Sunday, December 26, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Francis Chan Discusses Why He Left His Church
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Must Listen!!!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Peter Hitchens
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
An Introduction to the Law and the Gospel
The distinction between the law and the gospel is a completely foreign concept to many Christians and one that eluded me for many years. Before I heard Christianity presented in these terms, the standard framework by which I understood Christianity was couched in relational language. The foundation of religion was expressed something like: "I want to get to know Jesus more," or, "It's all about a relationship with the Lord." The result of such a framework was a rather ambiguous understanding of the faith. If I was honest with myself, I only kind of knew what I believed, and I sort of knew why I believed it. My faith was dependent on my experience and emotions, which meant that I really had to work hard to keep the experience going. It was important to feel close to the Lord at all times because that was the primary indicator of a good relationship with him.
What did that look like? The usual: experiencing an intimate time of worship (warm fuzzy feelings or being brought to tears), a regular quiet time (reading the Bible), journaling, and so on. This outward show also extended to abstaining from the usual vices: swearing, gossiping, making fun of people, envying, lusting, and on, and on, and on. This was a depressing and scary way to live because I was never successful. The core of my entire belief system and worldview was built upon the sandy shore of my ability.
Thankfully, I was introduced by one of my seminary professors to the distinction between the law and the gospel, which laid waste to all of my efforts to attain closeness to God.
This article is intended to serve as an introduction to the law and the gospel. By no means is it exhaustive. Volumes have been written about this distinction, and the more we study the law and the gospel, the more it brings home the reality of Jesus' cross and resurrection in our hearts and minds. Hopefully, this article will whet the appetite for further study and contemplation.
What are the law and the gospel? They are not abstract theological categories made up by people in their studies many years ago with way too much time on their hands. The law and the gospel are God's two words spoken to us in his Bible; they are its two main subcategories, if you will. As such, they constitute more than simply one of many possible frameworks for reading and understanding the Bible; they are the foundational framework. Understanding them and the distinction between them is key to understanding the whole of God's Word and the whole of the Christian religion. As Martin Luther wrote, "Virtually the whole of the scriptures and the understanding of the whole of theology depends upon the true understanding of the law and the gospel." (1)
God's First Word: The Law
The first of God's two words is always the law. It is exactly what it sounds like: the rules. The law is God's set of rules or demands regarding how we should be. In the Bible, the first mention of the law is at the very beginning of human existence: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die'" (Gen. 2:16-17). We know how the rest of the story went. Adam and Eve disobeyed the one rule God made for them (they sinned), and they were cast out of the Garden, out of the realm of eternal life into the realm of death. The relationship between man and God, the one we try so hard to keep together through our own efforts, was broken because of our inability to keep his commands, his law.
Consider the defining characteristic of law. It is conditional in nature--it proscribes certain behavior and describes the consequences. Law contains an if/then structure or action/consequence. We can read the previous passage as: "If you do not eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil, then everything will be fine and you can stay with me. If you do eat of it,then you will die." This is true of all kinds of laws. If you go over the speed limit and the police pull you over, then you will get a ticket. If you abuse your dog, then he will grow aggressive. If you eat cheeseburgers and donuts every day,then your health will suffer. This is law and we understand it implicitly. We are used to conditional relationships. We like the idea of action and consequence. It is very logical and clear-cut. As is obvious from the above examples, however, not all laws are created equal. Breaking some laws results in far more severe consequences than others. Breaking some laws leads to angry dogs and a larger waistline, while breaking others leads to separation from God and to death. What is the reason for this variance?
Every law, no matter how trivial, is related to God's holy law, and therefore breaking any law elicits the same result: death. (2) As Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and the first commandment. And a second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40). (3) The difference between breaking the speed limit and eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil has to do with the function of the law. The law operates in two different arenas: one is civil (or political) and the other is theological (or spiritual). (4) In the civil arena, the law acts as a bridle on sinful humanity. It restrains evil behaviors for the sake of civil society. Think of most of the laws that govern our country. They promote order and provide protection, and our obedience to them allows us to live in relative peace with our neighbor. In this case, then, the law addresses outward actions: as long as one is able to abstain from certain behaviors one will be an upright citizen.
The function of the law in the theological arena goes deeper. In this sense, the law acts as "the hammer of death" to sinful humans. (5) It exposes our inability to keep it and crushes any notion that we ever could in light of the fall. (6) "Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 23:29). While in the civil arena the law focuses on outward actions, in the theological arena it addresses the heart, motivation, and psyche. (7) There is certainly still an outward aspect to the theological application of the law, but those outward actions are considered bad fruit from a corrupt root, and the root is the concern.
Martin Luther refers to this theological understanding of the law as its "principal use" because it fundamentally alters our perspective. (8) As previously mentioned, people like the conditional nature of law. We prefer to view life as merit based, structured as if/then statements. If I obey the law, then I am a good person and God will be pleased with me. This tit-for-tat, quid pro quo, action/consequence philosophy of ethics was delineated by Aristotle and still prevails today. According to Aristotle, the outside determines the inside. (9) What you do defines you, good or bad. This is an attractive perspective because it gives us a sense of control. We think, "If I can just change my behavior, then I will change who I am." This way of thinking was the source of all of my efforts to maintain a feeling of closeness with God, as mentioned above. Jesus, however, turns this philosophy of ethics on its head in his presentation of the law.
The Pharisees, like many of us, were in Aristotle's camp. They thought God's law existed to ensure that their outward behaviors would remain pure so that they could attain inward purity (outside in, fruit to root). This led to their objections to Jesus and his disciples not washing their hands before they ate (a violation of one of the ceremonial laws). Jesus responded,
Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person...what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone. (Matt. 15:10-11, 18-20)Here the Lord reveals that Aristotle and the rest of us are wrong. The world may want to operate according to action/consequence or from the outside in, but God does not operate that way. Rather, he is concerned with the heart, the motivations, the inside, the root, and so is his law in its primary theological function.
Jesus also reveals this in his Sermon on the Mount. He explains that we do not break God's law simply through our actions, but first in our thoughts and hearts. Anger with your brother is the same as murdering him. Lusting after another is the same as committing adultery. Jesus takes the law to its highest pitch here. It is concerned with matters of the heart. The only way for anyone to be good and pleasing to God is to have a pure heart, to have completely pure motivations, to never have a bad thought about anyone or anything. In short, as Jesus sums up, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:21-48, emphasis mine). This is language about our state of being as opposed to our behavior. The law is about more than individual sinful actions; it is about the sinful state of the heart that leads to those actions.
Now we have hit bedrock. We have come to the foundation of the matter. The law is God's demand for our perfection. In order to be in right relationship with God, as I tried to be, we have to be perfect like God. What a crushing reality! As God's first word to us, the law acts as a mirror to reflect to us our sinful selves. (10) The law is not the tool we use to get better because we can never use it to improve ourselves; this was never its function. (11) Rather, the law exposes our failure to be better, to be perfect. In light of this, our feeble attempts to improve ourselves here and there are laughable. We don't even come close! This is the reality of the law: "No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12).
God's Second Word: The Gospel
This is all very depressing to our ambitious and independent selves, and it has to be because otherwise we would not be ready to hear God's second word, the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the good news, "that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). He has fulfilled the law on our behalf, has died for our sins on the cross, and has been raised again for our justification. The perfection (or righteousness) needed to be in right relationship with God is Christ's but is imputed to us (declared as ours) by God's grace through the cross. (12) This was the plan all along. As seen above, after the Fall we were never able to fulfill the law; its purpose in our lives now is first to reveal our sin and kill any notion that we are good on our own. Then, as a result of the gospel of grace, the Holy Spirit directs our lives of gratitude in congruence with the law. The law always points us to Jesus and his cross. That is the place where our sin was imputed to him and his righteousness was imputed to us. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). An incomplete understanding of the law may lead one to the conclusion that it is ours to fulfill. No: the law is always his to fulfill. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17).
As a result, our relationship with God is not dependent on our works but on his completed work for us. We are saved by grace through faith. We believe that Jesus has already done everything for us so that we might be free from the obligation of the law and its penalty of death (Gal. 5:1). As a result, we are saved from having to be perfect on our own. We are forgiven, and we stand in the fact that "it is finished" (John 19:30).
Jesus' final word on our sin reveals the radical nature of the gospel: it is a free gift (Eph. 2:8). It is based on faith and not works, which means it is unconditional and cannot be earned or deserved. While the law can only make demands of us, "the Gospel contains no demand, only the gift of God's grace and truth in Christ." (13) The if/then conditional nature of relationships ends and because/therefore wins out. "Because we have been justified by faith, therefore we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). Because Christ died for you, therefore you are forgiven. BecauseChrist has fulfilled the law, therefore you are set free from its demands. The gospel is the answer to the law's accusation.
What are the implications of this distinction between law and gospel for our understanding of the Bible? Considering both the law and gospel kills the notion that the Bible is a manual for living--a view commonly held today. If the Bible were such a manual, Christianity would be all about what we do. Instead, the Bible is God's active Word in our lives. From it comes the law, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," crushing any notion of self-justification by our good works and revealing our sinful state. With the law is the gospel--the freeing message that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25). The two words tell us that Christianity is all about what he has done! The Bible is the proclamation of the truth--the truth about us and about God. It is nothing short of revelation, and this truth sets us free indeed. C. F. W. Walther said it best: "The true knowledge of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is not only a glorious light, affording the correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, but without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book." (14)
What are the implications of these two inseparable words for our everyday lives?16 As mentioned above, our relationship with God does not depend on us; rather, it rests solely on the completed work of Jesus Christ at the cross. When we understand this about our relationship, the result is that we can rest. We can finally have peace. Our efforts to preserve a relationship with God can stop. Our motivations for our study of the Bible, prayer, and worship can come not out of fear of punishment or separation from God but out of the joy of security in God's faithfulness to us shown in his Son, Jesus, so that we are inspired to grateful living. Whenever we feel the accusation of the law, we can recognize its purpose, which is to drive us back to the cross where we hear the gospel again.
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:38-39)
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Love Came Down
Sunday, September 12, 2010
So many students today go off to college to advance their knowledge in academia but never their understanding of Scripture and/or how to correctly interpret it. Enjoy, you 5 readers :)
Must I Learn How to Interpret the Bible?
...Obviously, I have raised enough questions for a dissertation or two. What follows in this article is not a comprehensive key to answering all difficult interpretive questions, but some preliminary guidelines to sorting such matters out. The apostolic number of points are not put into any order of importance.
(1) As conscientiously as possible, seek the balance of Scripture, and avoid succumbing to historical and theological disjunctions.
Liberals have often provided us with nasty disjunctions: Jesus or Paul, the charismatic community or the "early catholic" church, and so forth. Protestants sometimes drop a wedge between Paul's faith apart from works (Rom 3:28) and James' faith and works (Jas 2:4); others absolutize Galatians 3:28 as if it were the controlling passage on all matters to do with women, and spend countless hours explaining away 1 Timothy 2:12 (or the reverse!).
Historically, many Reformed Baptists in England between the middle of the eighteenth century and the middle of the twentieth so emphasized God's sovereign grace in election that they became uncomfortable with general declarations of the Gospel. Unbelievers should not be told to repent and believe the Gospel: how could that be, since they are dead in trespasses and sin, and may not in any case belong to the elect? They should rather be encouraged to examine themselves to see if they have within themselves any of the first signs of the Spirit's work, any conviction of sin, any stirrings of shame. On the face of it, this is a long way from the Bible, but thousands of churches thought it was the hallmark of faithfulness. What has gone wrong, of course, is that the balance of Scripture has been lost. One element of Biblical truth has been elevated to a position where it is allowed to destroy or domesticate some other element of Biblical truth.
In fact, the "balance of Scripture" is not an easy thing to maintain, in part because there are different kinds of balance in Scripture. For example, there is the balance of diverse responsibilities laid on us (e.g. praying, being reliable at work, being a biblically faithful spouse and parent, evangelizing a neighbor, taking an orphan or widow under our wing, and so forth): these amount to balancing priorities within the limits of time and energy. There is the balance of Scripture's emphases as established by observing their relation to the Bible's central plot-line; there is also the balance of truths which we cannot at this point ultimately reconcile, but which we can easily distort if we do not listen carefully to the text (e.g. Jesus is both God and man; God is both the transcendent sovereign and yet personal; the elect alone are saved, and yet in some sense God loves horrible rebels so much that Jesus weeps over Jerusalem and God cries, "Turn, turn, why will you die? For the LORD has no pleasure in the death of the wicked."). In each case, a slightly different kind of Biblical balance comes into play, but there is no escaping the fact that Biblical balance is what we need.
(2) Recognize that the antithetical nature of certain parts of the Bible, not least some of Jesus' preaching, is a rhetorical device, not an absolute. The context must decide where this is the case.
Of course, there are absolute antitheses in Scripture that must not be watered down in any way. For example, the disjunctions between the curses and the blessings in Deuteronomy 27-28 are not mutually delimiting: the conduct that calls down the curses of God and the conduct that wins his approval stand in opposite camps, and must not be intermingled or diluted. But on the other hand, when eight centuries before Christ, God says, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hos 6:6), the sacrificial system of the Mosaic covenant is not thereby being destroyed. Rather, the Hebrew antithesis is a pointed way of saying, "If push comes to shove, mercy is more important than sacrifice. Whatever you do, you must not rank the marks of formal religion in this case, burnt offerings and other mandated ritual sacrifices with fundamental acknowledgment of God, or confuse the extent to which God cherishes compassion and mercy with the firmness with which he demands the observance of the formalities of the sacrificial system."
Similarly, when Jesus insists that if anyone is to become his disciple, he must hate his parents (Lk 14:26), we must not think Jesus is sanctioning raw hatred of family members. What is at issue is that the claims of Jesus are more urgent and binding than even the most precious and prized human relationships (as the parallel in Mt 10:37 makes clear).
Sometimes the apparent antithesis is formed by comparing utterances from two distant passages. On the one hand, Jesus insists that the praying of his followers should not be like the babbling of the pagans who think they are heard because of their many words (Mt 6:7). On the other hand, Jesus can elsewhere tell a parable with the pointed lesson that his disciples should pray perseveringly and not give up (Lk 18:1-8). Yet, if we were to suppose that the formal clash between the two injunctions is more than superficial, we would be betraying not only our ignorance of Jesus' preaching style, but also our insensitivity to pastoral demands. The first injunction is vital against those who think they can wheedle things out of God by their interminable prayers; the second is vital against those whose spiritual commitments are so shallow that their mumbled one-liners constitute the whole of their prayer life.
(3) Be cautious about absolutizing what is said or commanded only once.
The reason is not that God must say things more than once for them to be true or binding. The reason, rather, is that if something is said only once it is easily misunderstood or misapplied. When something is repeated on several occasions and in slightly different contexts, readers will enjoy a better grasp of what is meant and what is at stake.
That is why the famous "baptism for the dead" passage (1 Cor 15:29) is not unpacked at length and made a major plank in, say, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession. Over forty interpretations of that passage have been offered in the history of the church. Mormons are quite sure what it means, of course, but the reason why they are sure is because they are reading it in the context of other books that they claim are inspired and authoritative.
This principle also underlies one of the reasons why most Christians do not view Christ's command to wash one another's feet as a third sacrament or ordinance. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are certainly treated more than once, and there is ample evidence that the early church observed both, but neither can be said about foot washing. But there is more to be said.
(4) Carefully examine the biblical rationale for any saying or command.
The purpose of this counsel is not to suggest that if you cannot discern the rationale you should flout the command. It is to insist that God is neither arbitrary nor whimsical, and by and large he provides reasons and structures of thought behind the truths he discloses and the demands he makes. Trying to uncover this rationale can be a help in understanding what is of the essence of what God is saying, and what is the peculiar cultural expression of it.
Before I give a couple of examples, it is important to recognize that all of Scripture is culturally bound. For a start, it is given in human languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) and languages are a cultural phenomenon. Nor are the words God speaks to be thought of as, say, generic Greek. Rather, they belong to the Greek of the Hellenistic period (it isn't Homeric Greek or Attic Greek or modern Greek). Indeed, this Greek changes somewhat from writer to writer (Paul does not always use words the same way that Matthew does) and from genre to genre (apocalyptic does not sound exactly like an epistle). None of this should frighten us. It is part of the glory of our great God that he has accommodated himself to human speech, which is necessarily time-bound and therefore changing. Despite some postmodern philosophers, this does not jeopardize God's capacity for speaking truth. It does mean that we finite human beings shall never know truth exhaustively (that would require omniscience), but there is no reason why we cannot know some truth truly. Nevertheless, all such truth as God discloses to us in words comes dressed in cultural forms. Careful and godly interpretation does not mean stripping away such forms to find absolute truth beneath, for that is not possible: we can never escape our finiteness. It does mean understanding those cultural forms and by God's grace discovering the truth that God has disclosed through them.
So when God commands people to rend their clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, are these precise actions so much of the essence of repentance that there is no true repentance without them? When Paul tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss, does he mean that there is no true Christian greeting without such a kiss?
When we examine the rationale for these actions, and ask whether or not ashes and kissing are integratively related to God's revelation, we see the way forward. There is no theology of kissing; there is a theology of mutual love and committed fellowship among the members of the church. There is no theology of sackcloth and ashes; there is a theology of repentance that demands both radical sorrow and profound change.
If this reasoning is right, it has a bearing on both foot washing and on head-coverings. Apart from the fact that foot washing appears only once in the New Testament as something commanded by the Lord, the act itself is theologically tied, in John 13, to the urgent need for humility among God's people, and to the cross. Similarly, there is no theology of head-coverings, but there is a profound and recurrent theology of that of which the head-coverings were a first-century Corinthian expression: the proper relationships between men and women, between husbands and wives.
(5) Carefully observe that the formal universality of proverbs and of proverbial sayings is only rarely an absolute universality. If proverbs are treated as statutes or case law, major interpretive and pastoral errors will inevitably ensue.
Compare these two sayings of Jesus: (a) "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12:30). (b) "...for whoever is not against us is for us" (Mk 9:40; cf. Lk 9:50). As has often been noted, the sayings are not contradictory if the first is uttered to indifferent people against themselves, and the second to the disciples about others whose zeal outstrips their knowledge. But the two statements are certainly difficult to reconcile if each is taken absolutely, without thinking through such matters.
Or consider two adjacent proverbs in Proverbs 26: (a) "Do not answer a fool according to his folly..." (26:4), or (b) "Answer a fool according to his folly..." (26:5). If these are statutes or examples of case law, there is unavoidable contradiction. On the other hand, the second line of each proverb provides enough of a rationale that we glimpse what we should have seen anyway: proverbs are not statutes. They are distilled wisdom, frequently put into pungent, aphoristic forms that demand reflection, or that describe effects in society at large (but not necessarily in every individual), or that demand consideration of just how and when they apply.
Let us spell out these two proverbs again, this time with the second line included in each case: (a) "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." (b) "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Side by side as they are, these two proverbs demand reflection on when is the part of prudence to refrain from answering fools, lest we be dragged down to their level, and when it is the part of wisdom to offer a sharp, "foolish" rejoinder that has the effect of pricking the pretensions of the fool. The text does not spell this out explicitly, but if the rationales of the two cases are kept in mind, we will have a solid principle of discrimination.
So when a well-known parachurch organization keeps quoting "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" as if it were case law, what are we to think?
This proverbial utterance must not be stripped of its force: it is a powerful incentive to responsible, God-fearing, child-rearing. Nevertheless, it is a proverb; it is not a covenantal promise. Nor does it specify at what point the children will be brought into line. Of course, many children from Christian homes go astray because the parents really have been very foolish or unbiblical or downright sinful; but many of us have witnessed the burdens of unnecessary guilt and shame borne by really godly parents when their grown children are, say, 40 years of age and demonstrably unconverted.
(6) The application of some themes and subjects must be handled with special care, not only because of their intrinsic complexity, but also because of essential shifts in social structures between Biblical times and our own day.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Rom 13:1-2). Some Christians have reasoned from this passage that we must always submit to the governing authorities, except in matters of conscience before God (Acts 4:19). Even then, we "submit" to the authorities by patiently bearing the sanctions they impose on us in this fallen world. Other Christians have reasoned from this passage that since Paul goes on to say that the purpose of rulers is to uphold justice (Rom 13:3-4), then if rulers are no longer up- holding justice, the time may come when righteous people should oppose them, and even, if necessary, overthrow them. The issues are exceedingly complex, and were thought through in some detail by the Reformers.
But there is of course a new wrinkle added to the fabric of debate when one moves from a totalitarian regime, or from an oligarchy, or from a view of government bound up with an inherited monarchy, to some form of democracy. This is not to elevate democracy to heights it must not occupy. It is to say, rather, that in theory at least, a democracy allows you to "overthrow" a government without violence or bloodshed. And if the causes of justice cannot do so, it is because the country as a whole has slid into a miasma that lacks the will, courage, and vision to do what it has the power to do. What, precisely, are the Christian's responsibilities in that case (whatever your view of the meaning of Romans 13 in its own context)?
In other words, new social structures beyond anything Paul could have imagined, though they cannot overturn what he said, may force us to see that the valid application demands that we bring into the discussion some considerations he could not have foreseen. It is a great comfort, and epistemologically important, to remember that God did foresee them but that does not itself reduce the hermeneutical responsibilities we have.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Galilee Festival
From August 16th to the 20th of 2010, the Galilee Grace Church English Ministry held Galilee Festival at Tahquitz Pines, Idyllwild, California. The Galilee Festival is an intense getaway program designed for the college and post college people to promote better understanding and better application for Christian life. Many highly qualified speakers were invited to speak to the attendees: pastor Peter Kim of Berean Community Church was the main speaker and 5 other session speakers, all of whom were more than qualified to speak, convicted the hearts of the attendees throughout their 5days stay.
Personally, I was somewhat frustrated at first because so many of the people who I had hoped to participate changed their minds at the last minute and did not attend the Festival. However, in the midst of my discouragement, God had demonstrated His mighty works. The words of the speaker penetrated the listeners’ hearts and many people were convicted through the messages as well as by the different sessions. From the leaders to the attendees and from the pastors to the site workers, people were challenged by the Word of God. Overall, God had blessed the attendees so many different ways that the number of the attendees present was no longer an issue.
I truly believe that the prayers of GGCEM people were answered. For past 5 months, every Tuesday night, the GGCEM members have been praying for the Galilee Festival. The GGCEM members have been specifically praying for God’s work to be done through the Festival as well as God brining His people, whom He has prepared for the Galilee Festival. And it was shown that the people present were truly led to the Festival by God. They sought the lord and God had touched their hearts.
The whole experience was very godly and productive for me as well as for the other attendees. I truly hope that all of the attendees will apply everything that was learned to his or her daily life, and live the Christian life according to the will of God. It is also my sincere prayer that we will produce even more fruit next year. May we continually strive towards godliness and encouraging one another!!!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
GAMMA PHI!!!!
Monday, August 16, 2010
www.geneveith.com
Trying to make Christianity cool
Twenty-something Brett McCracken is put off by what churches are doing to attract him:
Increasingly, the “plan” has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called “the emerging church”—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement. Perhaps because it was too “let’s rethink everything” radical, it fizzled quickly. But the impulse behind it—to rehabilitate Christianity’s image and make it “cool”—remains.
There are various ways that churches attempt to be cool. For some, it means trying to seem more culturally savvy. The pastor quotes Stephen Colbert or references Lady Gaga during his sermon, or a church sponsors a screening of the R-rated “No Country For Old Men.” For others, the emphasis is on looking cool, perhaps by giving the pastor a metrosexual makeover, with skinny jeans and an $80 haircut, or by insisting on trendy eco-friendly paper and helvetica-only fonts on all printed materials. Then there is the option of holding a worship service in a bar or nightclub (as is the case for L.A.’s Mosaic church, whose downtown location meets at a nightspot called Club Mayan).
“Wannabe cool” Christianity also manifests itself as an obsession with being on the technological cutting edge. Churches like Central Christian in Las Vegas and Liquid Church in New Brunswick, N.J., for example, have online church services where people can have a worship experience at an “iCampus.” Many other churches now encourage texting, Twitter and iPhone interaction with the pastor during their services.
But one of the most popular—and arguably most unseemly—methods of making Christianity hip is to make it shocking. What better way to appeal to younger generations than to push the envelope and go where no fundamentalist has gone before? . . .
If the evangelical Christian leadership thinks that “cool Christianity” is a sustainable path forward, they are severely mistaken. As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don’t want cool as much as we want real.
If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it’s easy or trendy or popular. It’s because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true. It’s because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched—and we want an alternative. It’s not because we want more of the same.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Prodigal Son
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Videos/T8241-9B
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Wise words about money
My philanthropic pledge
FORTUNE -- In 2006, I made a commitment to gradually give all of my Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic foundations. I couldn't be happier with that decision.
Now, Bill and Melinda Gates and I are asking hundreds of rich Americans to pledge at least 50% of their wealth to charity. So I think it is fitting that I reiterate my intentions and explain the thinking that lies behind them.
First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.
Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge.
Moreover, this pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including -- I'm proud to say -- my three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others. Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends significant person-to-person help daily. I've done little of this.
What I can do, however, is to take a pile of Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates -- "claim checks" that when converted to cash can command far-ranging resources -- and commit them to benefit others who, through the luck of the draw, have received the short straws in life. To date about 20% of my shares have been distributed (including shares given by my late wife, Susan Buffett). I will continue to annually distribute about 4% of the shares I retain. At the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled. Nothing will go to endowments; I want the money spent on current needs.
This pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. They have already received significant sums for their personal use and will receive more in the future. They live comfortable and productive lives. And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life.
Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and long-standing friends.
My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.)
My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.
The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
For the full story behind the pledge, who is signing on, and what the drive might mean, read "The $600 billion challenge." 