My name is Evangelist Aleechea Pitts and I wanted to
introduce myself .

To know more about myself and ministry check out link
below:

http://hometown.aol.com/aleecheakeys/myhomepage/profile.html


Enjoy the word of the Lord by Evangelist Aleechea
Pitts:

Here is the Sermon Enjoy!

http://www.audioacrobat.com/play/WCwFgkMs

If you weren’t in the UMC of Westford this past Sunday, 8 Oct, you missed, in my opinion, one of Pastor Anne’s best sermons. If you missed it and want to read it, it is titled, Character Development. A lot of what I hear these days is that God loves us soooo much, we don’t have a worry in this world, or the next. We just have to sit back and wait for the love to rain down on us. But this sermon captures the love and power of God (“not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit”, says the Lord) while still recognizing that we have work to do too. And I think that is why I like this sermon so much; it recognizes that we have work to do. I won’t go into what it is we need to do, the sermon already does that very well. But I will just add one point. The sermon says, “It is not what you do, it is who you are.” The Bible says you are what you do (or more specifically, “You will know them by their fruits.”). But I also think you become what you do. Somewhere I heard this story about not so nice guy who fell in love with this very nice girl. So he pretended to be nice, like her, so that she would like him. And this went on for a long time. Eventually, he did get the girl. But more importantly, he spent so much time being nice, that he actually became nice. Or to steal a little bit from Forest Gump, ‘nice is as nice does’.

Thank you, Southern Days. I agree. I've only been at this church a year, but the healthy environment you describe is my vision for this place and every place that walks in God's love. If we all saw things the same way, how would we learn and grow? Besides, it would be boring. Thanks for stopping by!

I stumbled upon your site with your sermons and have found it interesting about you thoughts on open minds. I have heard of many christians that shut other christians out due to the fact that they do not think 100% the same way as the pastor and the leaders of a church. Through my vast years and travels with my life I have found the riches church communities have people with many different interpretations of the Word. Each of the persons is walking in the faith with the Lord and doing their walk with the best intentions and the best ability they have. As enviroments change in churches with time, we as christians must sit back and realize that each person that has a christ commitment had their own way to walk it- neither you nor I are right and we should not condenm them from the journey. We must keep open minds and hearts to those that we have shut out, hurt or ignored along the way. We all need to go back and ask those forgivenesses to those that we spirtually injury along the way.

I hope that your church has this enviroment that you preach about, as it is very healthy and will lend itself to many styles, personalities, talents, depths of faith and only enhance the discipleship that we as christians strive for each day in our lives.
God Bless.

Windy here....really windy...please know that I do not respond to argue
or debate, but simply to convey what I personnaly believe.
Matthew 4:17 From that time on, Jesus began to preach,"repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." Crystal clear to me on repentance. It is mentioned many times in Scripture. As I see it, hell and condemnation should not be preached to folks with a "fire- and-brimstone" attitude....BUT...people do need to be reminded gently,
(as Jesus did), that sin exists, we are all sinners. Jesus did do that.
He did speak warnings such as Matthew 5:21(the last sentence), "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. John 5:28
"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their
graves will hear his voice and come out..those who have done good will rise
to live and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Does that
mean by our own good works we earn it? No. It means to me that if we choose the right path (moving towards God) by loving God and neighbor using
the 10 commandments, (I prefer to call them the natural law of life or the best way to conquer sinful nature), we will be "doing good". We have a sinful nature. We should never be presumptive and deem ourselves worthy of
God or "good enough" for him. Long ago, in my youth, I spent five seemingly eternal years in agony of feeling "unworthy" of God, my answer
finally came from Him as clear as could be! You are not worthy of me,
nor are you good enough for me, that is why in my infinite mercy, and because I love you, that I sent my son to die for your sin debt. And a
small aside: I once heard that probably one of the worst sins we can commit, is to refuse to forgive ourselves after repentance, since God has forgiven and has promised to wipe it out of his memory. People need to learn to forgive themselves as well as others.
As for the path to God, Although I believe that each person's walk to that path has a unique journey, I believe there is only one path and it is
narrow and it is through Christ only. "No one comes to the Father except through me".(sorry I cannot quickly find Chapter and verse on the last quote).

I don’t think we should repent because we fear Hell. We should repent because we have sinned against our creator. Is there anything wrong with that thinking? I agree that Hell-fire teaching only makes for fearful repentors who don’t love God, only fear his wrath. We want tear-filled repentors who are truly sorry for sinning against God (breaking God’s law). Teaching God’s love to a repentful person is correct, but only teaching God’s love has a dangerous result of people thinking, “God loves me and I’m not that bad so God will automatically forgive my sins when I die”. That is not what the Bible says so that is not true. As best I can tell, repenting is a necessary step toward being saved so everyone needs to know that. If most of the people coming to you feel sinful, that is great, because they are (we all are). But we can’t just say to them, “Don’t worry because God loves you and will save you”. Everyone has a part to play in receiving forgiveness and that is repentance. Is John the Baptist wrong? I think the most prevalent message out there is, “God loves you, don’t worry about anything”. That worries me. Going back to my original question, what do you think about the need for repentance?

I don’t really like that the above reads like I know the answer. But I need to throw my thoughts out there so someone can point out why they are wrong (if they are).

Of course I can't speak for those who never make an appointment to see me, but the biggest problem I encounter in counseling with people about spiritual matters is not a lack of repentance but the feeling that they are not good enough...that they are too sinful for God's redemption. Even on Sunday, just chatting with a visitor at Rally Day, it came up. The most prevalent message out there is, "You are a sinner and going to hell unless you can appease a wrathful God." 99.9% of the people I counsel have no sense that God truly loves them, despite the fact that the Bible claims in 1 John 4:8 that love isn't just what God does, it is what God IS.

So I don't find a need to preach God's judgment and condemnation. Jesus seemed to save all of that for the religious leadership and those who refused help to the hungry and sick. I find that the message people have been missing is not God's wrath, but God's love. They seem to feel plenty condemned, but not at all loved.

Hi Windy,
Thanks for the support. It is nice not to travel a path by one’s self and since the right path is narrow, it seems likely we would meet along the way. But as my name implies, I’m still searching and I’m not convinced I’m on the right path yet. Maybe SpiritSong is right and there is more than one path to the right end point, but I don’t think that view is supported very well by scripture. My current thoughts keep bringing me back to the need for repentance. One certainly finds plenty of support for that in scripture, but I haven’t heard much about it from the modern church. I’m guessing that most church going people who try hard to be good would find it hard to give a heart felt cry for forgiveness. Most would probably feel they aren’t that bad so why do they need to repent? Maybe that is part of the reason the way to destruction is easy and the path to salvation is hard? If I’m not careful I’m going to start rambling. I think I’ll stop for now (being pretty sure I have convinced you I’m still in need of seeking).

And the wonderful part is that even though my steed comes from a different city and sees different sights along the way, we all arrive at the only point that matters in the end...the love of God in Jesus.

Hello Seeking The Truth:
AMEN!
I am old, not yet set in my ways in all things, but set deeply in my values, my convictions, and my faith. These aspects have been learned from Holy Scripture. The slope is slippery indeed when we take our personal interpretations and set them out before others as truth. If we turn out to be wrong, we mislead others, and lead many astray. As for me I am riding off on my steed. It has brought me this far to a loving relationship with my God and my neighbors; I will continue to ride that steed to the end, with bible in hand, not worshipping it, but treasuring the truth, as written within. Perhaps, Seeking we will meet along the
trail somewhere and ride together.

I debated for a while whether or not to respond to SpiritSong's last input, but since nothing has been submitted lately, I decided to respond:

I agree 100% that one can get the truth out of Genesis 3:10 that SpiritSong does; and probably many others. But why should that mean that the literal translation isn't true? I can buy Adam simply hiding his physical nakedness. Eventually, everyone's children suddenly realize they are naked and don't want mom and dad to see even though they have seen them hundreds of times (seems like thousands when I think back on diapers). Why can't Adam feel the same way once he realizes he is physically naked? Plus Genesis also states that they made clothes to cover themselves. The nakedness is not just symbolic or there would be no need to go into that detail.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SpiritSong once said something like, 'The writers of the New Testament taught in parables, so why not the writers of the Old Testament?'. But for me that doesn't ring true because:
• In the New Testament, they tell us when it was a parable
• Unlike New Testament parables, the Old Testament stories are about real people and a real God (that is, not a symbol of God). The Bible would lose credibility quickly if it mixed fables with history.
• Telling a story that isn't true without clarifying that point is the same as lying. I do not believe the Bible can serve its purpose if it is full of lies.

I believe it is extremely important for people to live their lives like the whole Bible is true, not just parts of it. How wrong can one go if they do that? But if people start picking and choosing what parts to believe, it is not hard for a disaster to occur. At least for me, the slope is too slippery to venture upon. And I believe the sloop is too slippery to invite others to venture upon. Hence why I've not been able to give the horse a break.

Sorry to be so long in getting back to this. For examples of what I mean by different kind of truths, you can check out the devotions I have running on explorefaith.org for the month of August. They're at www.explorefaith.org/signposts/ and there's a new one each day.

Since you brought up Adam and Eve, here's an example (it was the devotion for August 9) for a truth besides the literal one in that story.

Genesis 3:10 “He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

Hiding from God because the anatomy God so carefully crafted is exposed doesn’t ring true. But nakedness means more than wearing no clothes. To be naked is to be vulnerable. Clothing offers various levels of protection from physical harm, as well as the opportunity to conceal things, as anyone who has been through airport security lately can tell you.

Adam is hiding because he realizes he is vulnerable. There is no concealing what he has done, and there is nothing standing between him and God for protection. He is naked before God, and he knows it. So he hides.

That rings true because I do it all the time, as do we all. We know at some level that we are naked—that God knows what we do and who we are at a fundamental level. If we’re honest, we know that’s not always a good thing. There are times when we’ve eaten from the tree and done that which God has forbidden. There are times that we simply realize our own smallness compared to the greatness of God, and we feel ashamed.

And so we hide. We hide behind hymns and prayers in church; we hide behind volunteer work and busy-ness; we hide inside of social issues and intellectual debate and think that God won’t see us there. But we’re wrong.

When Adam does meet God in his nakedness, they have some issues to work out. Adam does pay the consequences of his sin, as we all do in one way or another. But the amazing news is that despite Adam’s sin, God still wants to be in relationship with him and to care for him. God recognizes the fear of naked vulnerability and makes clothes for him. Sin has made some things more difficult, but the love and care of God never come to an end.

I'm back. I had to "mull" over in my mind what Spiritsong was saying
in her prior input responding to my different truth statement. Okay.
Here is where I get really Windy, but I think this will at least help me gain a perspective as to where Spiritsong is coming from:

Different (?) Truths:

1) Adam and Eve: Handful of clay - woman - rib from man - real garden - real tree - real fruit (apple?) - real snake.

2) Adam and Eve: Still handful of clay and rib - still real garden -
no real tree or fruit? - some other happening within their spirits that
caused them to be disobedient and be banished from the good life intended
for them - snake (Lucifer or demon?) (actually on two feet and quite handsome and smooth-talking needed to trick woman). We still use the term snake for that kind of a man even to this day.

3) Adam and Eve: Evolution; millions of year; God intervenes. As you can
see I don't have much to say on this as biblical. Since Science
cannot seem to give us the defining link that would proove it, I think that
humans have been humans right from the beginning just as God created creatures and rearranged them, or tweaked them down to manageble sizes after the need for the dinosaurs. I digress....sorry.

I guess we could say these were three different truths...with the one truth within that says: God created us to be his children. We sinned.
Now we need Jesus to come and save us.

Stating all the above, I still choose to believe the original story, with the exception that I think the serpent was on two feet and quite handsome. Works for me. As childlike and mythological as it sounds; it is real for me and teaching me what I need to know.

Is this what you mean by different truths?

For me, there is no danger or feeling of threat to me with those kinds of
things in the bible. But when we start to question the authority of moral/immoral it is of great concern to me.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He is love, mercy and forgiveness, and as I follow Him in scripture what comes across to me is: He doesn't want us to judge others, as with the prostitute, BUT He does tell her to go and sin no more, indicating to me that we as individuals must make moral judgments regrding our OWN lives.

IMO, He isn't changing the teachings of morality, or leaving them up to interpretation, but is not passing judgment on others. Judgement is left up to the Father. He teaches, in gentleness and leaves them to make
their choices.

Always, that women couldn't speak and have authority because they were uneducated is an interpretation from the culture of Paul's day. It is not in the Bible directly, although Paul does show that the women were causing problems because they were asking questions of their husbands during the service. Since synagogues of the day had men and women sitting on opposite sides of the room, asking questions across the aisle was distracting.

It's part of the difference in how people look at the Bible...whether you see it as something that can be interpreted in light of the culture to which and in which it was written. I believe that is appropriate and it has opened up whole new vistas for me.

Basically, I believe the Bible is the inspired (but not the literal) Word of God. I believe Jesus is the Word of God made flesh...the same Word. So I believe that Jesus shows us in the flesh what God was trying to say in language in the OT. That means I believe God behaves the way Jesus behaved...because I believe Jesus is the revelation of God's will and nature.

I also believe what Paul says in 1 Cor. 13 that now we see only "through a glass, darkly." Even the most learned, most insightful scholar can speak about God only incompletely. We know now only in part...and some of that is probably wrong. God is bigger than us and we can't ever know God fully in this life. "Your ways are not my ways, neither are your thoughts my thoughts, says the Lord." Is. 55:8.

When someone is truly seeking God in Scripture (or anywhere else for that matter) God will find them. I believe it is the sincere heart that calls to the heart of God. That can happen if someone is taking the Bible literally and I've seen it happen with those taking much of it symbolically or culturally. As the Bible says in many places, God looks on the heart.

I have worked with many people who had long ago shut their Bible and shut out God because someone insisted that a literal approach was the only one. Once they had permission to view it differently, they could return both to the Bible and to the God who loves them. One of those is in seminary, training for ministry as I write.

Now to go write another sermon we can debate. Romans 14 anyone?

Seeking. I am not able to expand on the explanation of my bible idolatry since you defined it
so accurately for me. I also do not worship "the book" but through the Book, I worship the One who inspired it.
 
I do not find contradictions in scripture, perhaps because as I read each day,
my focus is totally on what the "lesson" is for the day not the whole picture.
Just as Jesus teaches us to live "in the moment", I guess that's how I read my
scripture!
 
I think the horse twitched!

Still Learning:

One of the definitions of the word "Bible" is "God's Word".
People who consider themselves Bible Idolators are not worshiping the pages, the are worshiping God and the Word of God.

Spiritsong: Regarding earlier posting

In Timothy Chapter 2 vs 11 it states that woman are to learn in silence will full submission. For the reason that Adam was formed first and then Eve; and Adam was not decieved, but the woman was deceived and became the transgressor. I do not see where it states that women were not allowed to teach because they were uneducated in their beliefs. Is there another chapter in the bible that explains this?

Seeking: Maybe this will help will your question?

Romans 16 vs 17
 
Final Instructions:
 
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep and eye on those who cause dessensions (controversies;disagreements) and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple minded.

Awesome inputs. Thanks so much to everyone. I'm going to try and let the horse rest in peace tonight; just make a couple of clarifications about my own thoughts.

Windy, I didn't mean to allude that education is a key to understanding. You make a great point in that the Pharisees knew all the words, but totally missed the meaning. My point was that I think there is less of a chance for SpiritSong to go too far off track even if she doesn't believe all that she reads in the Bible because she is so well grounded. My fear (and reason for bringing this up at all) is less knowledgeable folks, following her lead and choosing what to believe, without a good basis for making good choices, will end up creating a false god in their image (sorry, I'm getting close to hitting that horse again).

Still Learning, that name fits all of us and your input helps. Welcome to the discussion. Don't hold back. Maybe some day we can try to address some of the things you see as contradictions in the Bible. I'm not seeing the contradictions, even in your example. But I'm not good enough to adequately explain in a few written sentences. I think discussion is needed.

Finally, I don't like to try to speak for someone else. But I'm going to assume that some might view me as a "Bible Idolater" too. It is not that I'm idolizing the Bible. It is the Bible that first and foremost tells me about the God I do worship. If I start to dismiss some of the words, I believe I start to chip away at what God's true nature really is. Maybe Windy can explain it better?

Ready or not, I am going to weigh in on this discussion. I have not posted anything yet; but, I do read all of these discussions. Seeking The Truth was encouraging me to contribute to the discussion (so be patient and kind!).

I have learned a lot from SpiritSong and Seeking The Truth. I have such a deep respect for both of you that when I disagree with either of you, I really need to "check myself" first. I know that I have a long way to go but here is where I stand on this topic right now:

I think it is impossible to believe everything in the Bible. There are definitely contradictions in the Bible. When you find one, you need to choose one answer or you need to interpret both based upon your own experiences and beliefs. Therefore, you are not actually believing everything in the Bible. To me, it is not absolute -- or perhaps I am just too logical.

For me, it is such a gift to be told that it is OK to interpret the Bible. I grew up in a Catholic Church being told that if I didn't do X,Y,Z (even simple things that are normal, childish things to do) then I'd go to hell. Deep down inside of my heart, even as a child, even though I had not read the Bible, I could not believe that was God's destiny for me. And so, the contradictions began at a very early age for me...

My feeble attempts at reading the Bible were always halted by a) not understanding the language that I was reading b) being so confused by contradictions, parables, etc. that I would abandon the readings (and eventually the church altogether). So, which is worse, losing people completely or giving them some freedom to learn and grow into the person that God wanted them to become even if they did not agree with your interpretation of the Bible at the time? I can tell you that the person I've become based on the priest's interpretation of the Bible is not the person that I think God really wants me to be. I don't think he wants me to be afraid to make a move and enjoy life because I might make a mistake and go to hell. I think he wants me to have a voice -- which was discouraged by my priests' interpretations of the Bible and is encouraged by the UMCW members' interpretations of the Bible -- yet another gift!

To me, I think the Bible serves as a) a historical record of events that may or may not have been written/translated by humans accurately and b) yet another method for God to teach us, especially those of us who do not have spiritual gifts that allow us to "hear" him on a frequent basis.

I go back to the Bible to try to apply God's teachings to my everyday life and current events. That is where the real value of the Bible comes for me -- if I can read His Word and talk about it but not live it, then IMO the Bible is not accomplishing God's purpose. Applying God's Word this way causes me to have even more contradictions to deal with. For example, if I am trying to determine how I feel about Israel waging war on Hezbollah, do I go with the New Testament passages about loving everyone, even your enemies or do I go with the Old Testament passages when God specifically told the Jews to fight for their land - they were his chosen people? See...to me, now you are automatically into interpretation -- which passage (an event or lesson or both) takes precedence and why?

Without the freedom to explore these different possibilities, I feel like I would fall back into the quagmire of contradiction, guilt and fear, lack of a voice and eventually, abandon my studies again.

One specific question for WindSong -- isn't saying that you are a Bible idolator exactly what God does not want? Worshipping anything as an idol, even the Bible, can become a problem.

Windy, you've got a great perspective...thanks for your posting. I didn't mean to suggest there are different truths, just that there are different ways to express the same truth. One way is to say it in facts. Another is to imply it through metaphor (The kingdom of God is like...) Another is to evoke it emotionally through story and poetry or song.

Ultimately, I am a Christian because I don't believe that "truth" is a set of facts. I believe that "truth" is a being...God revealed in Jesus Christ. When Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" Jesus is silent because it's not an academic answer. The truth is standing there in front of him. It's not a "what" but a "who." Jesus says, "I am the truth."

So, if truth is a being, then the way to understand truth is through relationship with that being. Which is why I think Jesus says (along with other Rabbi's both before and since) that Loving God and loving neighbor as onesself is the key to all of it.

And as one of those sidelines...I think that love of God, neighbor, self formula is an expression of the Trinity. Love of God is love of Father, love of neighbor is love of Jesus (in the "least of these") and love of self is love of the Holy Spirit within us.

Thanks, both of you for keeping up the great dialogue!

Windy is fine provided that you are not thinking I am long-winded
or full of hot air! (just joshing)

You are right about moving off the topic. It's so easy to start
moving off in many different directions. You wouldn't believe how
much I deleted from my last post that kept going off into a kazillion
different directions. I'm probably still going to do it!

You are welcome to keep from burying the horse as long as you feel a need to
...not a problem. I will try to stay on track and list exactly what I believe to be true hoping it helps you:

1) I am by my own admission a bible idolator. (so for me it is not OK
not to believe all of it). I believe it is the absolute inspired Word of God. I don't believe it would still be in print
after all this time if God was not the Master-Mind of this Book.

2) Spiritsong: I cannot believe that there are DIFFERENT truths...since
that would cause confusion. God does not create confusion; humans do.

3) Seeking: Several times now you have alluded to education as being a
key to understanding. I do not believe that is a consideration when reading or "studying" scripture. God is not a respector of persons, He gives to each as He chooses. (NOT a personal shot here Spiritsong, but
having a bachelor's or master's degree does not mean a person is given a
better understanding of Scripture). Understanding the Word is a gift from
God and he can give it to whom he chooses. Remember when Jesus came, the
well-educated didn't get it; the Word was understood by fishermen, tax-collectors and sinners. God opens the eyes and ears of those he chooses
to.

4) Seeking: I would suggest that you trust your own conscience and be
content with believing on the Word as absolute truth and find peace in that
since that appears to be the direction the Spirit is leading you to.

5) My opinion: We don't need proof, we need faith. We need to build-up
and not tear down.

It's not dismissing Scripture...it's saying that there is more than one kind of truth. (And yes, Wesley put Scripture first because it was the most important, but it was the other pieces that allowed him to finally overrule Paul's comments about women and allow women to preach. Bad move, some would say!)

Why is it okay for Jesus to teach truth by relating non-factual stories (i.e. parables) and it's not okay for the Old Testament writers to do the same? If Paul is writing to address the culture of his time when he addresses slaves and masters (rather than condoning slavery), why can't Old Testament writers also be seen to have cultural elements that aren't universal truths?

I guess the bottom line is that I believe the Bible is much, much more than a compendium of facts, just like Hamlet is much, much more than a collection of words. All the depth and richness is lost if it can only mean what it says on the surface.

I don't think the horse is breathing anymore...

Hi Windy (if I may be informal),

All good points and nothing I disagree with. But I haven't yet finished beating the dead horse on whether or not it is OK to choose not to believe parts of the Bible (my apologies to all who want me to move on). Please feel free to jump in on this.

We seem to have gotten a little off topic. We went from discussing if the Bible is true to discussing the search for truth; two different things. Getting back to if the Bible is true, SpiritSong makes good points but not completely on topic. I think John Wesley's four-way test is right on. I don't believe he randomly decided to consider scripture first in his process. That supports that he probably wouldn't so easily decided not to believe parts of Bible. And the Bible itself corrects where the laws of Moses became outdated (for lack of a better word). I'm certainly not for taking any one line from the Bible and holding it up as absolute truth. One could probably justify almost anything by doing that.

The points where I picked on SpiritSong for openly saying the Bible is wrong have mostly been simple events then truths. The Bible said something happened or that God said/did something and SpiritSong isn't buying it. I'm assuming her rationale comes from one of the last two of Wesley's test, reason and/or experience. I'd rather have faith in the Word of God (which I believe the Bible is) than in my reasoning power or experiences that can be misleading. Certainly reasoning and experiences are necessary to reach a deeper understanding, but they should not be used to contradict what the Bible says (as a whole). And again, SpiritSong doing not believing is less dangerous than other less educated folks. But I fear what the less educated might conclude when they hear the educated dismiss something the Bible says.

Hello Seeking,
My opinion or interpretation regarding the law is that we are talking
about two sets of laws. First, the law of Moses which entails all the
rules and regs about animal sacrifices, how materials are to be used, what foods can and cannot be eaten etc. The traditions of the people
of the old testament. This law (imo) ended with the death of Christ and
his resurrection.
The Law of God,the Ten Commandments as we know them, is the law
that is never-ending. The first three teach us how to Love God; the remaining seven teach us how to love our neighbor.

The truths about human nature in the old testament do not end. Human nature and it's propensity to sin never changes. What was immoral in the OT is still immoral in the NT.

The difference as I see it in judgment, is that the OT stoned people to
death for their sins. Jesus in the NT teaches us that from now on, we
do not make judgments on others; we leave it up to God.

Edited by author 07-24-2006 10:10 PM
Well, the Bible is one of the key places where I learned the nature of God through Jesus. The other places are my own experience of God, and the experience of God as related by others throughout history.

John Wesley, who founded the Methodist movement, had a four-way test to make decisions about what was right and true (no, he was not a Rotarian!). The four things he considered were: Scripture, Tradition (meaning of the church), Reason, and Experience. We call that system the Quadrilateral, and it is a part of UMC doctrine. While other denominations look only to Scripture, we recognize that killing children for sassing their parents is not something that we should be doing, even though the Law of Moses commands it. We recognize that there is nothing inherently wrong with mixing cotton and linen, even though the Law of Moses forbids it. And, with the first disciples at the Council of Jerusalem, we don't believe that you have to be circumcised and keep the kosher food laws to be a Christian, even though the law is quite plain that God wants that from God's people. Those things don't pass the reason and experience parts of the test.

As a denomination, we believe that working out truth isn't easy or black and white. It's about a living relationship with a living God, who has changed His mind in the past and could do so again. But it is a loving and forgiving God, who is patient with our bumbling, as a loving parent is patient when a toddler falls to the floor again and again as she learns to walk.

So, just reading what God once thought provides some important clues about what God values, but keeping in touch with what God is currently doing is just as important...and perhaps more so. That's how Gentiles came into the faith, after all...because the disciples paid attention to what God was actually doing and blessing right then, rather than relying solely on what God said centuries (even millennia) earlier.

I think truth is bigger than just facts...and things like stories and fables can be true without being factual at all. Ditto for poetry and song. I think we limit the way God can work in our lives by insisting that something can only be true if it is literally and factually accurate.

I absolutely agree that kids need to read (and therefore to interpret) the Bible for themselves. That includes interpreting what sort of truth each passage offers. For example, I met a man in Florida once who thought that having church was wrong. His reasoning was that Jesus said he was present "when two or three are gathered." So the man took that very literally and figured that only two or three could gather for it to count. Four or more and Jesus was outta there. Most of us use our reasoning capacity when reading that verse and figure that Jesus meant AT LEAST two or three, because it doesn't make any sense from what we know of Jesus in other places that it would be limited.

There's a huge difference between blowing something off and seriously engaging Scripture to see what sort of truth it offers. It could be truth for all time. It could be truth for that time (women...who weren't educated in religion at the time...shouldn't preach). It could be metaphorical truth (the kingdom is like a pearl...not that it's round and hard, but it's a metaphor) or the kind of truth that is deep in the stories of creation. To me that's a fascinating and deeply satisfying (both spiritually and intellectually) journey. I couldn't really meet God until I was willing to leave the words on the page and look for God in the flesh.

Not that children are given all that complexity right off the bat. Jesus says that all the law and the prophets are summed up in loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves. If we taught all our children (not to mention the adults!) to do that, we'd be golden.

OK, so we are both using the Bible as the measuring stick (assuming that is where you learned the nature of God as revealed in Jesus, as well as Jesus’ teachings). It is nice to start off on common ground. And I won’t argue that interpretation is required. But I would argue that it is more than just a difference in interpretation on whether or not God ordered the death of multitudes. But I won’t argue that today. What is more important to me is so openly not believing what the Bible says. Someone as educated as you can probably get away with questioning things as you do because you have such a good grasp of the “important” truths. But for those not as educated it is much better for them to believe everything than “picking and choosing”. I guess this is so important to me because a main theme of my Sunday School classes is that the kids need to read the Bible for themselves so they will know first hand what the truth is (not relying on someone else to tell them what the truth is because some people will lie or at least make mistakes). If we plant in their minds that the Bible is wrong (or may be wrong), that will be one more reason for them to blow it off or to blow off some important teachings as being a part that isn’t quite true.

I’ll end this with a few verses from Matthew Chapter 5: Jesus speaking:
17. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

My e-mail has been down for three days, so I've just gotten both of these. First question first. My measuring stick is the nature of God as revealed in Jesus, as well as Jesus' summary of all the law and the prophets in the Great Commandment--to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

In the larger sense, for me it is not so much IF I believe what is said, but HOW I interpret the truth of what is said. Yes, it leaves me open to messing up, and I have on numerous occasions. But since I believe the true nature of God is revealed in Jesus, I know he'll forgive my honest mistakes. Taking it literally is also an interpretation, since there is no prologue to the Bible that instructs us to do that. Not to mention the fact that just translating the Bible into English involves interpretation, since not all Greek or Hebrew words have a definitive English equivalent.

Question from the sermon, "Apart from the Law". How do we know when we have accepted God's gift of forgiveness? Or maybe the question is, how do we accept God's gift? Does accepting make a noticable change in my life? What if I can't see the change (which brings me back to, how do I know I accepted God's gift?)?

I don't necessarily expect a clean, clear answer. I just wanted to get the question out there and see what happens. Why can some people stand up and say with certainty "yup, I'm saved" and I can't. What am I missing?

The link that tells me when a message has been posted has stopped working. So my apologies for having to go back a month to comment. SpiritSongs response on 6/20....if I paraphrase, am I correct that you are saying that if someone reads something in the Bible that they disagree with, it is OK to simply not believe it? I fully understand the difficulty of picturing Jesus (God) ordering the death of mulitudes. And I realize one doesn't want to judge God, so all that is left is to believe and trust (figuring you don't understand the whole picture) or disbelieve and then make God into an image of your own liking (please note I am using "your" generically, I don't mean you). I don't feel qualified to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe. What if I pick wrong? I'd rather risk believing the whole thing (and just not understanding portions of it, but I'm trying). Is not picking and choosing the qualities of God the same as creating a false idol? To me the Bible is the only sure source of truth. It is my measuring stick. What are you using as a measuring stick to decide what is true and what is not? Playing the Bible against itself doesn't seem like a reliable method; how does one know which side to choose?

Seeking,

Hmmm...I'm not sure why you had trouble finding it. I just looked and on the main page there's the yellow link that says "Read or listen to recent sermons" When you click that link, the most recent sermon is listed first. On the My sermons tab, the link in red "Most recent sermons in text and audio" also takes you to the same page. Maybe you've bookmarked another page that has a link I haven't changed? Anyway, sorry you had trouble.

I love the Elijah stories...he is a big deal, and he is too often relegated to Sunday School where we just send him off to heaven in that fiery chariot.

We'll probably never agree on the slaughter part. If Jesus is God in the flesh, then the nature of Jesus is the nature of God. And I just don't see Jesus ordering the slaughter of hundreds of people, no matter how idolatrous they were. He might have overturned their altar with a whip of cords, but I don't see him ordering the killing.

Hi Anne,

I had a hard time finding this week's sermon. It is not under "My Sermons" or under "Discussion" and "Please click here to read last week's sermon" Just thought I'd let you know.
But I did find it and I have a few comments. In order as they came to mind while I was reading (Sermon titled "Contest on Mt Carmel"):
- I couldn't agree more that Elijah is big deal in the Bible. Not just because he is the only person (I think) that got to go to Heaven without dying first. But he is the only person (again I think) that is predicted to return to the Earth (to introduce the World to the Messiah) and Jesus himself confirms that he did come back (in the from of John the Baptist). With all those unique characteristics, I'm kind of surprised we don't hear more about him and I'm glad you spent some time on him.
- I didn't like the comparison of what Elijah did on Mt Carmel to "the stunts by Houdini and others". I think I understand what your point was. But I think that makes it too easy for someone to interpret your meaning that it was a "stunt" and not an actual miracle performed by God.
- I thought you were a little hard on Elijah for the killing of the prophets of Baal. I think it likely God told him to do that. It would be consistent with God's orders (as Israel is trying to establish itself) for them to kill off all the other people who worship other gods. Israel didn't listen and they were led astray because they didn't kill them all off. Solomon's only vice was that he didn't listen to that commandment. He married wives with other religious backgrounds and ended up creating alters for other Gods and condemning his children's reign. Now don't think I'm a proponent of ethnic cleansing. I am not. I'm just saying what was going on back then and Elijah shouldn't be found at fault for following God's lead. But as you said, it didn't work. Fortunately through God's grace we have another chance through Jesus and the new covenant.
- Finally, I love the parts of the sermon about what we dance around and worship. We always seem to be thinking and saying, "what if". But the all problem solving "what if" never happens. That is because it already happened. Jesus was born and died and raised. I'm certain that if that didn't happen, people would be saying "what if" God came down to earth in human form and died for our sins....

I also did not expect to hear this sermon from you Anne. It just proves to me that understanding and fully grasping what is in another person's mind and thoughts is extremely difficult. I believe that the greatest communication is still often clouded by our perceptions of another's thoughts, oftentimes misunderstood completely or only fragmentally understood. I know the following does not relate to the sermon, and perhaps "beating" the dead horse again, but I need to say that I am a bible idolator in the sense that I believe that God did directly inspire people to write AND that he would not allow any information in that book to be so inaccurate as to lead us astray. Truth can be made more clear,
it can be expanded BUT it can never change else God becomes not faithful,
and not trustworthy. I do not take everything in the bible as literal,
using the classic examples of the 7-day creation (although I believe if
God wanted to do it in a week our time he could) and I of course, don't
believe God wants me to pluck out my eyes or cut my limbs off if I sin.
Cultures do change; usually from good to bad and then vice versa, that is
of course, if God doesn't decide they are so bad they need to be eradicated! In your sermon, you stated, "If God just took away the snakes
from the people here, it would be just like it never happened and the people would go back to their old ways. Could it not also be said...
if we begin to look at the Bible as being "incorrect" and not "endorsed"
by God himself, then folks begin to doubt God's faithfulness and trustworthiness and it becomes not more than a book to be forgotten....I have been observing that bible "relativism" is creeping into society...is this yet another attack on Christianity? Is it the beginning of the time when Jesus said when I return will I find any one left who knows the truth or has any faith? I would think that society in raising doubts about the validity of scripture would be the beginning of that process. Sorry if I'm rambling, my gift is definitely not writing and I'm on my lunch break!

Well this sermon was a surprise (The Bronze Serpent). Just when I think I have Pastor Anne all figured out she goes and blows the lid off my Anne-box. I never thought she'd get this close to a 'fire-and-brimstone' sermon. I thought it was going to be more of the same ol' Anne, when she started out saying things like, "We tend to be horrified at the thought of God actually punishing people…". But she not only states that God gets angry and that making God angry is dangerous, but she states that she agrees with the punishment. I never thought she'd say, "…the death that they deserved as a result… " of their sin. And most importantly, "that our sin has real consequences". I had thought that she was in the camp that God is too nice to hurt anyone; that God loved us too much. I thought that she thought those were the parts of the Bible that weren't quite true. Now I've got to start all over trying to figure out where she is coming from. I do look forward to continuing that journey as I quest for the truth and to learn for someone much more read and educated than myself. To start, I'm wondering if I found a clue to some of our differences in this sermon. Twice, she attributes a statement to John (the author of the Gospel according to John). But John is quoting Jesus. So in reading the quote, I take it as something that Jesus said, therefore, it must be true (I'm also assuming that God would not let himself be misquoted in the Bible). If she is taking it as something that John said, and people make mistakes, I can maybe see why she questions the words in the Bible more than I do. Is there anything to this or have I just read way too much into the wording of the sermon?

When the Pharisees wanted to quibble about the meaning of Scripture, they tried to test Jesus by asking him which of the commandments was the most important. He responded with the words from Deuteronomy 6 that we should love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. In that is our unity. Thank you, Windsong!

I am neither well-educated nor well-read, but I do love God and I love reading His inspired Word. "Seeks the Truth" has said much of what I would want to say, but would not be able to express as well as he has done. I do not find the bible scary at all; I see much of what God does in the old testament as simply working with humans in the only way they seem to understand. I see things happening relative to their choices and his working in absolute truth within the parameters of the free will he has chosen to give us.

Hi Always Happy,
Here you are agreeing with me but I still want to make a little bit of a rebuttal (hopefully this isn't a sign that SpiritSong is getting to me). God doesn't seem to be beyond changing his mind from time to time (note that that isn't the same as saying the scriptures aren't true). But several times God changes his mind because someone asked him to (though I equate that to me letting my boys do something they really shouldn't because they asked 110 times). Probably God's first inclination was best but he gave in to his children's request. And God did seem to think flooding the world wasn't such a good idea. But I certainly agree that we should trust the Bible as being true. I asked before what should we trust if we don't trust the Bible. I don't think there is a reasonable answer to that question.

Dear Seeking the Truth,

I have to agree with you on all points made.

In Balaam's second oracle Numbers 23:19 He states that:

God is not a human being, that he should lie,
or a mortal, that he should change his mind.
Has he promised, and will he not do it?
Has he spoken, and will he not fullfill it?

How could we trust G-D if he is "mind changing" G-D?

To me (as an obvious "conservative") The Bible is the truth from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. Things in the World are starting to unfold just as G-D said they would, even to this very day.

At the risk of maybe just repeating myself, I felt the need to comment more specifically on sections of “The Bible Trap” sermon. When I stated that I considered it dangerous to not believe what the Bible said, that seemed to put a label of “conservative” on me. Not that I don’t think that is true, but I think some of the concerns of being a conservative may be over-played in the sermon. If my point is being missed, maybe by addressing specific points in the sermon, my point will be made clearer.
Also please note, I agree with a great deal of this sermon. Its bottom-line points at the end are perfect. I didn’t comment below on points I agreed with (where’s the learning or fun in that?).
Sermon said:
 As you head toward the more conservative end of the spectrum, you find the attitude which used to be my own…that the Bible more or less came straight from the mouth of God, through the pen of human beings but without any of their own contribution. At that end of the spectrum the Bible is literally what God meant to say to all people for all time; and because God spoke it all and God is infallible, there can be no errors. When it is seen as being the exact word of God for all people, it can’t be interpreted in terms of the culture or age in which it was written.
Response:
 I can think of it as what God meant to say for all time and still interpret it. Jesus forced us to have to interpret his teachings because he only taught in parables. The Bible can be true and still need to be interpreted. I find that perfectly acceptable. What I find disturbing is not believing what the Bible says because we don’t know how to interpret it or we don’t like our current interpretation. If we don’t like our current interpretation, don’t label it as ‘must not be true’. I prefer to label it as something I can’t understand right now. Using the puzzle analogy, if I can’t figure out where a puzzle piece fits in, I don’t decide it isn’t part of the puzzle. I put it aside until I put more pieces of the puzzle together and I finally can figure out where it fits in.
Sermon said:
       For the extreme conservative, opening the Bible is almost sure to scare the pants off of you because God is asking you to rise to a standard that none of us can possibly reach and the fires of hell await us for eternity if we don’t.
Response:
        Maybe it is just because I’m not an extreme conservative, but I don’t see why this statement is true. Even a very literal interpretation tells us that we don’t have to be scared because Jesus died for our sins. We don’t have to be perfect, but we do need to repent. The only reason I would be scared would be because I didn’t know the whole story. Or I know the whole story and realize I haven’t done as guided by the Bible.
Sermon said:
       There are some places in the Bible that I believe are truths told for all time in all places and other things that I believe were written for a particular historical context. I think the verse that says, “God is love,” is an example of the former and the prohibition against women having authority in the church is an example of the latter. Women in first-century Palestine were not given religious education, and I see Paul saying simply that those who haven’t studied their subject shouldn’t teach it. Once the doors of religious education were opened to women, the specific prohibition against women having religious authority goes away.
Response:
 This conservative agrees. In this example, you have great reason to interpret what Paul said as you did. Even a literalist can do that. I have problems when someone dismisses what the Bible says just because they disagree, or it doesn’t sound fair to them, or they simply don’t want it to be true or they simply don’t understand it.
Sermon said:
        There are 66 different books of all sorts of literary types, written by all sorts of people…most of whom did not know each other or even live in the same historical period. There is history, poetry, letters, sermons, proverbs, songs, myth, and fable. It is sometimes straightforward, sometimes symbolic.
Response:
        The sermon probably should have clarified that most of the New Testament writers probably did know each other and did live at about the same time. I do dislike the sermon explicitly saying that the Bible contains “myth and fable”. How does anyone know that? And how does anyone draw the line between “myth and fable” and what is true. It is a lot easier not to make a major mistake by simply taking the Bible as true. How can that harm me? I can see how picking and choosing what to believe can cause great harm.
Sermon said:
        The Bible was written in two basic languages…ancient Hebrew for the Old Testament and ancient Greek for the New Testament. Both are dead languages, meaning that no one speaks them today.
Response:
       Isn’t it more likely that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (given that the writers were Hebrew) and that we only have Greek translations because that is what survived? The sermon didn’t explain why you brought up that they are dead languages. I assume you did that to suggest that the meaning may have been lost and to justify not believing all it says. I guess this is where my faith comes in. I can’t believe that God would give me a faulty guide book. It makes no sense.
Sermon said:
        God Having four different Gospels is no longer a problem for me, but is instead an invitation. This is our experience of God, say the Gospel writers…each in his own way.
Response:
 It is not a problem for this conservative either. Yes we get little different twists from different experiences, but the basic truths remain the same.
Sermon said:
       The trap that I used to be in was the trap of thinking that there was only one way to interpret the Bible…and I had better find out the right way or I was bound for hell.
Response:
 Are we debating whether the Bible is accurate and true or are we debating how we interpret the words? I think there is an important difference. Some parts don’t seem very interpretable. When you don’t believe them, that is where costly mistakes can be made. And yes, I believe there can be very costly mistakes by choosing not to believe some parts. And I’m not sure how anyone can confidently choose what to believe and disbelieve (again, different from interpret). I don’t think it is an interpretation not to believe in a final judgment; the separating of the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff. I think that is refusal to believe what you read. I’d like to discuss this some more. It is important to me.
Sermon said:
        If the Bible revealed God, and God was a living God, then the Bible had to be alive as well. If there were only one interpretation, set in stone for all time, then we don’t need a living God. God can just go on vacation and not worry about having to say or do anything ever again. We’ve got the whole message. We know what God has said, we know what it means, and there’s no need to say anymore.
Response:
        Not quite true. Most of us don’t know what the Bible says (which is why the Daily Walk is important)
Sermon said:
        But until they catch me and lash me to the stake, I will continue to say with Isaiah that the grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of the Lord endureth forever. Not endures as carved stone…as a graven image…but endures as the living word of a living God…speaking afresh to every person in every time and place.
Response:
 Yes, but endures as the truth. That doesn’t change and I’m not sure that God’s absolute truth is interpretable.
Sermon said:
        How do I know that? From the Bible’s own pages.
Response:
         Ditto

Another reason that Roy and I can get along just fine is that he is gracious. He can challenge my interpretations without calling my faith or my moral character into question. That's what healthy dialogue should look like. Conservatives and liberals need each other...the Bible challenges both and we always need the reminder of the other view. Thanks, Roy!

Sorry for the late "talkback", I've been off-line for a week. So everyone knows where I'm coming from, I consider Anne more liberal than myself. But, here's why we can both co-exist very nicely (and have some great conversations): She asked in her sermon how she knows what she is stating is true. She answered that question, "From the Bible’s own pages". That being the same place where I'm looking for the truth, the liberal and the conservative can get along. I'd also like to add that being on the conservative side doesn't mean everything has to be taken literally. After all, Jesus taught in parables. They have no meaning without being interpreted. And yes, I may have a different interpretation now than several years ago. That doesn't mean the Bible was wrong several years ago, or that my understanding of it was wrong. The same part of the Bible can have several true meanings depending on who is reading it. Bottom line, being more of a conservative there are parts of the sermon I would say differently. But in the end, as long as we are both using the Bible as our source of discovering the truth, we'll end up in the same place.

Just finished reading last week's sermon. I think it is very cool how your sermon match my Sunday School lesson which match our Daily Walk reading which matched Wayne's 11:00 discussion which matched our small group discussion. Although I believe what I read in the Bible, it just makes it that much more real when everybody is talking about the same thing. Not to mention how much easier it is to understand the message with all the various points being made. I think our approach to the Daily Walk is working out great. Thanks.

Well I'm just finishing up my Sunday school lesson for next week and I based it on your "Why be Good" sermon. Thanks for the material. Two thoughts came to mind as I was working on this. One has to do with Satin's claim that Job only praised God because of all Job had. It always seemed to me more folks turn to God when they have needs, not when they have abundance. But I guess the point is the same, turning to God for material wealth or want isn't a good reason. The other thought is how you would do a sermon titled, "Why Not Be Bad"? A look at this from the opposite point of view, worshiping or praising God only because you are afraid of the penalty of not doing it. I'm currently of the opinion that you would not preach about the penalty of being bad. Is that opinion accurate? Note that I believe that doing good because you are afraid of the penalty of being bad is just as worthless as being good so that you can get a reward; and that you can't scare people into worshiping God. But shouldn't we hear both sides of the story?

I didn't missed an excellent sermon today, thanks to you posting it. I like the comparison between physical and spiritual birth. It allows me to not worry quite as much as to whether or not I'm born again (I never really felt like I was). But since I meet the qualifications of being spiritually conceived, I can at least take comfort in seeing myself in the development stage. I'll settle for that and not worry about popping out. That will happen in its own time, as long as I keep trying to develop.

Hi Anne, it's been a couple months since I've read your sermons. Shame on me because you feed me from afar through your website. Earth, air, fire, and water may be common pagan elements, but even they point back to the Creator. You made that point well with the sermon for World Communion. I look forward to your next epistle. Thank you.

All good points; and I agree "doing" is very, probably most, important. But I'm not sure you didn't go a bit too far. The story on the road to Emmaus can be read as, first Jesus revealed to them the scriptures as they walked, then he revealed himself. Or better, you only became the run-away slave because you knew she had been there before you. If you went through the trap door with no knowledge of the house's history, or had you been wrongly informed that the hidden room was used by pirates to hide their treasure, you would of had a totally different experience. Knowledge was necessary for you to understand the truth of it all.

Thanks again for this chance to "talkback".

 
Great sermon, it plays well on emotion.
 
I don't mean to sound callous, but aside from the message of hope that Christian churches feel obligated to preach, we need to think about responsibility of action with N.O. The Jews seem to have figured this out long ago and reconciled it with religious teachings much better than Christians have. I digress. If you are told to flee Sodom and Gomorrah and not look back, then you should probably leave. Now I am not equating N.O. to S&G, nor am I equating but those people were told to leave. Many (not all, but many)of those who stayed in N.O. drove to the Superdome and had every intention of looting and creating havoc, regardless of the damage done by the storm. Americans love to believe that we are rescuing lily white virgins and poor, orphaned Websters when that is not the case. I truly feel sorry for those who were too poor or too sick to get out. I also feel that, regardless of the decision they made before the storm, people in trouble need to be helped. I am frustrated though by the talk about setting up a disaster relief fund for these people similar to the 9/11 fund. It was the choice/responsibility of those people to insure their own property and get themselves to safety (if possible), why do they deserve tax payer money for a failure to prepare? Any money we give directly to citizens based on this storm will encourage future acts of lunacy when other storms hit the U.S. "Just stick it out and we'll make $100k." I hope that some sense will prevail from this disaster once the realization hits of how preventable the human casualties were. I also agree that serious thought should be given to relocating N.O., not rebuilding it. If my tax money is going to be used, I want to vote!

Roy,
Thanks. Certainly I meant that it is the Body of Christ both here and around the world that provides the hope. Where I branch out a bit is that I think that just as there are those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, the opposite is also true. That is, there are those who live like Jesus did (or try to) without consciously professing the Christian faith. I think the confusion of the folks on both sides of the aisle in Matthew 25 speaks to that, as does Jesus saying that many will say "Lord, Lord" and he'll respond, "Who are you?"

While we are not saved by our works, I do think it is by their fruit that we shall know them, not by the profession of their mouths. So I try to be careful in my language. I think God's call is for every human being to live as Jesus lived and according to the principles that Jesus taught.

So to single out professing Christians as the only ones who could carry the work of Christ to the world in a situation like this, is more than I wanted to say. Sometimes Christian evangelism is encouraging people to behave like Jesus before they ever come to believe what Christian faith teaches about the nature and origin of Jesus. Some people believe their way into behaving and others, I think, behave their way into believing.

I hope this makes some sense.

To your other question, no I haven't advertised this website feature here in Westford. Good idea. I didn't think of it. No, you're not abusing the feature. I love the opportunity to discuss. In one church I did a service where we did that as part of the service. It's great to have the feedback.

Nice job. I think it helps a lot when the sermon is so closely tied to current events. I think your point that “such faith isn’t manufactured overnight” can’t be stressed too much. It is tough to suddenly find Jesus in a disaster if you have not looked for him in the good times.

I can’t think of how to word this right, so I’m just going to hope you can figure out what I mean: I was a little surprised of the line, “We are the hope…the people of America and members of the human family around the world..” I would of guessed that “Christian” would of came in there somewhere (not that only Christians can provide hope). Some people take John 3:16 and say that they are saved because they “believe”. Then they go live their life like anybody else. They miss that to believe requires action. “Love your neighbor as yourself” comes to mind as part of this sermon. More hope should come from us because of who we follow and what we believe…more than because we are Americans and members of the human family (so aren’t the snipers).

Did this feedback feature get announced anywhere? I’m surprised there hasn’t been more folks taking advantage of having a virtual Bible Study whenever they want one (or am I abusing this feature?).

Well, there's Romans 9:14-16, "What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy."

Related to that is Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." It doesn't address forgiveness directly, but helps to keep us humble when we think we know exactly how God will behave.

There is Jesus forgiving those who are killing him, as they are doing so and not after some act of repentance. There is the thief on the cross. Arguably he is repentant, but it points out that we can't know what goes on between a person and God in the moment of death. An old Spanish proverb comes at the same thing in saying, "There's a long way between the well and the water." It is referring to a person committing suicide, indicating that we can't know what a person does in their final moments, even seconds of life.

And of course there is Jesus telling the disciples to forgive 70x7...reminding us that no matter what God decides to do, our job is to forgive.

So those are some other directions to go.

Yep, I'll definitely use your answer (I hear this question every year). My only hesitation is that I like to answer questions by referring back to the Bible. As a background theme I have going, I'm trying to convince the kids that they need to know what the Bible says on a topic. They are going to hear conflicting guidance from reliable sources and I don't want them to take someone's word on what is right and wrong, truth or lie; I want them to go find out for themselves. So when they ask the question, 'Does God really send people to Hell', I like to also refer them to the Bible. My limited education brings me to the separation of the sheep and goats. I'll couch the reading by explaining your thoughts on our decisions moving us closer or further from God, but I think the reading is a must. Do you have other readings you think more/better/equally appropriate?

Roy,

An answer for Sunday School that is both "safe" and true is that 1. God is good and loves us. 2. God wants us to learn to be loving and good ourselves and gave us laws to show us how. 3. The God who loves us is our ultimate judge. Both vengeance and mercy are God's decisions, not ours. Our job is to love God, love others, love ourselves, and do our best. If we mess up, apologize, repent, make amends and try to do better. If someone hurts you, don't hold a grudge or strike back. Get help if you need it and turn it over to God.

"So will God send Osama bin Laden to hell?" they ask. "I don't know," I would answer. "That's up to God. God certainly wouldn't be happy about what he did. God will decide what is best."

Happy teaching!

Whew! Quite an answer. Thanks for taking so much time. I have way too many questions to get into it all here (and I don't think this is the right forum for a detailed discussion). I look forward to the topic emerging "again and again".

The thing that makes me feel most uncomfortable right now is that I may answer a question from one of my Sunday School students differently then you would. I'll do my best to let them know your position as best I understand it when that happens.

Roy, thanks for the note. I didn't post the piece from this past Sunday because of copyright issues and because I didn't yet figure out how to convey the music that went inbetween the spoken parts.

In any case, the book is Good Goats: Healing Our Image Of God by Dennis Linn. The main point of the book as a whole is that Christians have often been guilty of imagining God to be and do things that we would be horrified at in human behavior. We often have this message of "God loves you so much that God came in Jesus to die for you. And if you don't believe it, God will send you to hell to burn for eternity."

No matter what a person has done, the sin is limited in scope because we are human beings who are mortal...limited. Eternal punishment for limited sin doesn't even stand up to the "eye for an eye" Old Testament standard, let alone the "Father forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" standard set by Jesus.

In general, I think we have trouble imagining how God's justice and mercy can go together, and so we tend to jump on one bandwagon or another. Some go with "cheap grace," (do what you want and God will forgive you) while others are focused on the details of the law and if you cross a certain line you're done in, no matter what.

I agree that we pay too little attention to the standards God has set out for us. The question for me becomes how God's law is presented. You will not see me presenting them in a "Do this or else" style. That's not how God presented the Law to Israel. It was offered as a sign of the covenant, which Israel was free to either accept or reject.

Israel freely bound themselves to God's Law as a response to God's liberating action in freeing them from Egypt. I want to preach God's law in the same way...as the terms of the covenant we take upon ourselves when we respond to what God has done for us in Jesus. Israel broke the covenant many, many times...as has the Church. And yet the Bible is always returning to the promise of restoration. There is punishment and discipline, yes, but those are not ultimate. The recurring theme is restoration, streams in the desert, a new covenant that will be easier to keep.

Coming at it from another angle, it is the same reason that John Wesley opened the Communion table to everyone. He believed (as do I) that it was in experiencing the love and acceptance of God in the height of our sinfulness that we really came to understand what God's grace is all about, and that a changed life is the response to forgiveness, not a condition for it.

Of course it's a huge topic and one that will emerge again and again. Thanks for raising it!

Hi Anne. I was hoping to find the words you read between songs last week. I think it was the middle reading, from some book.....the story where the mother is picturing how she hopes her son will greated by God should he die without repentence. What was the message the story was trying to convey? It sounded like, 'it doesn't matter what you do in life because God loves you so much he will forgive you anyway'.

In what I think is a related comment, a few sermons ago, "Leaving It All", you wrote, "God was love not fear; freedom not law". OK, but to do God's will you need to follow God's law. I feel that is too often ignored; people end up making up their own laws; in effect creating their own God.

I hope my questions/comments aren't too cryptic. I'm trying to keep it short and not preach to a preacher.

erm me again :)

think I found an answer to one question I asked you

"in the next several weeks, we will be looking at what the Bible calls the "fruit of the Spirit." ... that sounds at least like you had a series of sermons on a topic rather than the lectionary readings. cool

a thought for Betsy

I always found it hard in Job that he lost all his children and yet it says God blessed him more than before.

I thought for a long time that if I lost my kids (I have two teenagers) that nothing God could give me could replace them, or bless me more.

but

I'm coming to that place that God does know best and I can trust Him even with my family.

Does that make any sense?

haven't been here before. Thanks for stoppping by my place Anne.

Can I ask do you follow the lectionary? and are the commenters usually people from your congregation?

Lorna // see-through faith

Edited by author 08-01-2005 09:32 PM
It's always a toss up for me whether to go with Matthew's version of the temptations with the kindly angels or the darker ending in Luke's version where Satan merely backs off "until a more opportune time." It seems the temptation to take the easy way out is repeated later in Jesus' ministry when Peter tells Jesus to quit talking about dying, and Jesus says, "Get behind me, Satan." Was that the "more opportune time"? Was it in Gethsemane? The mystery of the Luke passage always intrigues me. But then I like the angels, too. They're probably grateful Jesus didn't do the jumping off the temple thing!

Thank you for your comments.

Thanks for posting your sermons. I always disliked missing sermons (particularly every time I taught Sunday School) and this gives me a way around that problem.

Speaking of Sunday School, I have often used Jesus' temptations as a lesson. Now I have more I can bring into the lesson. Thanks. Teaching older students, if I have one point I try to get across to them is that they need to read the scriptures themselves. The temptations helped me make that point by pointing out that even the devil will use scripture to mislead people. And unless they know the whole story for themselves, they too can be easily mislead. Then I love how the angels do come and tend to Jesus, just as the scripture the devil quoted said they would. They just did it in God's time, after Jesus passed the temptations. Not what would have been Jesus' time if he had jumped.

Ref.: Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

The worst three lies I have heard in my life time were said to justify wars. They are:

1. The incident which triggered World War II was the fake, simulated attack by the Germans on their own radio station near Gleiwitz on the Polish border. To make it appear that the attacking force consisted of Poles, condemned German criminals from a nearby concentration (protective custody) camp were dressed in Polish uniforms then shot and their bodies placed in strategic positions around the radio station. A Polish-speaking German then did a broadcast from the station to make it appear that Poland had attacked first.


2.
Media Beat (7/27/94)

By Norman Solomon

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese



3
. In Baghdad, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan yesterday denied reports Iraq is trying to collect materials for nuclear weapons and building up sites once targeted by U.N. weapons inspectors. He told the Associated Press that such claims were "lies" by the United States and Britain to justify an attack on his country.
  
"There is no such a thing. They are telling lies and lies to make others believe them." He predicted the "whole world" will oppose the United States if it attacks. [Sept. 9 2002 The Washington Post]
 ----------------------------------------------
My comment: War mongers need to be liars. The bigger the lie, the more people are likely to believe it.

Helmut

Thou Shall Not Kill,

I strongly agree, that politics must be a concern for every Christian and also a concern for the church.

I also think as Ann said in her sermon, that the commandment thou “shall not kill”
Is a very complicated matter.

In this universe life exists always at the expense of other life.

But that does not apply in the case of capital punishment. Here a life is deliberately taken without saving any other life or for that matter benefiting anybody.
It has long been agreed by virtually all sociologists that capital punishment does not reduce the murder rate. The only justification we can bring is, that justice demands that a person is to be put to death.

But justice is not at the apex of moral values.

 Most of us heard the story of the young girl who asks a wise old rabbi, whether God does pray. His answer: :” O yes, God prays every morning :
‘ May my mercy and grace be always greater than my desire for justice.’ ”

About two weeks ago the US Supreme Court decided 4 to 5 that the death penalty for persons under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual.

I sighed a breath of relief: Finally!!!

But it is not an occasion to shout for joy, because:

· Ours was the last country in the world which outlawed capital punishment for minors.
· The 5 to 4 decision – with the Chief Justice among the 4 who voted against banning the death penalty for minors - is shameful.
· The ruling still leaves the American Justice System by far the cruelest among all the nations which Bush claims that they share our values.
· We are the only one among the above mentioned countries which has the death penalty.. In all the 25 countries of the European Union it is outlawed. Russia has abolished it. Mexico has no death penalty and Canada does not have it either. And now Turkey is outlawing it too, to make the country eligible to join the EU.
· We still execute mentally ill people which is also a violation of human rights.
· Our justice system violates human rights is many other ways;
· Minors as young as 11 years old can be prosecuted as adults and given a life sentence without a chance of parole.
· If we add to the sad list the shenanigans the present administration uses to circumvent American and international law in its fight against terrori