Mennonites and Lawsuits

Just another post on another aspect of Mennonite theology with which non-Mennonites may not be familiar. Mennonites traditionally do not sue and settle lawsuits filed against them, whether they are right or not. That's the traditional theology with which I was brought up. I think I have mentioned before that the Mennonite confession of faith is based on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, and that is where you will find the origins of much Mennonite theology.

In terms of lawsuits, the theology is biblically based on this: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

This idea is essentially repeated in the instruction to turn the other cheek. For some reason, which I have never understood, many Christians seem to take the Bible literally in the sense that if Jesus says to turn the other cheek, then it is the cheek that he meant and not the nose. If someone hits you in the cheek, turn the other one, but if he hits you in the nose, hit him back and twice as hard so he won't do it again.

And if he says that if someone sues to take away your coat, you should let him have your cloak but if he sues to take away your house, then sue him back.

Do you see what I mean or am I being all confusing? It's like the idea behind what Jesus says is sailing waaaay over people's heads - Jesus is saying no matter what you are being sued for, you ought to give it, even if you are in the right.

In 1 Corinthians Paul takes issue with the Corinthians for this very thing: But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

So clearly there is no instruction not to sue someone on the basis of being right or on the basis of the other potential party in the lawsuit being a Christian. Back to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If we decide that Christ was not referring to what our behaviour ought to be in dealing with non-Christians, then how do we explain the above - that if we only care for our brethren, how are we any different than anyone else? Christ calls for us to be different. To be the salt and light of the world. Where there is a light, there is no need for anyone to announce it - it is self-evident. If Christian light is so easily confused with the darkness, it isn't the darkness that is the problem - it is the light.

So. That's another aspect of Mennonite theology that non-Mennonites may not know about. It was a very big deal when I was growing up and Mennonites who sued or who didn't settle a lawsuit were certainly looked at askance. Unfortunately, like a lot of things, that changed. Mennonites now are as prone to lawsuits as anyone else. I think that since Mennonites tend to be well above the poverty line, along with too much money came the desire to protect it and rationalize away the theology (and correct theology, in my opinion) that they were raised with. And I would venture to say that many young cultural Mennonites have no idea at all what the original tenets of the faith are anymore. Mennonites have become outwardly indistinguishable from everyone else.

Layla

PS

I wasn't stressed out about Mennonites being perfect. I'm sure I sound like I think that Dr. McGee is perfect or that the Baptists are perfect. Neither being the case.... no worries.

OSAS, baptism

Yay! A post I don't have to research for days... baptism. :)
I was raised Baptist, and have been fully immersed, backbend and all. It was an *experience*, and a little like death, even for such a waterbaby as I am. (And as young as I was). They put the cloth over your face and bend you back in the water... you can't breathe... it's only a moment but it feels too long.

I believe in adult baptism - or conscious choice. I was examined by my pastor very carefully with no coaching from my mom before I was allowed to be baptized. You have to be saved, and really know what that means before they'll baptize you - not just mouthing the words, really know and believe.

Would I, however, ever tell anyone that they had to redo it? No! That just upsets folks to no avail. The *point* of being baptized is to have a public ceremony marking you a Christian. To "come out" as it were.

"Not just mouthing the words" brings me to once saved, always saved. Yes, I believe in that, wholeheartedly. But let me have a couple of caveats. 1) I think you can choose to give up your salvation and become a deliberate apostate. Not choosing sin over non-sin, as we all sin every day, but choosing to publically denounce our Lord and become an atheist, or convert to another religion as an adult. And yet... I tend to believe that those who do that never really believed in the first place, for does not He say that He will lose none from His hand? Caveat 2) You have to really believe in (put your full trust in, give your allegiance to) Jesus as Savior in order to go to Heaven. You have to have that relationship.

Sons in the pigpen vs. pigs in the pigpen: This is a Dr. McGee metaphor. Sons might get down in the pigpen of sin, but they don't want to stay there. Pigs like it in the pigpen, it suits them just fine. I've been in sin... it itches. It burns. It bothers you, nags at your conscience. The unsaved just aren't bothered by sin the same way. I have these conversations with my unsaved friends, we go along just fine and then hit a wall - a wall where I expect them to feel a bit guilty about something they're doing or not doing and ... and... they just don't. Nothing there. There's no guilt, no conviction. And that is the biggest wall to conversion that I've found - a total lack of guilt.

On the other hand, I have friends who I know have been exposed to the gospel, and might well have been/are saved but have been swimming in slop so long they don't know which end is up. And *they* get angry when sin is mentioned. It is burning them, even as they pretend it does not. Will they be in Heaven? I believe so, but... am not so sure that I'm not trying to show them how much nicer it is to shower up a bit. (A bit - for none of us is completely clean this side of Heaven).

The two great sins of the church are legalism and liberalism. Legalism leads to people believing in works and worrying about their eternal status every day. Liberalism leads people to forget that God is Holy and that He does have rules, and that there is only one way Home. I think that people think of the "church" as the externally visible body of church members. That is not the true church. The church is every person who truly believes on our Lord Jesus Christ, who truly has a personal relationship with Him and who relies upon Him for their salvation - whatever else they might do or not do. I've mentioned several times the church my friend D was at - ladies there who had never cracked their Bibles open, ladies old enough to be our mothers who'd been in that church their whole lives! Is that the "church" that is spoken about in the Word? No. It's not the church of the people that think they're holier than thou, it's not the church of people who think they should reduce everything to the lowest common denomiator because they have to "reach the public". The true church has members from every denomination, and no denomination has all their members in it.

Interesting link on eternal salvation and OSAS. :) Thank you for it. :) I disagree, but it was interesting reading. FWIW - I do believe that branches can be trimmed. Trimmed right out of this life and into the next one. Still SAVED, just cut off from all the work that you were expected to do - and that's the "sin unto death". You can be pruned too - have your blessings taken from you, your ministry taken from you, etc. That's very common as a method of displining a wayward child of God. And again, it's all too common for folks to mouth the words "I believe" but not really put any faith or belief in Jesus. I *know* how filthy I am. How unholy. I *know* I deserve Hell - and I know I will receive Heaven because of Jesus' death on the cross. Could I wilfully walk away from Him at this point? Oh... I could. It would hurt, though. So much... I don't think I could stand it. But when I was younger in my walk? Yes. And then I got pruned, and pruned to the bone. There are branches that will never grow back, places I am never going to be allowed - not because they're bad, but because they're bad for ME.

A long enough post for now... :) Brain slowly returning to the upright position, body going back into Martha mode. :) Hope that you are well!

Mennonite Sins

I've been feel badly for a while now because I am afraid my posts may sound like I think that Mennonites have it all right or something. For the record, I often refer to the Mennonite view on theology, not so much for your benefit, but just as general information for anyone who is out there since I think it is a branch of Christianity that is never thought about at all, unless it is thought about in terms of the Amish.

There are things which I think that the Mennonites, but not exclusively the Mennonites, got right - there are a lot more things than just non-resistance that Mennonites hold dear and which I think they got right. I think it is easier for me to focus on what they got right because when it comes down to writing about what I hate about Mennonites, it all gets mooshed up with personalities, and ethnic peculiarities and there are so many things that aggravate the heck out of me about the Mennonites that I know (keeping in mind there are as many differences in theology about a lot of things among Mennonites as there are fish in the sea) that it is hard to know where to start.

Among Mennonite congregations there are all the sins that every other church has, people who say one thing and do another, people who are respecters of persons, business owners who will cheat you at their place of business because "business is business" and see no contradiction between that and their so-called faith. Did you ever hear the joke about how a Mennonite is someone who can buy from a Jew and sell to a Scot and still make money? Sometimes jokes exist because they hold more than a grain of truth to them.

One of the specific things that I think is wrong in the traditional Mennonite practise of Christianity is adult baptism as it is practised or was practised when I was growing up. For all I know there are Mennonite churches who don't do it that way and never have so I'm lucky this isn't a debate board or I would have twenty zillion Mennonites popping up with their version of Mennonitism. So consider everything I say to have the standard debate board disclaimer: yes, it is entirely possible that not all Mennonite churches practise x,y,z as I have experienced it. I am not omnipresent in all the congregations at all times throughout the world.

So baptism in the Mennonite church as experienced by my parents and all the generations before them, meant that you had to be an adult and know what you were confessing your faith to. That did not include children of any age. It did not include the mentally disabled because they are God's children already.

In practise, adult baptism meant that Mennonites would get baptised just before they married since you couldn't be married in the church unless you were baptised. In practise, that meant that baptism came to mean nothing but that someone was getting married. If the church has a stranglehold on marriage and the only way to participate as a member of your community is to get baptised, then you do it - but it isn't necessarily because you have thought about it at all.

However, I don't know that this in many ways is something that only the Mennonite church has dealt with since before civil marriages became the norm, recently, most people got married in a church and most churches would not marry people unless they were members. So membership became important. It became important to be seen as an upstanding, contributing member of the community - but baptism, sadly, has not become an act of faith.

This is why I don't see infant baptism as so terrible. What is the difference between the infant who doesn't know what he is being baptised into or the adult who is being baptised because that is what is expected of him, not because he has come to an understanding and love of Christ?

Before they were baptised, they had to be able to recite from memory, the responses in the German catechism. Baptism was done by sprinkling in the church of my parents. There are and were churches who baptised by immersion. In fact, the debate about sprinkling and immersion caused a deep schism within the Mennonite churches, and was the cause of suicides.

Some of those who held that only baptism by immersion was valid convinced some who had been baptised by sprinkling to be re-baptised by immersion. Those who had then been re-baptised by immersion were told by the leaders in their church that they had committed an unforgivable sin, and had killed Christ twice over in being baptised twice. Spiritually left in a place where there was no winning, and in their minds, no hope of Heaven, and excommunicated by their original church in which were all the people dearest to them who were forbidden to eat, sleep or otherwise have contact with them, some people killed themselves over this.

I made an attempt to see if there was an article on the whole immersion/sprinkling controversy and suicides on the Internet but I couldn't find anything before I ran out of patience. I don't know how wide spread this was, but I know what I know because it happened to neighbours, and I remember that in my own life time it was still a controversy and hard feelings still exist between the Mennonite church who felt that sprinkling was an invalid baptism and the other churches who didn't.

The specific Mennonite church that I grew up in was far too legalistic and is still today from what I hear. Mennonites have not believed in the once saved always saved doctrine since it was unknown before Calvin and was never held by any Christian group before Calvin. That is not to say that God's grace does not cover us, only that we are warned repeatedly not to fall from that grace. It is one thing to know that we are all sinners and it is another to continue in sin under the false belief that we are saved anyway.

However, the church I grew up in took it one step further - they taught that no one at all can ever know that they are saved and are going to Heaven. For people who are spiritually hungry, what kind of message is that? That message alone drove people to kill themselves. They knew they were sinners, but to be told that no matter what they did or didn't do, they could never ever be sure of Heaven? Why try then? For people who are so thirsty for God to come to the living water and be turned away by self-appointed gate-keepers - that is unforgivable. If there is no knowing ever that you are saved, then life has no purpose at all and Christ has died in vain.

It infuriates me to think of what was taught in the church. It infuriates me to think of my grandfather when he lay on his deathbed, weeping because he feared death - feared death because, as any saint, he knew he was a sinner and fell far short of God's grace - but he had never been told by the church that God's grace and infinite mercy covers those sins we commit every day. If we could be perfect, Christ would never have had to come in the first place.

I don't want to give the impression that all Mennonite churches taught that way. I don't know if they did or didn't. I only know what the church I grew up in taught and I know that that was not uncommon. It was considered the sin of pride if you proclaimed that you were saved and you knew it.

Anyway, I knew even as a little girl that what they were preaching was wrong and it absolutely enraged me. Of course little girls had no say in the church but I knew.

Anyway, that's about all I can write for today. My intent was to list all the things I don't like about the Mennonite church because far too often it seems to me, I end up questioning you about some of your beliefs and if it comes across to me as though I think Mennonites have it all right and you have it all wrong, then I can imagine how it must come across to you even though I know I don't mean it that way.

Layla

Holiness

This post too will probably end up being about bits and pieces here and there. I am also in a brain-dead mode.

I guess first of all I'll refer to your comments on my comments about holiness and your questioning how else to manage it. God is mentioned as "holy" far more than he is mentioned as a father or as a bridegroom or a husband. The word 'holiness' is the primary word used to describe God throughout the Bible. We are also instructed in various places, but with almost identical wording, as in Leviticus: For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Peter makes reference to that verse when he says in 1 Peter, But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

This calls for our conversation to be holy, something that is sorely lacking among Christians. I actually think there it isn't that hard at all to see God as holy. I don't think that we can hang on to the notion of God as father or God as husband and think therefore he is not to be spoken of in a holy way. In the first place, I am not sure how many people actually care to think of God the Father as they would of their earthly fathers, who so often betray their children or otherwise let their children down. If we take God and turn him into an earthly father, I fear a lot of children with not very good fathers, would have a really hard time reconciling the two.

Secondly we see in how Jesus prayed in the Our Father - although he addressed God as Abba, father, as familiarly as a German speaker might say 'du' to a dear family member - the familiar form of 'you' - instead of 'Sie' - the formal form of 'you' in German, that there is nothing that is not holy in how Jesus is praying, right to the end when he says and thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever.

I think I may have touched on this before, that I don't believe at all in the whole once-saved, always-saved business. I think it is that very thing that has led to us treating the name of God with the casualness that we do. People think they won't have to account for their sins when we are told quite clearly that we will have to give account to God for every word we have spoken.

Where people think there is no accountability, there is also no respect. As I quoted in the previous post on holiness, the doctrine of Calvin that people can be once-saved, always saved is put to rest completely with,

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

It was never part of Mennonite theology that a person could not lose their salvation. Faith without works is dead. Mennonites did not go around talking about God and Jesus loves you and sticking a 'praise the Lord' into conversations when I was growing up. God's name was too holy for that. What was the point of sticking in a 'praise the Lord' when your very feet on the earth praised the Lord? And if people couldn't see whose servant you were by looking at you, there was something wrong with how you were living.

A lot of Mennonites are doing that now, out of ignorance of the Bible and the faith they were born into and they want to be 'in style' with the American version of Christianity, which for most people, means the version that is the loudest - evangelicals. It helps that it requires so little from you. You can do what you want, just as long as you stick in enough praise the Lords in your conversation.

Ignorance and following received faith can be a terrible, blinding thing.

A lot of people who were born into the once-saved, always saved idea also believe it because they have never thought about it, never read the Bible or thought about how, within the entire context of the Bible and not a few verses pulled out of context, that's not what Jesus preached and that's not what the apostles have to say. Context is everything. But too many people, period, are taught belief means not to question, that belief means not to think.

I think that is the biggest challenge for anyone - to really look at one's beliefs, no matter what they are, and try as hard as possible to approach all ideas with an open mind, confident that the Heavenly Father will guide you into what is true, if that is your strongest desire, and regardless of whether that leads one far afield of one's received beliefs. I stand completely in awe of people who have been born into something totally opposite of Christianity, and have of their own heart, come to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord.

Link.

Logically, it makes no sense at all in any case, since we are given an inner moral code, whether we are Christian or not, and we all recognize as people, that there are people who are only sorry about things when they get caught, and people who have learned that most people will accept apologies given for wrongs done. But there are some people who use that as an excuse to sin again - the apology therefore doesn't mean anything.

This scenario is addressed in Matthew 18 by Jesus: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Well, I lost my train of thought somewhere here along the line. I was going somewhere else with this and this is where I ended up so I'll just end this post for now. Hope you feel better soon. I can hardly wait, personally, until the New Year is over and life can get back to normal, or what passes for normal around here.

Layla

Indestructible People? Tidbits.

That's my tree, which (except for the top foot or so) my kids decorated with wooden, plastic, and fabric ornaments. The few glass ornaments are up top. You like birds, I love angels! All the angels HAVE to go up on the top part of the tree... they have to!! :) I don't have a theme tree, I have a "here are the boxes of ornaments, have at it". Dread to think about any projects requiring needle and thread with the littles... or actual food on my tree (dog would eat it if they didn't).

Indestructible people. Yes, we're all supposed to be sooo careful now. At least those of us protecting children are supposed to be on watch at all times lest they get a papercut. Helicopter parents... never underestimate the power of peer pressure. I'm a pretty laid-back gal, but I get plenty of it. "Oh you let your kids outside without you?" (My kids are 7 and 3, and "outside" is a tiny little yard). When my daughter cut her lip this fall, I had to explain the cause of the accident to no less than three people in the ER. Last year, they felt that my son had been out sick too much, and I got a nasty-gram threatening me with CPS if things didn't turn around (yes, but don't send your child to school sick... but send him... but don't). UGH. It's horrible. If I put candles on my tree my neighbors would probably report me to the fire marshal. :/ Okay, kidding on the last, but my husband would never go for it.

God's holiness and "Jeez". I think we have a problem, as humans, holding holiness in our heads as a concept. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that the evangelical church goes way too far on the familiarity route - but how else to manage things? Facets of the Truth include Jesus as husband to the church, God as Father to each individual Christian and to the nation of Israel as a whole, us being "no longer servants, but sons". I am very familiar with Him in my prayer life - especially when I'm really praying hard. At the same time, I shy away from thinking of being with Him in Heaven, except from afar. The concept of being near that much holiness frightens me (I think it's supposed to). I'd like to talk further about this...

Prosperity preachers: Oh, I think going over the top with material comforts is sinful (how much is the church paying you vs. how much does it send to missions... how many cars does one person need?) but I meant more that they will push and push for more gifts and not disclose that it's going in their pockets and not to the church or outreach or ... whathave you. Lying about God's money is a bad thing. At the same time, I think paying preachers frees them to get deeply into the study of the Word of God and to do the "pastor stuff". Pay them a reasonable, professional salary - enough so their wives can stay home (pastor's wife is a hard job) and their kids can get braces, not so much that they're wearing Armani suits. There's a line there... and that's what church boards are for.

Balaam: No, Dr. McGee didn't get the info on Balaam from that book, I remember the sermon vaguely... he got it from different places in the Bible. See Numbers 25, where the people promptly intermarried (and intergodded) with the daughters of Moab as soon as Balaam left Balak. Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague amongst the congregation of the Lord. Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Israel had continuing problem with marrying foreigners and then taking their gods - including Solomon. Now, is the modern day "god" maybe the love of money? I could definitely go there.

Okay proper well thought out posts coming soon... :) I want to get into the holiness discussion deeply, it's something well worth thinking on in my personal life. Hope your Christmas was bright!

Hearth

Merry Christmas!

What a beautiful tree! I will post a pic of mine tomorrow or so... it may be the polar opposite of yours, it's all very indestructible (for reasons obvious to anyone with small children, particularly small children who remove the ornaments to stage mini battles with them).

I have read your posts, but have been working hard to get Christmas (the secular version) happening. Tomorrow is my day to go brain dead and veg out - I promise that there will be some deep thoughts coming and decent posts in the very near future. I keep having them, then I start thinking about wrapping or visiting or something. :)

HUGS and I hope your Christmas was truly merry and bright with the Love of our Lord.

PS - no, it's not dark here, we even got a beautiful day's weather, warmed up an extra 10 degrees just for Christmas. Shorts weather as usual for Christmas day... tomorrow we go back to unseasonable cold and having to wear shoes or pants or something. (wink)

Merry Christmas

This is a picture of our Christmas tree. I have mini-lights on the tree and I also have real tree candles I bought in Germany. Here, in North America, we have become somewhat overly obsessed with eternal life - not in the religious sense but in the sense of thinking that if we just eat the right things, soak our kids' clothes with fire retardant chemicals and take the right vitamins, and never have real candles on a real Christmas tree, that somehow we will escape the Angel of Death.

Now personally, I don't see what the point is in living without risk. I've never sky-dived or climbed Everest but I get it. I do keep an eye on the tree when I have the tree candles burning and the mini-lights are for the times when the candles are not burning. There's nothing like a real tree with real candles and a real popcorn chain and a real cranberry chain with real gingerbread men. I didn't take the time to make the popcorn chain or the cranberry chain this year and the gingerbread men disappeared from the decorating plans a couple of years ago, when the dogs decided they would make a great late night lunch. That was a happy dog Christmas, let me tell you. All the shattered glass ornaments that filled the spaces between the gingerbread men notwithstanding, I didn't begrudge them their celebration overly much.

Over the years I have collected a lot of bird tree decorations - mostly white birds, like doves, although I have all kinds of birds hanging from the tree. Even so it is not a theme tree, in the sense that theme tree decorators would understand it. But in the last few years, it has been more and more my desire to put things on the tree that are meaningful to me in a spiritual way. The dove of course is associated with the Holy Ghost. In addition to that, given that birds occupy a space between the heavens and the earth, in many cultures they are given a spiritual significance as messengers between heaven and earth. So that's how I got into birds.

I got into roses this year. In Protestant theology Mary, the Mother of Jesus does not hold the place that Catholics assign to her, however, roses and the scent of roses are associated with her presence. So that's how I got into roses (and other flowers).

Some ornaments I collected from Germany, from the time when I lived there. Germans go a fantastic job with Christmas and their Christkindlmarkt (Christ Child Market). I don't think you have seen elaborate gingerbread until you have been to one of those markets. They define elaborate and Germans, having invented the Christmas tree via Martin Luther, have many well-known makers of fine Christmas decorations. For example, hand carved wooden figures - I have a small pipe-smoking Santa, the pipe-smoking emanating from a cone of incense at the base.

I also have a pyramid thingie made in Germany - three separate tiers - the first of which consists of black-robed carollers, the second of which contain the shepherds and their sheep, and the third which consists of Joseph and Mary and the Wise Men. Candles are lit at the base and the heat makes them all twirl around until they look dizzy enough to puke.

And then I have all kinds of ornaments, whatever I've picked up here and there over the years, things that caught my eye. The top of the tree is of course, a majestic looking angel. Not one of those twinkly ones that you plug into the main lights. Lights doing a version of Jingle Bell Rock and cavorting around and winking on and off make me crazy. I like lights that just are lights. If I disco, I'll look in some retro type store and put on the Bee Gees.

Now I don't know if some Christians have a problem with the Christmas tree or if they see it as secular or pagan in nature. To me it means much as it did to Martin Luther, who did take a pagan custom but saw it in a new light - the light of Christ's love. Particularly for those of us who see little light now in the darkest days of the year, who look outside the window and see nothing alive or green - the evergreen becomes a wonder - a reminder that dark nights of the soul pass, that the dead-looking trees outside are only sleeping. That leaves will burst forth again, and grass spring up, and the birds come back to cheer us with their praises to the Creator. That the dog days of summer will come again, that branches will hang heavy with fruit.

The Christmas tree is a parable to me, of Christ's eternalness, and of the promise that the night will pass, the summer will come, we will yet have life again.

Matthew 4:16: The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

Layla

Ananias and Saphira

It seems that I am a posting fool today. Sorry. I never addressed what you had to say about Ananias and Saphira, and I quote since I think this is an important point, "I'd always thought (and this seems to be very much like prosperity preachers) that their sin wasn't the money, it was the LYING about the money. They weren't under obligation to give all that money, but they wanted the props for it AND they wanted to keep some for themselves. "

Yes, the whole passage makes it clear that their money was their money to do with as they pleased. It was in the promising to give all that they had and then holding back some and lying about it that was the sin. But my point is that as soon as they saw the actual money, they did what people always do - started thinking about what a pity it would be to give it all away when it would buy them something that they had always wanted, or that it would provide security in an insecure future.

That is how I would think. I would think what is the harm in putting away a little something for the future in case bad times come. Hopefully I wouldn't lie about it and hopefully I would have, in the same situation, just given it all to the church. But I wasn't there and I'm not holy enough to say that for sure I wouldn't do what they did.

But it is the money that was the problem in the sense of the gold fever that sends otherwise normal people off to the Klondike. If they had not had more than a penny, it would not have been nearly the temptation to hold some back and lie about it. It is always money that is the cause of problems. It is easy to say what you would or would not do when you aren't in that position but when you actually have that sort of decision in front of you, it isn't an easy thing to do at all - to put your faith in God that He who feeds the sparrows will also feed you.

And that I think is the lesson in that famous, maddening and completely impractical words of Jesus' in Matthew 6:

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment?

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

In addition to the sin of lying, they lied because they lacked faith that God would provide them with all the necessities of life. The other interesting thing about people is that once they have the necessities of life, they want a little more. An extra coat. A meal just because it tastes good but not because they actually need it to keep from starving. More room in the house. Maybe a new bed to replace one that is perfectly serviceable but maybe not the most comfortable. We're never happy with what we have. We do not live as the lilies of the field. We don't trust God enough for that. What Jesus said seems foolish, and we kind of write it off as though it is a parable, and not something he meant literally and seriously.

Although Sodom and Gomorrah have traditionally been associated with the sin of sodomy (that's where we get the word sodomy from), in Ezekiel 16 we are told behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't begin and end with mass sexual encounters and immorality. It was the result of cause and effect - of what happens when people have more than the necessities of life. When we don't need to worry about where we will spend the night and if we will have a roof over our heads, or where our next meal is coming from - when we have too much time on our hands - fullness of bread and the freedom of time it implies, is what leads to man's most evil behaviours.

Perhaps this too is one of the reasons our Lord prayed, "Give us this day our daily bread."

You wrote that you consider yourself rich in material things, and I do too. I look around at all the things that I have and don't need. That aren't necessities to life. A person can have all that he reasonably needs in a one room shack. We need a bit more here in the frozen north than you guys do in the warmer south, but still. We are rich and need to be always aware of our great wealth because it is so terribly easy to allow our idleness to veer into sin.

I am not sure I understood your reference to the prosperity preachers - if you were saying that they were in the wrong, or only in the wrong if they were lying about where their money is going. I think that riches are given to people for the sole purpose of helping other people who aren't rich. I think that there are houses (mansions) which are sinfully large. There is no reason for anyone to have such a large house.

And I think that the gospel of Christ is better followed by the example of Paul who worked as a tent maker, even though he was entitled to a living wage. It says nothing about riches. But he was entitled to a living wage. But to avoid any appearance of wrong-doing, to better emulate Christ, because he was able to make a living, he did. I don't think it is any great feather in a preacher's cap that he takes a wage, even if it is one he is entitled to, because of where it can lead to - which is when you see all that money, like Ananias and Saphira - why put yourself in the way of temptation, which is what leads to sin?

The church when I grew up in it did not pay its preachers for that reason. Being a pastor shouldn't be like being a CEO. You should be a pastor if God calls you to be a pastor, not because it is a great career opportunity. The pastors in my church were expected to have a job. I'm sure it wasn't easy but God doesn't call us for an easy life. Later on, they gave them a gas allowance. Now they are paid and I think that the church is poorer for it, spiritually. I think they get weaker people.

Layla

Balaam's Sin

We posted at the same time :-) When I pressed the publish part, the post that showed was your post on Balaam with the post I had just finished writing right under it. Wonder how often that happens. With all the Christmas interruptions that post took me a long time to write.

Okay, with regards to Balaam. Dr. McGee must have gotten that idea from somewhere but I'm afraid you will have to show me where since I can't find any reference to the sin of Balaam having anything to do with encouraging the Moabities to intermarry with the Israelites. There's no reference to it at all that I can find in Numbers 22 through 24, which contains the story of Balaam. There is a reference to the children of Israel sinning and being led astray in Numbers 25, but there is no direct correlation to Balaam although since I suppose some might make a connection since the two stories are in the same book between Balaam and the sinning of the children of Israel with the local people. Since I can find no specific mention of there being a direct connection anywhere else in the OT and NT, I don't know how valid it is.

The children of Israel did of course sin with local women. Even today, Jews marry non-Jews although we hesitate to call it sinning now. I am not sure if that is because that is no longer sinning or if it is because it wouldn't be politically correct. One way or the other, I would think that the Israelites engaging in relations with non-Israelites, regardless of what Balaam may or may not have told his people, the onus of the sin would be on the Israelites since they had free will in addition to God having specifically told them to avoid 'strange' women. They were not as naive as Adam and Eve before the Fall so I don't see that it would be explicitly and specifically Balaam's sin. In considering at all the possibility of cursing Israel and taking money for it, that was specifically his sin and not Israel's.

There is a commentary on Numbers 25 available, which states in part that the Israel's sin with the daughters of the pagan peoples around them did what Balaam could not do, w hich is to bring the wrath of God down upon them in the form of a plague.

The commentary on the blessings of Balaam contained in the previous chapters can be started here.

However in the previously mentioned verse in Peter, he speaks of fornication as well in the context of Balaam. But I don't see how it is singled out as the sin that Balaam is known for. Balaam is best known for being offered money to curse Israel and for a donkey rebuking him.

What we do have mentioned specifically with regards to Balaam's sin, is that he was tempted by money.

Ah ha. I found where Dr. McGhee must have found it. In the Pseudo-Philo, an early non-canonical Jewish writing with extra-Biblical writings on books in the Bible. Here is a link to a book detailing exactly what the Pseudo-Philo has to say about Balaam. I won't quote from it for fear of violating copyright.

I don't dismiss it just because it isn't in the Bible. The Bible does not contain everything that ever happened. So it could have happened that Balaam did advise the people of the land to lead Israel astray but I think, based on what I already wrote above, that the specific sin is the sin of abusing God's gift. What I think about the Pseudo-Philo story is that according to the link, it was written around 70AD, a long time after the happenings in Numbers and people have a way of mythologizing and rationalizing their own sins, so that after a while, it isn't really their sin anymore, but someone else's sin. That could also have happened. I am ambivalent.

Layla

The Doctrine of Baalam or the Root of all Evil?

I agree with the conclusions of your post, but perhaps not the route you took to get there. :)

McGee says that the doctrine of Baalam (and my reading concurs with this) is what he told the king after he blessed Israel - that the only way to defeat Israel was to intermarry with them. And indeed, that's what caused Israel to have continual downfall. Therefore, I tend to think the doctrine of Baalam as the doctrine of compromise with the world, "intermarrying" and worshipping the gods of this world as the Israelites intermarried and began to worship the gods of Canaan. The OT is all about not intermarrying away from the faith - we have the entire book of Nehemiah, for example.

As for the mingling of money with the faith - well, we're supposed to pay our preachers, Paul made that pretty clear (at the same time he supported himself with tentmaking). But otherwise - yeah, ewwwwwww. The prosperity preachers make me feel ill myself. The *FIRST* thing that will turn me off of a preacher permanently is a plea for money that I feel is over the top. Yes, they have to make expenses... but you and I both know when "expenses" mean limosines, it's time to find another preacher.

1 Timothy 6: 6-12, 17-19 But godliness with contentment is great gain; For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, unto which thou art also called and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. ... Charge them that are rich in this age, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to share, Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

I always think of myself as one of the "rich" in this verse, not that I'm rich for an American, but by definition of living a middle class American lifestyle, I'm rich in comparison to the rest of this world. It's a concern to keep that in mind, "ready to distribute". As for the prosperity preachers, "erred from the faith" seems to apply. Some started with the faith, some likely believe it... but they have erred.

Oprah - Again, I don't pay much mind to her. But ... I guess that's part of the point? Not paying much mind and just watching her wander through life, it seems that she gives the impression of being a "good Christian woman" to many of her followers. I'll have to ask my board... hmm, how to do that non-confrontationally?

Ananias and Saphira - I'd always thought (and this seems to be very much like prosperity preachers) that their sin wasn't the money, it was the LYING about the money. They weren't under obligation to give all that money, but they wanted the props for it AND they wanted to keep some for themselves.

In agreement all in all - the church is rotten with folks urging us to intermarry with the world and run after money. I can't think of a better definition for the prosperity gospel and the new-agey "think it into being" nonsense than that! The question is, will the coming economic depression cleanse the church and get us back on track?

G-d is Holy

In these days leading up to Christmas, I've been thinking a lot about the holiness of God and how in our desire to make God into our best bud, Christians often forget that above all, God is holy. Instead we say God is love or Jesus loves you or that God loves you. It seems to me that subconsciously, modern Christians are avoiding the use of the word holy. It's too big for us. Love brings God down to our size, since we have, however flawed, an idea of what love is about since we all have someone whom we love and who loves us.

Holiness implies a mystery that we can never understand, a majesty we can never approach or negotiate with, a challenge to our thoughts and our behaviours. It isn't that God isn't love and it isn't that God doesn't love us but His love is as far above our understanding of the meaning of the word as to be something entirely different altogether. In searching the Internet, I came across a reprinted sermon here on the very same topic.

People put bumper stickers on their vehicles, with the ubiquitous John 3:16 verse on it. They put similar signs on their business and on their barn roofs. Whatever happened to holiness? Whatever happened to the Name that is so holy that religious Jews will neither say it nor spell it? I found this interesting article on the question of how Christians define God as opposed to Jews.

Why do we have such a need to make God into a buddy - sort of like Oprah - non-threatening - someone we can sit and gossip with and call Jeez. Pat Him familiarly on the back when He makes a particularly astute comment and tell other people what nice guy God/Jeez actually is as long as we 'accept Him as our personal Saviour' and confess our sins and then we can do what we want because He understands. Like Oprah. He loves us. Love is negotiable and comforting. Holiness is not. Holiness has no compromise.

It is another thing altogether. It implies something separate from the creation, a mystery, a hidden thing. Awe is missing from much of the modern Christian's mindset. We make God into our image - better than us but still in our image with our understanding. Fundamentalists believe in the creation of the heavens and the earth in a literal six days and have no problem saying so - but do they tremble when they say it? Do they have even the smallest idea of what that implies, what they believe, what it means to have such a power to create all that is or to create even the smallest part of it, like a butterfly? If they understood, how could they fail to tremble?

Exodus 15:11: Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

I think that some of this attitude we have to Jesus being our buddy is attributable to something I have formerly brought up - cheap grace. It seems to me that many churches who emphasis a formal accept, believe, and confess salvation with the emphasis on grace have promoted a dumbed down, unholy version of Christianity, a Christianity devoid of self-discipline and discipleship in which the motto might as well be do-what-you-will because you are forgiven anyway.

Such a faith doesn't require anything of you since it teaches that you can never be in danger of losing your salvation. Oh sure, you might be a few stars short in your crown but never in danger of Hell, which is, so many teach, reserved for atheists and non-Christians, who may in fact every day of their lives humbly feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners and the sick, but who are not Christians in the sense that they recognise Jesus as God come in the flesh.

Jesus covers our many sins of ignorance. He stands between us and the Accuser before God. He is the only begotten Son of God without whom we have no hope. But He is also holy and doesn't suffer fools gladly. Following Christ requires holiness and self-discipline. As Paul says to the Hebrews 10:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

It is the offended holiness of the Lord that set the cherubim east of the Garden of Eden with a fiery sword. It is the holiness of the Lord before which Moses is instructed to take off his shoes, and upon questioning who it was who addressed him, is told, I Am that I Am. God does not have any obligation to explain himself to humanity. God is not explainable. His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways.

Later, on the mountain of revelation, all Israel must be cleaned and have fasted, and still stand off, neither man or beast touching the outskirts of the mountain.

Exodus 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:

There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes. And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.

In the emphasis on God's love, we seem to have taken away most of the majesty, most of what makes God, God. We take it away in our casual use of God's name, our quickness to attribute our understandings and our ways to God, in our glibness at grasping onto the notion of our salvation and then plastering it across every imaginable human construct.

Any person, confronted with the fact of the living God, with the majesty and fearsome nature of Him before whom the angels cover their faces, (I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory, Isaiah 6) would say, like Isaiah,

Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Layla

The Third Advent

And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Isaiah 60:3

God and Prosperity

I thought I would make a few more comments with reference to your post about Oprah and to the prosperity gospel. As far as I know, Oprah doesn't claim to be a Christian, at least not a Christian in the sense that most traditional Christians would consider. I think if she has at all called herself a Christian, it would be more in a cultural, general way. So I am not bothered at all by what Oprah teaches.

What concerns me is when pastors who do lay claim to faith in Christ mislead their flocks down the way of Balaam. If you recall, in Revelations 2, when the Spirit speaks to the church in Pergamum, he says, But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

The question is what is the 'doctrine of Balaam?' As you know, Balaam was the prophet that was hired to curse Israel but instead ended up blessing them. Since he did bless them, what was his sin? The Moabites tried to hire him and he repeatedly told them that he could only say what the Spirit told him to say. And he ended up blessing them, not once but three times. In the original story there is nothing much to indicate that somehow Balaam was a really bad sinner or a bad person. Yet his name is used through the New Testament as a synonym for sin. When one reads these references, it seems that the sin was in taking money, in allowing himself to be hired at all. Clearly he had a gift. Nothing says he was a false prophet. But he took money for his prophecies, for the use of his gift. One would think that as long as he spoke the truth and only what God told him to speak, it wouldn't matter, but apparently it matters very much if you take money or offer money for a gift from God.

In Jude we read, Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

The emphasis seems to be where Jude writes that they 'ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,' meaning money or some sort of gain. And in 2 Peter, we again find reference to the evil of money when mixed with spirituality: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. Here again we see the reference to 'wages,' meaning money.

I see nothing in the Bible to indicate at all that God thinks that the mingling of money with faith is anything but evil. From Judas and the thirty pieces of silver to Simon the Magician, every time someone tries to mingle God with money, or the blessings of God with money, God's disapproval is quick to follow.

In Acts 5, when the early church decides to hold all things in common, so that all have enough for their needs, there is ... a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

In Acts 8 we read what Peter has to say about the magician: And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God.

Both man and wife die for the sin of money.

There is nothing to indicate that Simon the Magician was a particularly evil man. He was a pagan. He didn't understand that there are some things that can't be bought. It was a true error, as far as I can see, in his reasoning that he offered the apostles money for the gift of the Holy Spirit. After Peter rebukes him, Simon immediately backtracks, asking the apostles to pray for him that the sin won't be held against him.

What is the difference in those pastors who preach that if you are loved by God, that God will reward you with material things or with those who send money to various prosperity pastors, because they are told, and believe that if they give money they will get a good return on their investment? They are using God and God's gifts like a stock market.

How are those preachers not spots in our feasts and clouds without rain, as Jude says? How is the person in Bodunk, USA who sends some televangelist a hundred bucks because he believes it will be blessed into $1000 bucks, any different than Simon the Magician who thought he could buy God's Spirit?

I think that while clearly, the pastors who teach this are more culpable than their followers - shepherds are responsible for their sheep after all, I also think that there is a great moral and spiritual confusion on the part of people who want to buy God's love and favour and associate material things with the blessing of God. They too are culpable if Simon's ignorance was no excuse for his behaviour and Balaam taking money, but speaking only the words God gave him to bless Israel, is also held as an example of sin.

These are things we ought to judge, and we ought to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes on. We ought not to keep quiet because we think who are we to stand in judgement of another who claims to be a Christian. Who are we to judge? We are the children of the Highest. That's who we are. We have no obligation to judge the Oprah's of this world but to keep our own house in order. Some people don't know any better. To those we must be like Peter was to Simon, who prayed that Simon's sin of ignorance would be forgiven him. But it did not, apparently, make it less of a sin.

As the Spirit says to the Church in Ephesus, “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; that is one of the things that they did right. We are to try the spirits, whether they are of God or not. We have the moral authority via the scriptures to do so.

And as to our material wealth, we take our consolation from the words to the church in Smyrna: I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich).

Christ is our wealth, our pearl of great price. We build for ourselves a house where moths do not corrupt, nor thieves enter in. It is a contradiction to say we follow someone who said that he had no place to lay his head, and yet we believe that we are entitled to something better than our master, and a better place to lay our heads.

Layla

See what you miss?

I've not watched Oprah since *I* was in college... and she was still interviewing strippers.

EW. Anyway... I guess we know what the church of Laodicia is all about. :( Dr. McGee said that there would be churches who will meet after the Rapture and lose not a single member.

DANGIT. This makes me really angry. Because people following her think they're good God-fearing Christians and are getting drawn totally astray.

I think I finally know what you mean by the prosperity gospel... I thought you were going for the folks who got really excited over those little books about abundant fruit for God (meaning money). I can be more innocent than I thought.

Anyway the whole thing makes me want to go back to bed and not come out. But I gotta go Martha today, as always before Christmas.

The Spirit of the Age

Oprah has been preaching this gospel of how God is within you for years now. I don't watch her anymore. I don't know specifically if that link is correct or not, but what is in that link is nothing new to Oprah. The most recent book that she is flagging is called "The Secret." And the gist of this book, which I have not read, is that you control your reality and therefore your success and that simply through the power of the imagination you can control your future.

I don't see this as different than the prosperty gospel preachers. If anything, because they pretend to be ministers of the gospel of Christ, they are even more dangerous. They have turned the gospel of Christ upside down and believe that it is their own righteousness that will save them, and that their prosperity is of their own making, and that their own arm will save them.

This is also not different than what Shirley Maclean has been teaching and writing books about for a long time now. And I have read her books. She teaches that God is within us, and that we are God. It is the original lie told by the Father of Lies, claiming that we shall be like God if we eat of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

We are told that the Satan is the Prince of this world so it is not surprising.

Layla

Blasphemy, prosperity gospel, new age

Okay, I don't know if this is true or not, might check briefly in B&N tomorrow when I go shopping to see if these are true lessons or not.

If so... we're as close as I thougt we were. I may go cry. Too many people trust these people...
Check it out and research with me?
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/smith-oprah.htm

Oops!

Yeah that... I could sneeze on you? I hear that this cold we've all had turns into pneumonia if you're not careful. Then you'd not have to lie. :) Wait, then you'd have pneumonia... no, no good. :P

I have a feeling that the post I need to write will take a few days once I get to researching it - not something I've ever spent time on.

Christmas Freak-Out

No problem, Hearth. Take your time. Christmas is beginning to overwhelm me at this end. Today I should finally bake the promised Lebkuchen - a type of gingerbread. This week we are supposed to go to a bunch of places, including family and friends and I was wondering just how rude would I be, if I just turned off the phone, claimed to have pneumonia and stayed home?

Layla

Just hello

I owe you a good post in reply to the non-resistance post... but it will take a bit of research. But I'm not ignoring you! Just Marthaing out.

Non-Resistance

I actually think that traditional Mennonite theology is that Christians who are soldiers, or people generally who take a life are in fact seriously sinning against God. Mennonites wouldn't have rather died than take a life or defend even their own if they didn't think it was a grave sin.

I don't quite see it that way. I think that there are some things that God didn't expressly forbid, not because they are not wrong, but because of the hardness of our heart, like divorce. I don't think you can look at the Old Testament example of God ordering the Israelites to war and then using that as an example of how we are to behave or as a condoning of war.

God gives a lot of orders in the Old Testament and then goes on to contradict His very own orders. Like He gives the Israelites a very complicated Law, and then goes on in the prophets to insist that He doesn't really want their sacrifices - He wants mercy. That the only sacrifices He requires is is broken and contrite spirit. 'Vengance is mine, saith the Lord.' It is not our right, in my understanding of the entirity of the Bible, Old and New together, to take a life, although God allowed it, as He allowed divorce - even though even in the Old Testament, He says, I hate divorce.

He gives them a list of unclean foods, but then later Peter (or is it Paul?) is given a vision of unclean foods and is told to eat. And in this vision, God says that nothing that he has made is unclean. God tells people to eat with washed hands, and then, in the person of Jesus, He tells us that to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a person - that what defiles a person comes from a contrary heart.

We are told that Jesus was our example of a perfect human man. Not just God made flesh, but that He suffered all the temptations that are common to us and that He still prevailed and did not sin. So when we don't understand what the Bible is telling us, we can still look to Jesus' life and see what He did. He did not take up a sword. He opposed the death penalty in the example given us in how he handled the case of the woman taken in adultery. He showed us how He expects us to follow Him in this example.

He showed us again at Golgotha, when Peter took the sword and cut off the ear of one of the arresting men. Jesus healed the man and told Peter to put away His sword and said that all who live by the sword, will die by the sword. Christ's arrest was a political move, with religious overtones, in the accusation of blasphemy. But it was His political complication that scared them, not His 'blasphemy.' That was the story for the people, one which ordinary religious people would find an acceptable reason for an execution.

When the Roman soldier came to Christ, what Christ admired was that he, a soldier, understood the concept of obeying unquestioningly an order from a superior. The soldier understood, not Jewish theology or perhaps who it was in whose presence he stood - but he understood enough to know that Jesus was someone special - and he responded to Him as a soldier responds to a superior officer.

That is what Jesus was referring to when He said that He had not found so great a faith in all Israel. Jesus was pretty laid back. He judged people on what they had inside them, not on what they didn't have or couldn't know. He left them room to grow. The Jews who were familiar with the scriptures and the prophecies, who should have recognized their Lord, didn't. But this pagan soldier did.

He did not say to him to put away his sword, not because the soldier was right, but because Jesus was about faith. And at that point Jesus' primary ministry was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. And the soldier, I like to think, grew in his faith because surely he must forever after have been haunted by the man from Galilee, who healed his daughter.

No person comes to a full-fledged and mature faith overnight and it is wrong to expect that. It is wrong to criticize a person who is growing in his understanding of who Jesus is because if one does so, one could totally discourage that person in his journey. This is where 'when I was a child, I thought as a child but when I became a man, I put away childish things' comes in.

Jesus did not give us a list of commandments like Moses gave the Israelites. Moses gave an unruly desert people in a harsh climate, a set of rules, that served to forge them into a people, and to give them self-discipline, and a Law intended to make sure that they at least served the minimum standards of moral behaviour.

Armies do that today in training so that each person knows clearly what is expected of him. That is the way we raise children - by giving them clear guidelines. As they grow older, we entrust them with more responsibilities and we expect them to think about the consequences of things that they do or don't do. In raising children, we do not anticipate every single situation that they will come across in their lives. We really give them an outline from which they are to infer what is proper behaviour.

Paul, in writing about his celibacy, says that he would rather that all men were like him and goes on to give his reasons for saying this. He says that a single person is free to devote his entire life to the cause of the Lord without being distracted by the needs of a family. Paul says that his way of life is a better choice than marriage. This does not mean that marriage is a sin.

It is in that way that I see Christian pacifism - as a better way. It is better to be a pacifist. But that this does not mean, in my understanding, that a Christian solider is a sinner. Here is a good link on non-resistance and it's place in Christian history.

Layla

Christian Flag

Purely for your information, here's a site. :)
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/chrflag.html

And no, no *real* opinion. Seems like one of those good-hearted things folks did around then. Not attached to it.

Misc, short

Yes, there's a Christian flag. :) They dont' usually FLY them, just in the back on a flagpole (likewise the US flag). I've never thought of the state = Ba'al, think of him as an OT god. Regardless, they just seem to "be there" rather than are part of worship... I've literally never given it a bit of thought.

As for the site - sure I don't agree with it. I thought it "interesting" that's all. :) I think LOTS of things are interesting that might or might not be true. Maybe a grain? Maybe not. And yes, much rain must fall on all of us pre-trib.

I don't think (and can back this up Biblically) that we're supposed to second guess the long-term purposes of Israel and peace etc as far as being their friend or enemy. Frequently God would use a neighbor state to punish them, then punish that state in turn for harming Israel. What will be, will be...

Indeed, I believe THAT wholeheartdly, especially as the world seems to be speeding on a crash course to the End. What will be, will be. :/

There's a Christian Flag?

I never knew that. I have never heard of a Christian flag, pulling a piece out of your most recent post. Tell me more. What I was referring to is that anything of the state is of this world, and is of Baal. When you bring the state into a house of worship, you are bringing in an idol, an image of Caesar, into a holy place. You are not being obedient to the words of Christ which are to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's but joining the two.

This would be an example for me a prime example of idolatry. You know how many Protestants have a problem with the RCC's statues of the saints and Mary and believe that that is idolatry? I believe that is idolatry and the reasons that are given for that by Catholics are so much rationalizing. Your argument for the national flag in a church sounds exactly the same to me. Which is not to say that I don't believe that Catholics are Christians and that whole other Protestant-Catholic argument. I simply think that in this the church is very wrong. There is no state in the house of God and no citizenship possible there, but that of the kingdom of Heaven.

I have never heard of a church in Canada with a Canadian flag in it. I am not saying there are not. There probably are because of the influx of American ideas in some evangelical sectors. But to me that would be a huge no-no, in the sense of, is nothing sacred anymore? There is nothing sacred about a country and to bring an image of Caesar into the holiest place....Nope, I couldn't go for that. That strikes me as wrong, wrong, wrong.

Anyway, I thought I was the bad poster. It has been a busy couple of days. Tomorrow I have my MRI. Hopefully one way or another they will get to the bottom of whatever is wrong with me.

I was going to respond to your post about the US and Israel and the site that you linked. First of all, I would say this: if God is punishing the US, why because of Israel and not because of abortion, or the death penalty, or corporate greed, or the idol of freedom, or any number of national sins?

If I took the time, I could search for what I wanted to be true, and use the abortion statistics for that week and link it to some national disaster and say, viola, God is punishing the US for whatever it is that I believe to be true.

The problem theologically with that site is that, is the writer saying that if the US hadn't done those things, it wouldn't experience any natural phenomenon? No more earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes or floods? That sounds a little strange. No more weather? We are told that the rain falls on the just and unjust alike.

I am not saying that God doesn't punish nations but it seems to me that he would be more than preoccupied with the US's internal sins than its foreign policy sins at this point. Two, we are also told that in the last days there will be earthquakes, etc. in 'divers' places. This is not linked to punishment but is compared to that of a woman in labour, about to give birth and the labour pains coming more quickly. It is a general sign, not a punishment.

If these natural phenomenon are a point that God is making, then I think it is a general point, as in a we are in the last days point, not a point of specific targeting.

I don't think that God wastes his points. There is no point in making a point if it sails right over everyone's head because it is so close to just being natural. God didn't, for instance, send one plague after another on Pharaoh and then just wait for Pharaoh to get the point, even though Pharaoh was from a culture that believed in gods that regularly needed to be pacified. God sent Moses to tell Pharaoh exactly what he was being punished for. God also made the plagues very specific, like there was darkness in the land in broad daylight for the Egyptians only, while there was daylight for the Israelites. God, when he makes a point, doesn't hide his point. He caught Moses' attention with a bush that burned but was not consumed by fire.

There is another problem with the theories in that site, which is that everything is meant to bring Israel to a point of trouble, not of peace. Everything is meant to bring the nations together at Armageddon where God will judge the nations for things, including then, how they treated Israel. So God punishes the US now for what exactly? For not insisting that Israel rule from the Euphrates to the Nile, the boundary forecast in Abraham's time? If the US did that and accomplished that, would there be no end of the world? No need for Armageddon because the US would have cleaned the house for the Lord's arrival?

The whole point is that Israel is supposed to turn to the Lord, and not put their faith in their own might or the might of other nations. The whole point is that only the Lord can save Israel, if they only let him.

God also punishes Israel for being disobedient to him. How can one say that Israel's constant problems are not the result of God punishing Israel for not turning to him instead of the US? If that is the case, should the US support Israel in anything at all, if God is punishing Israel? Is the US being punished then for going against God's will if God's will is to punish Israel and the US keeps interfering and supporting Israel? It's like a 'whose on first' skit, trying to figure out where the problem is and who the bad guy is.

In the Old Testament, through the prophets, God calls Nebuchadnezzar, 'my servant,' and says that he will bring him upon Jerusalem to destroy it and says that Nebuchadnezzar is doing his will.

There are just so many problems involved in interpreting what people are being punished and which are not. It is possible to find a Biblical rationalisation for both.

Everything is prophetically foretold that Israel will not have peace until they turn to the Lord God with all their heart. The US will not save Israel. A false sense of salvation and security for Israel will come from somewhere in the form of an anti-christ. But only God himself and not a proxy will save Israel.

Is the US then that anti-Christ in that they are sponsoring peace talks? I think that this is another example of why religion and politics can't mix for a Christian. The goals are not in agreement. A secularly minded nation, with an interest in not having a world war, can't not sponsor peace talks and negotiate. A responsible nation cannot possibly wish a nuclear holocaust on the earth.

See, I don't think we know these things or are going to know them until they are here. There are devout Jews who believe that the modern state of Israel should not be supported and that there should be no state of Israel until the Lord himself sets one up. I am not sure what a country can do right politically with regards to the Bible, its prophecies and Israel. We are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, Psalm 122:6: Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

I feel this post is a little disjointed and I'm sorry about that. It has been one of those days.

Layla

Replies, in tidbits

Sorry to have been such a bad poster recently. I've been sick for over a week now, and haven't been much for thinking. Being loopy on cold meds or trying to catch up on the messes, but not thinking. So... just from what's still on the page today, here's the paragraphs of yours I need to respond to, which I'm going to do paragraph by paragraph. I am SURE I am missing some stuff you wanted to go over... so just throw 'em at me.

I also don't think that the verse means that we are not to be critical of Israeli policies. It is like being a friend - sometimes a good friend is the one who has the nerve to tell you what you don't want to hear but need to hear. Israel as an earthly land is as subject to corruption and injustice as any of us. You can be a friend and be critical of Israeli policies and still absolutely want Israel to exist and believe that Israel is a holy people, set apart by God, the gravitational centre of the world, the thing to which all other things turn, whether they know it or not.
I agree you can be a good friend, but I think specifically what we're supposed to do as a "friend" of Israel is to support their claim to the land and holy areas. I don't think it calls on any other nation to be an advisor or conscience to Israel at all, just an ally.

I only mention America as having gone wrong there because the Theses is so geared towards America specifically, and also because Americans, even in politics are so vocal about their faith and there are those who believe that what is right in the Bible should be imposed on the state. Other nations are just as wrong - only I can't think of any but Islamic republics that are as vocal politically on that as Americans.
Politics is politics. They're vocal about whatever they think will get them votes... I don't think they really mean it. Far too many of our politicians use the Bible against innocent Christian voters (or voters who want to think themselves righteous). Hypocrisy? Massive.

What I think is wrong though, and where I do think that America has gone wrong - is in thinking that it is possible to serve both masters - to do what the state requires, and which that old idol of personal freedom requires, even if I personally believe it is wrong.
I believe we are specifically instructed to do what the state requires unless it goes against what our Lord requires, it's part of our legitimate chain of command. 1 Peter 3: 13a Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; So unless our government requires something that goes against God, we are to obey - even the speed limit, which is always hard for us CaliGirls.

That Christians are never part of the state. God does not see separation of church and state. It is something that He allows. But I see no indication that He sees that as a good thing anywhere in the Bible, the live and let live attitude. Since I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God and not of the state, I have no problem praying for the state, and maranatha, Lord Jesus, even so, come quickly.
But I am subject to the state. I *do* see us as citizens of the state, even if that is not our primary citizenship. (See above citation) I find often in the Word that we are spoken of as belonging to one state or another, one church or another. It's just a way of grouping us - but those groupings do imply some level of responsibility in membership.

Why say "Yahweh" when the way common people express it is as "God?" Even the Jews do that, although they might spell G-d. I'm not disputing that Yahweh/Jehovah is used in the Bible but calling him "God" is also not wrong. We're not calling him "George" for instance. But in using "Yahweh" it is as though they want to make a distinction where none exists, hair-splitting. It is as though they are looking to seem educated but they seem as dumb in that unnecessary distinction as those people who think that Muslims worship Mohammad/that "Mohammad" is the name of the Muslim God. Or "Allah." "Allah" means "God" in Arabic. It's not some new and unknown god. It's no different than if I pray in German, mein Gott.
"Yahweh" doesn't do much one way or the other for me, but I believe this is to separate God the Father, a member of the Holy Trinity, from the God of the Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses etc -those who do not acknowledge the deity of our Lord Jesus. Of course those folks say that they're all the same...

It is very easy to think that the Germans were somehow stupid or flawed in some moral sense - more flawed than the rest of us, but that is not true. That is the real lesson of the second world war and one, I fear, we are doomed to repeat.
Stupid or flawed? No. Poor and hungry and defeated and ready to find something to have pride in, someone to blame, something to fight for? YES. And ... if our Lord doesn't come for us, how dreadfully more dangerous America would be than Germany. I shudder to think how we could be turned. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". Do you remember what I said about our school system? Ugh.

I have heard that a lot of churches in the US display the American flag along with the cross in churches. That floors me. Can Baal and Christ share the same space? Any national flag and the cross of Christ are completely at odds with each other.
Really? I don't think of a national flag as much of "Ba'al" but then again, the Christian flag has never done much for me as a symbol. FWIW most of the churches that I have been in display both flags if they display the Christian flag at all. I'm not sure that it's not a part of our flag display law in the US. Would you care to elaborate?

I also therefore totally agree with the 20th Theses, that the kingdom of Heaven needs no violence to defend it. Which, I think the writers of the Theses are tying into the point of the next Theses, which is that the US is not the Kingdom of God. It trusts in its own power, not God's. But it acts and talks like it is behaving on behalf of God.
Oh yes, we talk! Big talk... bleh. I agree that the Kingdom of Heaven needs no man to defend it - but um... the archangels carry swords for SOMETHING, and I don't think it's dusting the ceiling. I figure God, being omnipotent and the creator of the universe, can handle His battles - but if He calls me to fight, fight I will. (I don't see this pre-millenially anyway so I still think we agree in conclusion if not how we get there).

Drive by posting

You wanted the link to the folks who wrote up the association between US pressure on Israel and national disasters. Now, just sayin'... I think this is interesting to watch and ponder but I'm not agreeing with everything he has to say. Just a link! :) http://www.watch.org/showart.php3?idx=98070&rtn=/index.html&showsubj=1&mcat=1

David and the Temple

First the honest answer... never really thought about it. It's very clear that God loved David very much and that David was one of the most faithful people in the OT. He gathered all the materials for the temple and got the design (from God). Most of the people that David killed were enemies of Israel - but he killed a LOT of them, sometimes when they weren't at war officially. Soloman might have been wise and peaceful, but he was NOT faithful and introduced idolatry into the kingdom. So? I don't know. Perhaps part of the legacy of Bathsheba?

I wasn't sure how pacifists thought of soldiers etc who are Christians. I rather thought y'all thought of it as a unintentional sin, one of those "they should know better" things. I didn't think you personally thought my cousin or friends were dishonorable. Yet it's clear that God often orders (particularly in the OT) his children to war. So - He is not a pacifist.

More thoughts?

Christian Soldiers

Just a quick reply to clear up a misunderstanding. I absolutely, in no way, believe that Christian soldiers are being dishonorable or sinning by being soldiers. I believe that when Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, he meant it literally and for everyone, not just when we are being persecuted as Christians because we are supposed to be Christians all the time, not separate our identity in that way.

But I think that Christ set the bar high deliberately, so that there is something to reach for, just as He told the rich man that if he would be perfect, to sell everything. I think that while it is not sinning, to be a soldier, that we are meant to put our bar higher and the higher bar is to always turn the other cheek.

David was not allowed to build the Temple because God said he had shed too much blood. Instead it was left to Solomon to build it. I think there is a stain that shedding blood brings, even though God loved David and said so repeatedly and in no way indicated that David was doing less than his will. But something must have been missing, otherwise God would not have forbidden David to build the Temple with the cause being the shedding of blood. I think that like divorce, God allowed it because of the hardness of our hearts.

Or how do you see the David-Temple story?

Anyway, don't know if I will have time today or tomorrow to write some more, but I did want to clear that up. It would be terrible if people thought that a soldier is somehow dishonorable or not Christian because he serves in a war. I think that pacifism is something you grow towards in the pursuit of becoming more like Christ. I think that is what all Christians should strive for. But I also believe that anyone who asks for wisdom regarding this, will be led by the Spirit.

Layla

Misc Replies

I've been Martha-ing up myself, not to mention battling a cold. Sorry for not responding yesterday. The other part of my non-response is just that I'm really thinking about your posts... you may well have me changing my mind. And when I'm thinking, I tend to be somewhat quieter.

At any rate: Yes, I think that Christians can and should repent for the sins of their (our) nations. But - categorical sins. I can see us repenting corporately for, say, legalizing torture. Or legalized infanticide. But repenting for an attitude? Individually... yes. But not corporately. You may have me changing my mind on whether or not personal freedom constitutes a true idol... yet I think that pursuit of personal freedom was born from the protestant movement and will contribute to the success of the post-Rapture conversions/survivals.

Which brings me to my next reply - YES. I think that there will be people during the Tribulation who rebel against the AntiChrist and his rules, at least those who are converted. Revelation makes many references to Tribulation saints and during-tribulation conversions. And since they won't be able to shop or even move around freely, they'll have to be getting their food *somewhere*. Will the leaders hide under mountains? Yes. Why... we have a big ol' under-ground leader-sanctuary under Denver, don't we... hmm... Will most Tribulation saints end up martyred? Yes, I believe so. (Honestly and as an aside... I think some of my ministry is to tell folks about Jesus who will just think I'm loopy until they see the signs after the Rapture occurs).

Pursuit of personal freedom... this is a narrow road to stand on, to not fall into idolatry on either side. One of the key tenents of Protestantism is that you don't need any intermediary between you and Christ - and thus the beginnings of questioning authority, making your own decisions, etc. On the other hand, we have the sin of Pride, which is the king of all sins, on the other, making some human your idol and obeying them instead. *Traditionally* Americans have been very independent people. *Currently* I think we still THINK of ourselves that way, but are not in the least independent. We are so very comfortable in the norms, thinking outside of them is really kinda freaky. We'll grumble about the national ID, but will we get it? Probably. (And no, I don't think it's the number of the beast, I think it's a predecessor, which will somehow be insufficiently effective so AntiChrist will tell 'em to chip us for our "safety and security").

As for Iraq and Afganistan etc. I don't have an opinion. I know that sounds really odd. But I know a lot of good people, good Christians, who are serving over there and who believe in what they're doing. At the same time, our government is run by... well, Christian ladies don't use those words. What I believe is that the middleeastern mess is *inevitable* and is part of God's plan and His timetable. I believe that we're supposed to be there. Now, are we *right* to be there? Um... don't ask me!

World War 2? Yes, I think we needed to be there. I guess... I guess it would be a really nice world to live in if the Christians would refuse to fight in wars or send people to concentration camps and understand God's will and follow it rather than worrying about groceries etc. We however, are not wolves, we are sheep. As all my pastors seem to be echoing right now, sheep are stupid. People don't tend (as a group) to be much brighter. I think that serving in wars is much the same as obeying lawful authority in other ways - but again, I am not a pacifist. I interpret the not striking back instructions to be specific to persecution AS Christians. (After all, even Christ sent his apostles out with swords for protection). CS Lewis has an interesting essay on pacifism and WW2 if you're interested - he even talks about WW1 and shooting at fellow Christians and how he thought they'd laugh about it in Heaven together should they have shot one another.

But again... we come from very different backgrounds here. I live in a military town. My FIL was a Marine. My grandpa was a Marine. He lost both his brothers in WW2. My other grandpa served in the Navy for the war. My cousin is a Marine. I have a lot of personal friends in various branches of the service. I don't believe that they're dishonorable or disobeying Christ. Not for one second.

But I'm blathering ... if I've missed something, will you restate as a question, please? I'm pretty sure I have. I don't think we're in any rush, are we? I'd just as soon go over things until we reach agreement or impasse. (I know I missed a whole chunk because this was the "off the top of my head" stuff).

PS they're putting tracking chips in the new 2008 IDs that double as passports for one of the northern states here. Check myspace for link.