime but there is little spontaneity or uniqueness to his commentaries. Gladly he kept writing to include his “Autobiography” in 1975, three years before his death. Suddenly a thinker appears, a thinker who is aware of the blessings and struggles of life. A thinker in search of a workable theology for the next and succeeding generations. He was not an ideologue but actual flesh and blood, able to criticize without condemning and admit his own shortcomings.
Chapter three begins with the sentence. “Sooner or later this chapter has to be written.” (p. 34) Some of us wish it had been sooner. Then again, few were listening then and few are listening now. William Barclay calls his readers to think for themselves, ever acknowledging that faith, the starting place, emanates from the revelation of God in scripture. If scripture leaves open the possibility of thinking, the reader can adjust his understanding. One example is his criticism of naturalistic evolution and its reliance upon chance as the directive, instead it is replaced by "an intelligible life force that operates by the theory of invitation and response". This thinking attitude is a far cry from the insane diatribes coming from most pulpits. He goes on in chapter three to present a beautiful, reasonable an approachable theology of the Love of God.
Professor Barclay makes a confession on page 58. “But in one thing I would go beyond strict orthodoxy-- I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God.” Some of us, and the list is growing, believe there is no acceptable end to theology without the ultimate salvation of all mankind. Some of us believe that the love of God is not reserved for the few but the hope of all. The professor points us to the New Testament scriptures that, in his mind, require a universal interpretation of the love of God. They include John 12:32, Romans 11:32; I Corinthians 15:22 & 28; and I Timothy 2 : 4-6.
Key to these passages is the little word “all”, that salvation is about all men. Upon checking out these verses in his “Daily Study Bible Series” commentaries written by Barclay, any discussion of this word is nonexistent. It is as if the word is not worth the mentioning in these passages. All these commentaries were written around 1955, 56 and 57, so it may be that his theology had somehow matured after they were published. The other possibility is that he did not want to upset the folk by saying something that would turn away the orthodox buyers.
To the naysayer’s who insist upon a sadistic cubbyhole for the unrighteous, he maintains there is no eternal punishment, only remedial punishment, in this life or the next. There are those deserving of hell but they will eventually go through hell to experience the love of God. William Barclay believed there are no limits on the love of an all powerful God. As he says, in the end “the only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God (p. 61)".
As if it matters, we agree, professor. Thank you for writing your autobiography and your complete theology. Our only regret is that it took so long for you to share your truly spiritual understanding. Some of us agree that sooner would have been better.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
The only downside to his work is a sense that what he was saying was tailored to fit his audience. This is not a crime but there is little spontaneity or uniqueness to his commentaries. Gladly he kept writing to include his “Autobiography” in 1975, three years before his death. Suddenly a thinker appears, a thinker who is aware of the blessings and struggles of life. A thinker in search of a workable theology for the next and succeeding generations. He was not an ideologue but actual flesh and blood, able to criticize without condemning and admit his own shortcomings.
Chapter three begins with the sentence. “Sooner or later this chapter has to be written.” (p. 34) Some of us wish it had been sooner. Then again, few were listening then and few are listening now. William Barclay calls his readers to think for themselves, ever acknowledging that faith, the starting place, emanates from the revelation of God in scripture. If scripture leaves open the possibility of thinking, the reader can adjust his understanding. One example is his criticism of naturalistic evolution and its reliance upon chance as the directive, instead it is replaced by "an intelligible life force that operates by the theory of invitation and response". This thinking attitude is a far cry from the insane diatribes coming from most pulpits. He goes on in chapter three to present a beautiful, reasonable an approachable theology of the Love of God.
Professor Barclay makes a confession on page 58. “But in one thing I would go beyond strict orthodoxy-- I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God.” Some of us, and the list is growing, believe there is no acceptable end to theology without the ultimate salvation of all mankind. Some of us believe that the love of God is not reserved for the few but the hope of all. The professor points us to the New Testament scriptures that, in his mind, require a universal interpretation of the love of God. They include John 12:32, Romans 11:32; I Corinthians 15:22 & 28; and I Timothy 2 : 4-6.
Key to these passages is the little word “all”, that salvation is about all men. Upon checking out these verses in his “Daily Study Bible Series” commentaries written by Barclay, any discussion of this word is nonexistent. It is as if the word is not worth the mentioning in these passages. All these commentaries were written around 1955, 56 and 57, so it may be that his theology had somehow matured after they were published. The other possibility is that he did not want to upset the folk by saying something that would turn away the orthodox buyers.
To the naysayer’s who insist upon a sadistic cubbyhole for the unrighteous, he maintains there is no eternal punishment, only remedial punishment, in this life or the next. There are those deserving of hell but they will eventually go through hell to experience the love of God. William Barclay believed there are no limits on the love of an all powerful God. As he says, in the end “the only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God (p. 61)".
As if it matters, we agree, professor. Thank you for writing your autobiography and your complete theology. Our only regret is that it took so long for you to share your truly spiritual understanding. Some of us agree that sooner would have been better.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Sunday, January 5, 2014
new world
So the Little Sisters of the Poor are manning up against Obamacare because it is forcing abortion coverage on everyone. Why doesn’t the rest of life affirming American Christianity have any balls?
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Favor
The Sunday morning religion shows are my church, at least those that proceed Fox News Sunday. As believers we all need repeated shots of positivism to remind us that the God of the galaxies cares. A positive God fearing attitude will improve anyone's fortune. However, a very successful preacher made a statement this morning that was religious schmooze. “The Bible says that when we exercise positive faith in the goodness of God , then he will bring us special success or as he puts it, favor.”
A favor bestowing God is not found in scripture, in fact it is so opposed to the general theme of the gospel that one wonders if the "favor" theology is even Christian. The Bible does not say that God is vested in our success, that he is vested in the good life for our days on earth. To assume as much is to advertise a narcissistic religion that is most concerned with it’s own favor. All supporting scripture quoted by these folk is taken out of it's context. The Church will be silent and nonconfrontational because it does not want to upset these folk, they fear the resulting turmoil and a loss of income. Mostly they are afraid to teach the Bible to the choir.
How can any believer conclude from scripture that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead to give the believer the good life? It is a profanity. How can any lover and student of scripture be so blind? They start with the abhorrent theology and then pick out scripture that seems to fit. The Christ like spiritual giants, beginning with Jesus have never advocated such a perversion. The God of the galaxies is the one who is the most upset with these folk who call out like the barker at the carnival, appealing to the worst side of our nature.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca.
A favor bestowing God is not found in scripture, in fact it is so opposed to the general theme of the gospel that one wonders if the "favor" theology is even Christian. The Bible does not say that God is vested in our success, that he is vested in the good life for our days on earth. To assume as much is to advertise a narcissistic religion that is most concerned with it’s own favor. All supporting scripture quoted by these folk is taken out of it's context. The Church will be silent and nonconfrontational because it does not want to upset these folk, they fear the resulting turmoil and a loss of income. Mostly they are afraid to teach the Bible to the choir.
How can any believer conclude from scripture that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead to give the believer the good life? It is a profanity. How can any lover and student of scripture be so blind? They start with the abhorrent theology and then pick out scripture that seems to fit. The Christ like spiritual giants, beginning with Jesus have never advocated such a perversion. The God of the galaxies is the one who is the most upset with these folk who call out like the barker at the carnival, appealing to the worst side of our nature.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Scandal!
Sunday, November 3, 2013
The hunt for the true Church goes on….and on through the centuries. You would think that so much energy would bring an answer but the church has taken what Jesus did and said and made it so complicated that we folk in the pew need a paid clergy to direct us to true spirituality, to the true church. At least that is their angle but they are confused as well. The church has offered many answers over the years to this question, a new answer brings temporary enthusiasm only to be replaced by the same old…. whatever.
Does salvation look like a gathering for worship, a doctrinal lecture, a biblical inspection, a confessional moment, a personal testimony, a prescribed life style, a prescribed wardrobe or the power of the spectacular. The Christian Church has seen it all but what does salvation look like? What is the salvation bottom line that fits every time, every place and most importantly every person? We could do a “ask the man in the pew” segment and get a multitude of seemingly petty answers.
Why don’t we take direction from Jesus? The answer is that what Jesus prescribed was simple yet so difficult, so difficult we avoid it like the plague. Salvation looks like Zacchaeus in St. Luke’s Gospel, chapter 19: verses 1-10. It does not take an Einstein to understand what is happening in this encounter with Jesus. No society respects the tax man, no society respects the little guy, no society likes the rich man in fine clothes and every society will shun the sinner who cheats them. If we could be totally honest, we are as socially driven as the Jericho folk were two thousand years ago.
Instead of shying away from a socially difficult situation Jesus spit in the eye of social acceptability. “Zacchaeus, come down immediately, I must stay at your house today”(5). Jesus had no acknowledged relationship to Zaachaeus, no invitation and the people who seemed eager to be close to Jesus, would not understand. It was a scandal!
A scandal at the direction of Jesus in order to show us what salvation looks like. Salvation looks like how we treat other people, all people regardless of social, religious or ethnic norms. "Today salvation has come to Zacchaeas", because he will no longer trade on the well being of others. A faith life should be different, a working religion should be extraordinary. "Jesus came to seek and to save what was lost.(10)".
This is not a difficult reading of this passage, the difficult part is applying it to our daily lives, our neighbors and even our enemies. Ouch!
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
The hunt for the true Church goes on….and on through the centuries. You would think that so much energy would bring an answer but the church has taken what Jesus did and said and made it so complicated that we folk in the pew need a paid clergy to direct us to true spirituality, to the true church. At least that is their angle but they are confused as well. The church has offered many answers over the years to this question, a new answer brings temporary enthusiasm only to be replaced by the same old…. whatever.
Does salvation look like a gathering for worship, a doctrinal lecture, a biblical inspection, a confessional moment, a personal testimony, a prescribed life style, a prescribed wardrobe or the power of the spectacular. The Christian Church has seen it all but what does salvation look like? What is the salvation bottom line that fits every time, every place and most importantly every person? We could do a “ask the man in the pew” segment and get a multitude of seemingly petty answers.
Why don’t we take direction from Jesus? The answer is that what Jesus prescribed was simple yet so difficult, so difficult we avoid it like the plague. Salvation looks like Zacchaeus in St. Luke’s Gospel, chapter 19: verses 1-10. It does not take an Einstein to understand what is happening in this encounter with Jesus. No society respects the tax man, no society respects the little guy, no society likes the rich man in fine clothes and every society will shun the sinner who cheats them. If we could be totally honest, we are as socially driven as the Jericho folk were two thousand years ago.
Instead of shying away from a socially difficult situation Jesus spit in the eye of social acceptability. “Zacchaeus, come down immediately, I must stay at your house today”(5). Jesus had no acknowledged relationship to Zaachaeus, no invitation and the people who seemed eager to be close to Jesus, would not understand. It was a scandal!
A scandal at the direction of Jesus in order to show us what salvation looks like. Salvation looks like how we treat other people, all people regardless of social, religious or ethnic norms. "Today salvation has come to Zacchaeas", because he will no longer trade on the well being of others. A faith life should be different, a working religion should be extraordinary. "Jesus came to seek and to save what was lost.(10)".
This is not a difficult reading of this passage, the difficult part is applying it to our daily lives, our neighbors and even our enemies. Ouch!
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Looking Up
Sunday, December 2, 2012
1 Thessalonians 3: 9-13
How can we thank God enough for you in return for all the joy we have in the presence of our God because of you? Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may see you again and supply what is lacking in your faith.
Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else, just as ours does for you. May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.
Luke 21: 25-36 (Jesus is teaching)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint with terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away.
Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. For it will come on all those who live on the face of the earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”
Some of us who explore the Bible for answers get off on Biblical prophecy. It is easy to get caught up in a “Star Trek” like understanding of predicted future events. Jesus himself instructs his disciples to look up to the sun, moon and stars in order to read the divine plan and times. Every human culture has recorded these end time stories which predict an impending catastrophe that would mark the end of history. In a few short days, the calendar for the Mayan culture will end, will we wake to another reality on December 23, if we wake at all?
In the words of St. Paul and Jesus, the end of human history as we know it, is all about the second coming of the risen Christ to this earth. Paul says that the Lord Jesus will return with all his holy ones. Jesus links disturbing earthly signs with the return of the Son of Man coming in a cloud. The Son of Man is a self descriptive term for his second ministry to earth, not in his Christmas appearance, but in his second, yet to happen, appearance as the risen Christ. The change foretold is the coming kingdom of God to earth when this Son of Man will bring full redemption and judgment upon the earth.
The time and place of this second coming will always be open to conjecture for every generation has experienced terrible times that may be likened to the prophesy of Jesus. The word used by Jesus for generation means both the generation that heard his words and every succeeding generation throughout history. The prophesy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed but is yet to be fulfilled as humanity awaits surrounded by recurring ominous circumstances. Look around you in our time, would not the words of Jesus apply to our circumstances? Are there not wars, anguish, perplexity and fear of terrorists? Does our world not appear to be turned upside down? Could the Son of Man return in 2012?
The answer is that God may schedule earth for the terminal event at any moment into the future, possibly in the next hour. These biblical speakers, however, are equally concerned with the faith circumstances of believers as they wait for God’s timing. The Thessalonians had been gifted with a slight taste of the other side and were awaiting the full Monty of God’s grace and loving acceptance. Paul, despite multiple negative circumstances in his life, was encouraging the Thessalonians because of their shared joy of this present salvation and the salvation to come for which their wait anticipates.
St. Luke shares a warning about a negative wait for eternity. Speaking to believers he warns, “Be careful” as you live life, not to become weighed down or robbed of the only real joy in life by dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life. Dissipation is a fancy word for self indulgent behavior and has been translated careless ease. Drunkenness is self medication with alcohol but today we have many other more sophisticated selfish life and joy avoidance techniques. All of us are influenced by the anxieties of life regarding food, shelter, a career, marriage, family, social acceptance or spare time. The list can include anything and everything when legitimate concerns turn inward and downward.
Instead, with the love and assistance of the risen Christ, let us stand up, lift up our heads and rejoice with the soon coming Kingdom of God's full redemption.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
1 Thessalonians 3: 9-13
How can we thank God enough for you in return for all the joy we have in the presence of our God because of you? Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may see you again and supply what is lacking in your faith.
Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else, just as ours does for you. May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.
Luke 21: 25-36 (Jesus is teaching)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint with terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away.
Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. For it will come on all those who live on the face of the earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”
Some of us who explore the Bible for answers get off on Biblical prophecy. It is easy to get caught up in a “Star Trek” like understanding of predicted future events. Jesus himself instructs his disciples to look up to the sun, moon and stars in order to read the divine plan and times. Every human culture has recorded these end time stories which predict an impending catastrophe that would mark the end of history. In a few short days, the calendar for the Mayan culture will end, will we wake to another reality on December 23, if we wake at all?
In the words of St. Paul and Jesus, the end of human history as we know it, is all about the second coming of the risen Christ to this earth. Paul says that the Lord Jesus will return with all his holy ones. Jesus links disturbing earthly signs with the return of the Son of Man coming in a cloud. The Son of Man is a self descriptive term for his second ministry to earth, not in his Christmas appearance, but in his second, yet to happen, appearance as the risen Christ. The change foretold is the coming kingdom of God to earth when this Son of Man will bring full redemption and judgment upon the earth.
The time and place of this second coming will always be open to conjecture for every generation has experienced terrible times that may be likened to the prophesy of Jesus. The word used by Jesus for generation means both the generation that heard his words and every succeeding generation throughout history. The prophesy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed but is yet to be fulfilled as humanity awaits surrounded by recurring ominous circumstances. Look around you in our time, would not the words of Jesus apply to our circumstances? Are there not wars, anguish, perplexity and fear of terrorists? Does our world not appear to be turned upside down? Could the Son of Man return in 2012?
The answer is that God may schedule earth for the terminal event at any moment into the future, possibly in the next hour. These biblical speakers, however, are equally concerned with the faith circumstances of believers as they wait for God’s timing. The Thessalonians had been gifted with a slight taste of the other side and were awaiting the full Monty of God’s grace and loving acceptance. Paul, despite multiple negative circumstances in his life, was encouraging the Thessalonians because of their shared joy of this present salvation and the salvation to come for which their wait anticipates.
St. Luke shares a warning about a negative wait for eternity. Speaking to believers he warns, “Be careful” as you live life, not to become weighed down or robbed of the only real joy in life by dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life. Dissipation is a fancy word for self indulgent behavior and has been translated careless ease. Drunkenness is self medication with alcohol but today we have many other more sophisticated selfish life and joy avoidance techniques. All of us are influenced by the anxieties of life regarding food, shelter, a career, marriage, family, social acceptance or spare time. The list can include anything and everything when legitimate concerns turn inward and downward.
Instead, with the love and assistance of the risen Christ, let us stand up, lift up our heads and rejoice with the soon coming Kingdom of God's full redemption.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Saturday, October 27, 2012
The Forever Priest
Sunday October 28, 2012
Hebrews 7: 28
For the law appoints as high priest men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
The anonymous writer of Hebrews wants to bridge the seeming theological divide between the old and the new. The old is summarized by the term “law”, which to the writer included all of historical Jewish experience and worship lead by very human priests. The author claims that in the person of Jesus the new and singularly efficacious priest has come amongst us, he is the forever priest. He was sent to us to remedy our disobedience problem, forever!
The question may be asked, was Jesus, the great high priest, a time sensitive and limited savior redeemer for just the few? Was he sent to be the disobedience remedy for the few? From the record of Christian history the Church built fences or theological boundaries around the incarnation almost relegated Jesus to mere folk hero status. Does the great high priest have authority over the sin of all mankind, over the living and the dead as well as all generations yet to happen? It would seem that to this reader that the writer of Hebrews so believed.
How big is the incarnation to the apostle Paul? He was the biggest risk taking missionary in the early Church, telling of the power of the Savior to cure the sin problem for the living. Was the thrust of his redemptive message only for the living? In Romans 11 he had no limits on the power of God to save those who lived by the old way.
Romans 11: 28, 32
A far as the gospel is concerned, they (his Jewish ancestors) are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
The little word “all” is the biggest word in Scripture. If Paul so believed about those of his own family who were trying to kill him, why do we believers send every Tom, Dick and Harry to hell? There is no such hellish eternal, forever future awaiting anyone, God is big enough to work his will in everyone, preferably before death but his “election” or will is not limited by death.
Some years ago I was impressed to so believe despite being raised in the Church with a spirit of fear that assumed the heaven and hell scenario. I was relieved and surprised to discover from the writings of others, including the Bible, that the universalistic Grace of God has always been a minority but neglected dogma in the Church. It has been neglected by the Church for selfish reasons, believing that such an understanding of God's Grace would discourage evangelism and the giving of money to the immediate Church .
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Hebrews 7: 28
For the law appoints as high priest men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
The anonymous writer of Hebrews wants to bridge the seeming theological divide between the old and the new. The old is summarized by the term “law”, which to the writer included all of historical Jewish experience and worship lead by very human priests. The author claims that in the person of Jesus the new and singularly efficacious priest has come amongst us, he is the forever priest. He was sent to us to remedy our disobedience problem, forever!
The question may be asked, was Jesus, the great high priest, a time sensitive and limited savior redeemer for just the few? Was he sent to be the disobedience remedy for the few? From the record of Christian history the Church built fences or theological boundaries around the incarnation almost relegated Jesus to mere folk hero status. Does the great high priest have authority over the sin of all mankind, over the living and the dead as well as all generations yet to happen? It would seem that to this reader that the writer of Hebrews so believed.
How big is the incarnation to the apostle Paul? He was the biggest risk taking missionary in the early Church, telling of the power of the Savior to cure the sin problem for the living. Was the thrust of his redemptive message only for the living? In Romans 11 he had no limits on the power of God to save those who lived by the old way.
Romans 11: 28, 32
A far as the gospel is concerned, they (his Jewish ancestors) are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
The little word “all” is the biggest word in Scripture. If Paul so believed about those of his own family who were trying to kill him, why do we believers send every Tom, Dick and Harry to hell? There is no such hellish eternal, forever future awaiting anyone, God is big enough to work his will in everyone, preferably before death but his “election” or will is not limited by death.
Some years ago I was impressed to so believe despite being raised in the Church with a spirit of fear that assumed the heaven and hell scenario. I was relieved and surprised to discover from the writings of others, including the Bible, that the universalistic Grace of God has always been a minority but neglected dogma in the Church. It has been neglected by the Church for selfish reasons, believing that such an understanding of God's Grace would discourage evangelism and the giving of money to the immediate Church .
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Sunday Sermon
October 3, 2011
Apple Valley Church of the Nazarene
Dr. Tom Taylor
"A Bridge over Troubled Water"
The analogy of this sermon to a memorable song of the sixties is intriguing and helps the listener connect. Pastor Tom is a preacher of the first order. Please allow a personal response to this sermon. As stated, the guardrails on the bridge are there to protect us as we cross but staying in lane may be difficult if we focus on the guardrails and the dangers out there. Guardrails do provide some safety but hitting a guardrail will be a negative experience in itself. This is real life, a familiar starting point, but like all analogies this one has it's limits.
Likewise, we set in place in our lives guardrails that seem to promise protection from life’s hazards. The guardrails are social, religious, economic or all of the above in varying degrees. We are all different and we all choose and value guardrails differently, but we all have guardrails. Membership in a family or group may offer protection. Partaking of a religious mission may bring a sense of community beyond the individual. An education that empowers one to a sound financial future may seem to be the safest way to navigate this life. There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful with these guardrails because the hazards of life are out there and they are real.
The message from Dr. Taylor to his people is for all of us to look for true safety elsewhere. Yes, be wise in how you live by being aware of the guardrails but look elsewhere, look down the road. With a vision that is down the road, we are more apt to stay in lane with what God really wants from us. Even with the proper long term vision, spiritual smugness about how well we’re driving can pose a greater danger than guardrails themselves. People and Church, how are we doing or driving? Are we living smugly? Are we looking down the road or building higher guardrails? Each person or church must answer for themselves but one clue is evident, a clue that Pastor Taylor missed.
Are not the social, religious and economic divisions in the church a predictable result of the church’s overemphasis on the guardrails that divide the fellowship? This list of Christian divisions is enormous. We are divided in dogma, thought, gender, practice, priorities, income, race, ethical norms, architecture and language. The list goes on. Do our divisions not advertise a scardy cat church that wants and prioritizes another higher guardrail? Try as we do, there is one hazard that has no guardrail for we all shall one day die, be dead and gone. Gone where? Subtilely the church would have us believe the answer to this question is about heaven or hell or some other humanly imposed guardrail. Not so.
The Scriptures, St. Paul and Jesus in particular, each teach that authentic spirituality is about vision down the road. A vision that fosters unity rather than divisions, God himself is about the fruit of unity, that humanly abused definition of love. Are we as a people defining the concept of love according to God’s definition? Most of us, no matter how pious, prefer our divisions, our guardrails. We could pull out innumerable Scriptures to rightly define love but the life of Mother Teresa may be more instructive. She lived most of her life eyeing the religious guardrails, fulfilling admirably the expected requirements of her calling. Frustrated with the tidiness of her life, she had a Pauline midlife crisis that drove her into the streets of Calcutta to proclaim the love and unity of God to the dying human refuse of the city. Did she ask about church membership, dogma or a confession of faith from the dying? No, with a long term vision she communicated by her presence the everlasting love of God.
The breakdown of the analogy is most glaring because of that little word “over” in the song title. To be accurate to real living, the song title should be “A Bridge through Troubled Water”, for there is no easy out from the chores of life and the troubled waters that will come to all of us. God does not act on our behalf to take away trouble, they will always come and go. The troubles may be different but they will still be troubling. However, with a long range vision, God will turn them into possibilities.
Central to each of our possibilities is a mission for others to help bring reunification to this world system that has been distorted by our selfishness. God calls us to live not by our humanly constructed guardrails but with a long range compass setting through life’s troubled waters. May we look down the road.
Thank you Pastor Tom.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Simply Paul
Much of the scholarly commentary and theological thinking on St. Paul is beyond the reach of we mere mortals. It is no wonder that the lay hearer or reader is quickly lost in the technical jargon. One may question whether the said commentary really is about addressing the relevant issues or may it be that the technical filler is used to deflect possible criticism resulting from taking a stand on the bigger issues. If one says all that they believe, the criticism will make a Church career uncomfortable because church folk tend to get upset over non-essentials. The renowned and beloved biblical exegete, William Barclay is a case in point. His Daily Bible Study Series of Commentaries make little space for the concept of Christian universalism. Yet, well into his retirement he confesses in his autobiography to being a Christian universalist. With this kind of cowardice our Church will always be more of a social structure than a biblical fellowship.
This piece is an attempt to simply state the thought and theology of St. Paul. The method is not scholarly but is intended to be the common sense opinion of a lay respecter of the Scriptures, particularly those words of St. Paul. One Pauline passage is central to this attempt to understand the greatest theologian of all time. We are thrilled by this Pauline summary of the grand plan of God, a plan actualized by the risen Christ. The Plan that will be expanded and made relevant throughout all the galaxies, past present and future. Paul obviously had no scientific or cosmological knowledge but his words are so opened ended that something else must have been been going on. No attempt will be consciously made to fit Paul's words into expected theological boxes.
G.Goslaw
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Truth
Letter to the Editor
Daily Press
Victorville, Ca. 92392
Most Christian churchmen are Biblically ignorant and ignorantly bigoted. In truth the church social order is the priority of these folk. They choose to emulate the perceived social order as if it were God. They look to the Bible to validate this social order and fail to consider individual verses in their greater context,
including the character of the God they purport to worship. The thinkers of the church parrot this ignorance and/or are to cowardly to confront the ignorance for career and monetary concerns. It is a Donald Trump cop out, since he and they both love the truth but worship more the goodies of this world.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca.
Daily Press
Victorville, Ca. 92392
Most Christian churchmen are Biblically ignorant and ignorantly bigoted. In truth the church social order is the priority of these folk. They choose to emulate the perceived social order as if it were God. They look to the Bible to validate this social order and fail to consider individual verses in their greater context,
including the character of the God they purport to worship. The thinkers of the church parrot this ignorance and/or are to cowardly to confront the ignorance for career and monetary concerns. It is a Donald Trump cop out, since he and they both love the truth but worship more the goodies of this world.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Few
Pensees’ # 179 There are few true Christians, I mean even as regards faith. There are plenty who believe, but out of superstition. There are plenty who do not believe, but because they are libertines, there are few in between. I do not include those who lead a really devout life, nor all those who believe by intuition of the heart.
Blaise Pascal, Pensees’, Penguin Books, 1995, p. 55.
Soren Kierkegaard (1850) must have read Blaise Pascal (1650), for they appear to be kindred spirits. They are both thinkers of the first order. What they are not is clergymen who owed their worldly existence to the church. Isn’t it strange how it seems to work that way? Thankfully, there have been men such as these in church history but sadly they have been the few.
As Pascal notes, Christian superstition has been and is a large segment of the faithful. In Kierkegaard’s time the superstitious believers were the Christian majority that just went along with the expected Lutheran faith of their fathers and the state run church. Though Pascal was always loyal to his Roman Catholic Church, he surely had in mind the superstitious rule of the church during the middle ages to include his time. Who are the superstitious believer's of our time? Who are the true Christians of our time? Any creditable clergyman will tell you that his office does not make him or her devout. It is the faithful, plain, quiet, devout widow lady in the second pew, right front. These folk have to live a religion of the heart. gg
Matthew 7:13&14 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.
Blaise Pascal, Pensees’, Penguin Books, 1995, p. 55.
Soren Kierkegaard (1850) must have read Blaise Pascal (1650), for they appear to be kindred spirits. They are both thinkers of the first order. What they are not is clergymen who owed their worldly existence to the church. Isn’t it strange how it seems to work that way? Thankfully, there have been men such as these in church history but sadly they have been the few.
As Pascal notes, Christian superstition has been and is a large segment of the faithful. In Kierkegaard’s time the superstitious believers were the Christian majority that just went along with the expected Lutheran faith of their fathers and the state run church. Though Pascal was always loyal to his Roman Catholic Church, he surely had in mind the superstitious rule of the church during the middle ages to include his time. Who are the superstitious believer's of our time? Who are the true Christians of our time? Any creditable clergyman will tell you that his office does not make him or her devout. It is the faithful, plain, quiet, devout widow lady in the second pew, right front. These folk have to live a religion of the heart. gg
Matthew 7:13&14 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Terror
Pensees# 172 The way of God, who disposes all things with gentleness, is to instil religion into our minds with reasoned arguments and into our hearts with grace, but attempting to instil it into hearts and minds with force and threats is to instil not religion but terror.
Blaise Pascal, Pensees’, Penguin Books, 1995, p. 54.
Pascal the prophet is speaking. He comments on the church of his time (1650) and by extension to the church of our time. Could not the revivalist methodologies of the last two hundred years be an appropriate example? Threats of hell and eternal damnation have been and are used to manipulate seekers after truth. Terror is the supposed power of the pulpit. These tactics have accomplished some good but are they God's way? The church and it's pulpits fail to consider the damage done to the thinking but unbelieving adults to whom Pascal spoke. Let us define evangelism as did Pascal, as reasoned arguments and grace from God. gg
Blaise Pascal, Pensees’, Penguin Books, 1995, p. 54.
Pascal the prophet is speaking. He comments on the church of his time (1650) and by extension to the church of our time. Could not the revivalist methodologies of the last two hundred years be an appropriate example? Threats of hell and eternal damnation have been and are used to manipulate seekers after truth. Terror is the supposed power of the pulpit. These tactics have accomplished some good but are they God's way? The church and it's pulpits fail to consider the damage done to the thinking but unbelieving adults to whom Pascal spoke. Let us define evangelism as did Pascal, as reasoned arguments and grace from God. gg
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Hell or Highwater
April 5, 2011
Speaking for those of us who hang our lives on the words of Scripture, we should welcome the efforts of those who challenge our theological assumptions. While it may be upsetting in the short term, as we grow together, these people may be the heroes of the faith. Such is the debt we owe to Dr. Thomas Talbott for his book written ten years ago, “The Inescapable Love of God”. The assumption that is challenged in this book is the church doctrine of eternal punishment.
What awaits each of us when we die? In Christian theology we assume that God is waiting to render payback for our sins on earth. That through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross at Calvary, we can escape the coming wrath of God and be warehoused together forever with the good guys. That is the understanding that unites us but what is the fate of the rest of humanity? That understanding divides Christian doctrine. Is the character of our God to condemn anyone to eternal punishment? Does he condemn to hell only those who have not jumped through our hoops? Can such a God be a God of Love?
The author traces through church history how the three major schools of church doctrine and how they answer these questions. The Augustinian, the Arminian and the universalist theological models for afterlife issues are argued logically in an attempt to at least rock our assumptions and get us thinking. We learn that the universalist interpretation of scriptures has always been a part of biblical dialogue. We learn that to be a universalist does not mean that one must discard the rest of Christian theology. We learn that free will is not the enemy of a really all powerful big God.
If yours is a School House God, don’t bother to attempt to read this book. The “Inescapable Love of God” is not a casual read. One cannot digest the content of this book without making theological choices. Take the time to get inside the thought of Thomas Talbot. You may come away with a better understanding of the scriptures and the things to come. This book may be the most important theological writing since Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the doors of the Castle Church, Wittenburg, Germany.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Face Book Church
The computer revolution has downloaded the power and money to be made in exploiting human nature in the information age. As you know, it is called Face Book. The world and we Americas have stampeded to this tool to expand our social connections. The human need to belong to a group will find attachment somewhere, be it a street gang or Sunday morning worship. How many friends do you have? The answer to that question is what seemingly quantifies one’s value in our culture. Friendship is the American social ethic.
Grouping together has been a survival tactic from time immemorial and is not to be cast aside. Our list of friends brings security as we humans face a multitude of threats as a group rather than alone. The question for we thinking adults is to what extent? When does being a part of a group block our individual potential? When does our mutual admiration society shield us from the harsh realities of life instead of positively confronting them? Sadly most of us don’t go there or even ask the question.
The Church has a similar choice to make. If we are not there already, will we be the Face Book church? If so, what is the possible downside resulting from such an emphasis? The social Face Book ethic says, as do all human religions, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck”. This conclusion is thought to be truth and tends to be the priority of the Face Book church. Is it? Should not Christianity cling to the primacy of faith in Jesus Christ? A faith that can not be seen or heard and surely does not walk.
Denominationalism has increasingly fractured the Church ever since the Reformation. The American Church has become a compound fracture. We already gather together with differing doctrinal, ethical, geographical, social, worship, racial and economic priorities. Will the addition of the Face Book church turn worship into a multitude of Christian cliques? Will not the Face Book priority make it impossible for the church to speak to this American culture with any semblance of unity and credibility? At what point do we cease to be Christian?
These are desperate times for the American church. The Danish people faced just such a crisis 200 years ago when the Lutheran Church was the state church. Christianity was the national, normal, expected life long gathering of family and friends of all Danes around a system of doctrine and worship. If you were a Dane, you were also a Christian. The gathering of believers was primarily a Protestant social order of friends and family who could think and live like what appeared to be Christian. The duck definition was enough to warrant the label of Christian.
Into this context arrives Soren Kierkegaard (1813 to 1855). In his person and thought he documented in his many writings, what it meant to be a Christian. He insisted that faith is more than a viable thinking system of believable doctrinal statements. Faith is more than an agreed upon ethical and social standard that fosters the warm and fuzzies for the duck flock. According to S.K., faith is an individual, desperate, called out “leap” into the stratosphere of “no matter what”. A leap of faith beyond any human description or justification.
Based on the biblical account of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his “son of promise”, S. K. named this faith the “teleological suspension of the ethical”. Ultimate things will stretch us beyond everything else upon the earth, even our agreed upon rules for life. This was such a radical understanding of faith that it won him no friends. Educated in the university to be a minister, he pastured no church, never married but instead chose to dive into the exposition in writing of an authentic faith that we believers avoid. And for most of us S.K.'s definition of faith is so very demanding and scary.
Soren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism (Wikipedia). In just a few short years he explored God by exploring our human condition, our fears, pain, guilt, desperation, beliefs, etc., etc. The man and his situation in life is the beginning of all truth about God. Most of the philosophers who followed S. K. reduced existentialism to a mere anthropology (Becker, The Denial of Death). This is like constructing a math problem and then abandoning the problem and leaving it answerless. The answer for Kierkegaard was the Religious Man as that believer who has taken “the leap”.
“The leap” was not for the faint of heart. It was and is a commitment to doing not just being. The most scary part of the agreement is that the individual must commit before really knowing what he is committing too. The faith of the truly Religious Man is blind obedience that is beyond human explanations. And it will not be a pleasant experience. Pain and suffering is the reward for this commitment. In 1976, Elmer H. Duncan wrote an introduction to the thought of Soren Kierkegaard in one of a series called, “Makers of the Modern Theological Mind”. Please let me quote from page 92.
Why did Kierkegaard paint such a picture of Christian faith--- paradoxical, a life of suffering,shame, etc.? Of course, he was replying to Hegel and Feuerbach and the Danish Lutherans. But he also meant to be honest, to “tell it like it is”. And I find that young people respect his honesty; they find S.K.’s difficult faith-- and the challenge it involves-- more appealing than some popular alternatives that I shall not mention by name. But we might just whisper , “Are our churches so different from those Kierkegaard criticized?”
The author was asking this question of the Church of 1976, thirty five years ago, before the computer revolution and the threat of the Face Book spirituality of the Church. The popular alternatives then and through these intervening years have been and are pure foolishness. We have reaped a self involved laity and clergy who have downgraded spirituality to the level of being satisfied with mere earthly relationships. We have lost our distinctive. Being a true believer is not fun and certainly not popular. N0netheless, let us flee with due haste from the mere suggestion of a Face Book church (1Cor. 6:18, 1Timothy 6:11).
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca
Grouping together has been a survival tactic from time immemorial and is not to be cast aside. Our list of friends brings security as we humans face a multitude of threats as a group rather than alone. The question for we thinking adults is to what extent? When does being a part of a group block our individual potential? When does our mutual admiration society shield us from the harsh realities of life instead of positively confronting them? Sadly most of us don’t go there or even ask the question.
The Church has a similar choice to make. If we are not there already, will we be the Face Book church? If so, what is the possible downside resulting from such an emphasis? The social Face Book ethic says, as do all human religions, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck”. This conclusion is thought to be truth and tends to be the priority of the Face Book church. Is it? Should not Christianity cling to the primacy of faith in Jesus Christ? A faith that can not be seen or heard and surely does not walk.
Denominationalism has increasingly fractured the Church ever since the Reformation. The American Church has become a compound fracture. We already gather together with differing doctrinal, ethical, geographical, social, worship, racial and economic priorities. Will the addition of the Face Book church turn worship into a multitude of Christian cliques? Will not the Face Book priority make it impossible for the church to speak to this American culture with any semblance of unity and credibility? At what point do we cease to be Christian?
These are desperate times for the American church. The Danish people faced just such a crisis 200 years ago when the Lutheran Church was the state church. Christianity was the national, normal, expected life long gathering of family and friends of all Danes around a system of doctrine and worship. If you were a Dane, you were also a Christian. The gathering of believers was primarily a Protestant social order of friends and family who could think and live like what appeared to be Christian. The duck definition was enough to warrant the label of Christian.
Into this context arrives Soren Kierkegaard (1813 to 1855). In his person and thought he documented in his many writings, what it meant to be a Christian. He insisted that faith is more than a viable thinking system of believable doctrinal statements. Faith is more than an agreed upon ethical and social standard that fosters the warm and fuzzies for the duck flock. According to S.K., faith is an individual, desperate, called out “leap” into the stratosphere of “no matter what”. A leap of faith beyond any human description or justification.
Based on the biblical account of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his “son of promise”, S. K. named this faith the “teleological suspension of the ethical”. Ultimate things will stretch us beyond everything else upon the earth, even our agreed upon rules for life. This was such a radical understanding of faith that it won him no friends. Educated in the university to be a minister, he pastured no church, never married but instead chose to dive into the exposition in writing of an authentic faith that we believers avoid. And for most of us S.K.'s definition of faith is so very demanding and scary.
Soren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism (Wikipedia). In just a few short years he explored God by exploring our human condition, our fears, pain, guilt, desperation, beliefs, etc., etc. The man and his situation in life is the beginning of all truth about God. Most of the philosophers who followed S. K. reduced existentialism to a mere anthropology (Becker, The Denial of Death). This is like constructing a math problem and then abandoning the problem and leaving it answerless. The answer for Kierkegaard was the Religious Man as that believer who has taken “the leap”.
“The leap” was not for the faint of heart. It was and is a commitment to doing not just being. The most scary part of the agreement is that the individual must commit before really knowing what he is committing too. The faith of the truly Religious Man is blind obedience that is beyond human explanations. And it will not be a pleasant experience. Pain and suffering is the reward for this commitment. In 1976, Elmer H. Duncan wrote an introduction to the thought of Soren Kierkegaard in one of a series called, “Makers of the Modern Theological Mind”. Please let me quote from page 92.
Why did Kierkegaard paint such a picture of Christian faith--- paradoxical, a life of suffering,shame, etc.? Of course, he was replying to Hegel and Feuerbach and the Danish Lutherans. But he also meant to be honest, to “tell it like it is”. And I find that young people respect his honesty; they find S.K.’s difficult faith-- and the challenge it involves-- more appealing than some popular alternatives that I shall not mention by name. But we might just whisper , “Are our churches so different from those Kierkegaard criticized?”
The author was asking this question of the Church of 1976, thirty five years ago, before the computer revolution and the threat of the Face Book spirituality of the Church. The popular alternatives then and through these intervening years have been and are pure foolishness. We have reaped a self involved laity and clergy who have downgraded spirituality to the level of being satisfied with mere earthly relationships. We have lost our distinctive. Being a true believer is not fun and certainly not popular. N0netheless, let us flee with due haste from the mere suggestion of a Face Book church (1Cor. 6:18, 1Timothy 6:11).
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Happiness Hypothesis
The obviously brilliant Bertrand Russell asks us to consider his methodology for life in his book, "The Conquest of Happiness”. In 1930 it was the social ethic of happiness. We just need to learn about ourselves and how to get along, a path that will lead to happiness. The description of the methodology is engaging, accurate, clear and to some extent an enjoyable read. Over the last eighty years Americans have been content to swallow and chew on Russell’s happiness hypothesis.
The result was and is the often advertised American dream. As Americans we can lift ourselves by the boot straps to achieve upward mobility. To this point Dr. Russell says nothing wrong or that is injurious to our society, however, his thinking does have one flaw. It is merely a human endeavor to shape life around human priorities, it is secular thinking that has no divine imperative. Does God lead by the happiness hypothesis?
The Scriptures say no but instead of confronting Russell, the church decided to co-mingle the Gospel and the hypothesis of happiness. In ignorance, I hope, the church advertised itself by using self help methodology offering happiness, upward mobility, prosperity, success, health and social acceptance. This partnership with Russell, whom the church despises on paper, has denigrated the authenticity of the church. The Scriptures have no patience with Russell or the church at this point.
Moses was asked to go from the happiness of Midian to confront the other God, the Pharaoh of Egypt. Jesus was asked to leave the happiness of the countryside to go to the conflict in Jerusalem. The Pharisee of Pharisees was asked to leave the confines of his religious community to be a Christian renegade. A monk in an Egyptian monastery is asked to leave the comfort of his garden tending to go to Rome and their to be slaughtered in the Arena, shaming the audience for their unethical understanding of happiness. These are only a few of the inherent contradictions between the happiness hypothesis and the Gospel of God.
The Gospel is about giving it up, happiness that is, under the direction of God. Bertrand Russell considered God talk human insecurity and of no concern in his hypothesis of happiness. Instead of siding with Dr. Russell the church should be presenting the truth of the gospel, as unattractive as that may be.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, CA.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Book Response
Horton, Michael, "Christless Chrisatianity: the Alternative Gospel of the American Church", Baker Books, 2008.
Great hesitation is hindering my comments on this book, “Christless Christianity, The Alternative Gospel of the American Church”, by Dr. Michael Horton. It seems that when this learner is touched positively by a book I am in the thinnest of minorities, in fact, my approval seems to be a literary curse. This book does not deserve such an ignominious fate. This book is, however, a critique of the American church that should cause the churchmen of America to question what they are doing and saying. And as a critique it will be badmouthed.
Being prodigals of the “me generation”, a corporate confession of the accuracy of Dr. Horton’s thesis is overdue. The unintended consequence of the revivalist era of the American church is a self absorbed church that has given God a backseat. We have ignored the Godship of God and worshipped ourselves. Case in point is the following quote from page 241 of his book.
"No longer saved from damnation--they (we; gg) are now saved from unpleasantness. We are the walking dead, forgetful that our designer-label fashions of religion and morality are really a death shroud. To paraphrase Jesus, we go through life like corpses with lipstick, not even aware that all of our makeovers and self improvements are just cosmetic (Matt. 23: 25-28)."
The expanding and dominate new Pharisaism of the church is old human self worship, as it was in the time of Jesus. The church, therefore aggressively moves to parallel the culture instead of confronting it with God’s values. Once in a while a book like this arrives that may jar us into spiritual reality. However, we cowardly saints, we the faint of heart, we need not waste our labors listening for divine directives from our God who is but our pathway to societal acceptability. It would seem that such an understanding of God is most comfortable.
"All that is necessary to become unwitting Pelagians (and Pharisees; gg) is less preaching and teaching of the law and the gospel--downplaying the means of grace (Word and Sacrament) in favor of our means of transforming ourselves and our world. Since self-trust is our default setting, we can never assume that we really get the gospel and can now move on to our own works. Even when we talk about our obligations to God and neighbor, it must be grounded first of all in the gospel of salvation by grace apart from works. So when the church loses its interest in doctrine (a word that simply means “teaching“), it is no surprise that we will drift back to our most familiar religious and moral assumptions." P. 244
Put most bluntly we are the sinning church, blinded to our own frailty by the darkness in our hearts. With a Pauline, “therefore”, we can hope because by the gift of faith we become dependent upon the adequacy of our Savior. The failure to acknowledge that fact belies our testimony. Every believer to be biblical and Christian, is an acknowledged moral failure. Our local paper carries a series of articles on the religion page written by a local pastor. Rightfully evangelistic, the invitation sounds like the church has the moral high ground and of course you sinners can be there too.
This moral and spiritual high mindedness is the rule of the Church and would seem to be symptomatic of the author’s critique. How more truthful to say, we the church are a group of spiritual losers who have been introduced to the God who gives meaning to our lostness. To me, this is what it means to be Christian.
"People are looking for authenticity, but this includes acknowledgment of our sin and self righteousness and our need for Christ. What could be less authentic and honest than assuming that our lives can preach better than the Gospel?" P. 157
Will the critique of this book bring needed change? One can only hope.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Ultimate Power
The Apostle Paul continues to chastise the Church at Corinth in Chapter 6. Verses one through eleven focuses on a specific immorality within the ranks. Members of the body of Christ were taking their petty disputes to a secular judge to be resolved. Verse six, “But instead, one brother goes to law against another -- and this in front of unbelievers!” Insulted by their selfishness, Paul exclaims as if to say, don’t you know, don’t you understand who you are? How can you think this way?
In verse seven Paul ridicules their misbehavior making clear that all the offenders amongst them were “completely defeated already” (TNIV & LB). The NASB translates Paul’s accusation to the Corinthian church by saying that the lawsuits are “already a defeat for you”. The KJV says, “Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you”. The NEB translates verse seven as “Indeed, you already fall below your standard in going to law with one another at all”. The Weymouth Bible translates that the lawsuits are a “token of your defeat”.
All moral failure is to act in contradiction to the divine love that is the guiding principle of the church. Supposed love for the Christ in them and the resulting love for others, especially the brethren should be the one overt rule of the Church. What degree of lovelessness will God tolerate in His Church? The Corinthian brethren lived or were tempted by a long ugly list of moral defeats. St. Paul confronted them with their defeatist behavior, scolds them but does not call them names and cast them out. In fact, Paul only has praise for the Corinthian membership in his greeting to them in the first nine verses of the book.
Paul asks the bigger question in verse nine. “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God?” The Church is a “now” question but this question is also eschatological. This is an impressive theological word that pertains to God’s final judgments or plans for this world. At that time when the church is dissolved into the will of God, there will be no wrongdoing. Please allow me to paraphrase the thought of St. Paul. Moral defeats are now the regrettable norm but they are incompatible with the Kingdom ethic and upon the consummation of the fully revealed Kingdom moral defeats will be no more.
The purpose of the Corinthian letter is to warn, awaken or correct the church members to their Kingdom calling. As believers, according to St. Paul, we are not to be selfish slaves to our immediate earthly temporary circumstances. Instead, as believers in the Christ, as slaves to Him, we are human centers for the expression God’s love. The difficulty for the Corinthian Church was the draw or the influence of the immediate selfish culture, the only culture they had known since birth. An abrupt radical departure required by the Kingdom ethic of love was and is humanly impossible. That love ethic is our only hope or power.
In a culture whose God’s would operate whore houses for the propagation of religion, the Christ way seemed so inconsequential. Where is the power of divine love? The people of the church had divided loyalties. Today’s Church of Jesus Christ is no different so that an impartial observer may ask of us the same question, where is the power of divine love? Does the Church really honor marriage when the divorce rate is equal to that within our secular communities? Is love for others the norm when we believers separate themselves according to skin color, societal norms, income capabilities, education, worship styles, ethical rules and doctrinal statements? Where is the divine love?
As the laity of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are not thinking about who we are two thousand years after the Church at Corinth. We too are slaves to our circumstances. When we model the selfish world, we model defeat. In contrast, Paul reminds us all about the significance of the rite of baptism. “When you are baptized you are washed; you are cleansed; you are sanctified; you are buried in the water and by this burial you get a share in Christ’s death and resurrection; you are adopted and you become sons of God; you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, that is, you are made members of God’s people; in short, you are included in the kingdom.”* Surely St. Paul would further admonish each of us ……. trust the ultimate power and now act like it!
*J. Jeremias, “Jesus and the Message of the New Testament”, Fortress Press, 2002, p. 90. (from 1965).
Thursday, December 2, 2010
"Henish"
There are those of us who are thinkers and those of us who are feelers, most of us operate between these two poles. We are male and female, a community of persons not defined by a variance of body parts but by a predisposition toward a particular life methodology. These past blogs have struggled to define our “henish” culture or the “henish” church and never quite succeeded despite the obvious causal relationship.
This blogger stumbled on a quote by the humanistic philosopher Bertrand Russell circa 1930. Negatives aside, this atheist thinker had a very perceptive eye toward understanding how we function together as a culture or a community of persons. What he is saying in his book, “The Conquest of Happiness” is that our morality should not be thought of as God driven but should be derived from a rational understanding of our humanness. The quote from page 84 is as follows.
“Our nominal morality has been formulated by priests and mentally enslaved women. It is time that men who have to take a normal part in the normal life of the world learned to rebel against this sickly nonsense.”
In 1930 Bertrand Russell, was right and he was wrong. He was wrong by entertaining the thought that morality was about being happy and that we can think our way to happiness. However, he was correct to direct all of us toward a rebellion that would reject a growing affinity for femininity. Real men, male or female, make truly moral decisions based upon our human thought processes and not the feelings of priests and enslaved women. To enslaved women the immediate feelings resulting from the consequences of any decision are the primary preferred moral value.
That which is good and moral is that which feathers the nest, our immediate personal space. However, the female priority is meant to be balanced by the God given male priority for rational thought. In the male morality, “thinking” is the dominate ingredient for any valid understanding of right and wrong. Men are at their best when they frequently consider the broad implication of their actions that hopefully touches on the greater good.
The “sickly nonsense” of priests and mentally enslaved women results in a false morality, a superficial sentimentality that seeks to avoid the harsh realities of life. Long ago there was a secular prophet who so warned America about growing up female. He said, beware of the hypocrisy of a feminized understanding of right and wrong. What did he mean? America, look around eighty years later, we are Petticoat Junction. We have allowed our culture, economy, politics and religion to become dominantly touchy-feely.
The priests of Bertrand Russel's day responded to his challenge by accusing his crowd of situational ethics. They said the spiritual person has no need of using his mind because the Bible plainly states what is right and wrong. This was and is a decidedly female response. There are a multitude of moralities in the Bible, all of which have a historical context that we have to use our minds to understand. In brief, all moralities are situational. Most priests lazily dump their personal bias's on the Biblical record.
Our American culture has never rebelled against this sticky nonsense. Christianity has remained in lock down mode prescribed to us by the nest minding clergy and the church has remained female. Our politicians have waged a war to dumb down the American voter and thinking in the Church is even less desirable. Most thinking persons in the Church have sadly chosen the way of Bertrand Russell and written off the demands and blessings of a God inspired thinking morality.
We are long overdue for a male morality that is more significant than the current in name only morality. Men and women, let us revolt against this nonsense and be whom God created us to be.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca
This blogger stumbled on a quote by the humanistic philosopher Bertrand Russell circa 1930. Negatives aside, this atheist thinker had a very perceptive eye toward understanding how we function together as a culture or a community of persons. What he is saying in his book, “The Conquest of Happiness” is that our morality should not be thought of as God driven but should be derived from a rational understanding of our humanness. The quote from page 84 is as follows.
“Our nominal morality has been formulated by priests and mentally enslaved women. It is time that men who have to take a normal part in the normal life of the world learned to rebel against this sickly nonsense.”
In 1930 Bertrand Russell, was right and he was wrong. He was wrong by entertaining the thought that morality was about being happy and that we can think our way to happiness. However, he was correct to direct all of us toward a rebellion that would reject a growing affinity for femininity. Real men, male or female, make truly moral decisions based upon our human thought processes and not the feelings of priests and enslaved women. To enslaved women the immediate feelings resulting from the consequences of any decision are the primary preferred moral value.
That which is good and moral is that which feathers the nest, our immediate personal space. However, the female priority is meant to be balanced by the God given male priority for rational thought. In the male morality, “thinking” is the dominate ingredient for any valid understanding of right and wrong. Men are at their best when they frequently consider the broad implication of their actions that hopefully touches on the greater good.
The “sickly nonsense” of priests and mentally enslaved women results in a false morality, a superficial sentimentality that seeks to avoid the harsh realities of life. Long ago there was a secular prophet who so warned America about growing up female. He said, beware of the hypocrisy of a feminized understanding of right and wrong. What did he mean? America, look around eighty years later, we are Petticoat Junction. We have allowed our culture, economy, politics and religion to become dominantly touchy-feely.
The priests of Bertrand Russel's day responded to his challenge by accusing his crowd of situational ethics. They said the spiritual person has no need of using his mind because the Bible plainly states what is right and wrong. This was and is a decidedly female response. There are a multitude of moralities in the Bible, all of which have a historical context that we have to use our minds to understand. In brief, all moralities are situational. Most priests lazily dump their personal bias's on the Biblical record.
Our American culture has never rebelled against this sticky nonsense. Christianity has remained in lock down mode prescribed to us by the nest minding clergy and the church has remained female. Our politicians have waged a war to dumb down the American voter and thinking in the Church is even less desirable. Most thinking persons in the Church have sadly chosen the way of Bertrand Russell and written off the demands and blessings of a God inspired thinking morality.
We are long overdue for a male morality that is more significant than the current in name only morality. Men and women, let us revolt against this nonsense and be whom God created us to be.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca
Monday, November 22, 2010
Book Review
Book: “Crazy for God”, Frank Schaeffer, Da Capo Press, 2007.
“Crazy for God” is Frank Schaeffer’s story of growing up Christian. He was raised by parents influential within an evangelical or fundamentalist understanding of God. Few definitions for these theological descriptions are given but not far into the book, one gets the picture. It is a family narrative lived out through each generation as a changing of the guard. This particular change is familiar to those of us who were raised in remotely similar circumstances.
Truth be told, it is every man’s story, a search for answers to the big questions. Ancient Jewish wisdom in the Talmud identifies our predicament, “Whosoever gives his mind to four things, it were better for him if he had not come into the world - what is above? what is beneath? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter?”* These questions are a vexation, a blessing and the curse of our humanity. We try to avoid them or explain them away but they never go away.
Spiritual adventurer’s who have gone before us have struggled with these questions and then codified apparent answers into hundreds or thousands of differing religions. The evangelical fundamentalist Christian answer is one such religious expression. Finding fair skies within evangelicalism, Frank Schaeffer split his energies between his art endeavors and working for the cause of his parents. There came a time when the “pat” answers of his parents no longer seemed to be enough.
Thank you Mr. Schaeffer for sharing your honest story, your courage relative to the big questions is exemplary. Please allow me to share a few personal observations from your book that are particularly meaningful to this reader.
1. All people are fallible, sinners and saints, including our heroes.
2. Each successive generation must individually choose it’s own religious expression.
3. Your resistance to throwing the baby of faith in God, out with the bathwater is to be applauded.
Dr. Schaeffer’s generation has lived out it’s priorities. The next generation, Frank Schaeffer’s generation, has either reacted negatively, conformed to parental expectations or sought a bridge to a spirituality that hopefully retains the best priorities of the passing generation. This reader put’s your journey in the latter category.
Thank you Frank for sharing your journey with us.
G.Goslaw
Victorville, Ca
* Joachim Jeremias, “Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus”, Paperback Edition 1975, p.237.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)