:: in a mirror dimly ::

The Biblical Roots of Revival: The Case for Lakewood

ed — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:40:29 +0000

Who would you rather follow: someone who can quote lots of Bible verses or someone who lives out the words of scripture?

It’s not too hard of a choice.

One has mentally organized the words of scripture, while the other is living in the power of the Holy Spirit because he believed in the words of scripture, and God has decided to use him. One is able to tell you about the new life God gives, and one is able to impart it to you. One may change your mind, but the other may change your life.

A revival has broken out in Lakeland, FL through the ministry of Todd Bentley, and the usual skeptics are speaking out against this manifestation of God. Most who condemn these events have not participated in them in person, and this will especially be true for Lakeland because it’s broadcast on God TV. Curiously, miracles are happening over the internet, over the phone, and over the TV, but the problem is one need only watch a few minutes, find it unfamiliar and uncomfortable, and then write it off completely. The skepticism of “Bible-Answer Man” Hank Hanegraaff that this is all false hope doesn’t help.

To be frank, he knows not of what he speaks. Hank doesn’t know his Bible as well as he boasts.

I haven’t been to the Toronto or Lakewood Revivals, but I have experienced and witnessed some of what’s happening. A minister in healing and words of knowledge prayed over my legs and healed one that was out of line. I have received powerful prayer for emotional pain and been completely overwhelmed with what I can only described as a cleansing sobbing. I’ve been involved in prayer ministry where those receiving prayer become incredibly hot as the Holy Spirit cleanses them. I’ve seen these same people gently fall backwards onto the floor.

It’s different from what I grew up with, but I never found anything wrong with healing, the manifestation of the Spirit, and falling backwards. Instead of hitting this outpouring with unbelief, we should at least be glad that God is working to heal some people, even if we’re not going to partake in it… However I’m reminded of something used to chant when I was a Catholic, “If today you hear his voice, harden not your heart.”

When we reject revival, we often think of frauds who rely more on the show, on the donations that pour in, and on flashy preachers. There are plenty of these out there, just as you’ll find people who abuse the Bible to teach false doctrines and to preach the prosperity Gospel. Just because the gifts of the Spirit are abused, I don’t think we need to write them off completely, just as we wouldn’t write off the Bible after it’s been misused. If you do some digging, you’ll find that Todd Bentley is a pretty average guy whom God powerfully delivered from drugs, alcohol, Satanic worship, and just about every other vice. He’s loud and charismatic, but I think there’s a marked difference here because he’s really just trying to go where he senses the leading of the Spirit. Here is what his own ministry has to say about him:

The passion of Todd’s life and ministry: is to see others set free through the anointing of the Holy Spirit and to see others come into the reality of intimate relationship with Jesus. He also desires to see Christ’s body healed, equipped and rising up in the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the great commission.

We don’t have to like it, but we don’t have to be against it. Right after Jesus’ disciples argued about who was going to be the greatest, they tried to stop someone who wasn’t part of their group from driving out demons. Jesus surprised them by saying,

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.” Mark 9:39-41

So Bentley is doing miracles in the name of Jesus, and he certainly is not blaspheming God in the next moment. So what’s the big deal? Bentley is just obediently carrying on the ministry of Jesus:

At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” Luke 7:21-23

And if that’s what Jesus did, he promised the his followers would do the same:

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. John 14:10-14

The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed. Acts 5:12-16

And so we are left with our reasons for wanting to condemn Lakewood, and all I can find is the problem of unfamiliarity and the problem that started on a cool evening in a garden when Adam and Eve hid from God. Sure these manifestations are different and outside the norm. Sure it’s uncomfortable. Sure we have to face our sin and deception. Isn’t it easier to claim to follow Jesus just by reading the Bible, learning the Bible, and keeping God himself at arms-length? In fact, I think that is exactly what happens when we fight to keep God back.

Along those lines, I have a verse for those skeptical of the Holy Spirit’s work:

“And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” John 5:37-40

I’m not trying to call anyone’s commitment to Christ into question here. Only you and the Lord can figure that out. But I am criticizing a commitment to study the scriptures and to then reject the real life work of the Holy Spirit. It is a very good thing to study the Bible, but without the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives the words of scripture are just text on a page and not the new life that God wants to unleash in our lives. Lakewood is just one example of how God’s Spirit wants to work in our lives, and Jesus warned us against rejecting the move of God.

I am deeply saddened by all of this skepticism at a time of healing and restoration. It is terrible to see some followers of Christ so close to the truth, so close to the full, abundant life of God (which I believe this passage of John is about), and yet keeping the true power and healing of God at arms-length. I don’t want to get too sappy, but I earnestly plead with those who doubt this to first of all commit to not make unnecessary enemies of fellow believers. Please hold back your condemnation and look into it, remembering that if it’s from God it will produce fruit, but if it is not from God it will fall apart (see Acts 5:33-39). Secondly, I ask that you open yourself to God and whatever he may have for you. You just never know what will happen.

On a final note, I have tried to avoid condemnation of skeptics such as Hanegraaff, but I feel it is important to remind ourselves of the warning scripture gives us when we condemn the work of the Holy Spirit.

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Matthew 12:30-32

You can argue that I have misapplied this passage, but it occurs in the context of healing a demon-possession, so we’d best pay attention to the warning of Jesus. When the Holy Spirit is at work and we speak against the Holy Spirit, we are treading in dangerous territory. Doubting is one thing, but speaking against the work of the Holy Spirit appears to be far more serious.

I pray that those who call on the name of the Lord may be strengthened by this time of healing and restoration. All glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Technorati tags: lakewood, revival, bentley, florida, healing, miracles, ministry, Bible, Christians, Toronto

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Advertisement: South West Vermont dot com An authoritative blogged guide to South West VT

The Coffeehouse Theology "Line" of Books

ed — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:45:15 +0000

I now have 3 little blips on the Amazon.com radar.

First off we have the main book, Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life, my lay-level introduction to contextual theology.

Then we have the Coffeehouse Theology Bible Study Guide that digs into the scripture passages mentioned in the main book, fleshing out biblical guidelines for contextual theology.

Lastly, I push the envelope a little bit with a exploration of select topics in the Contemporary Issues Study Guide. War, race, terrorism, social justice, gender equality, and more show up in this guide that applies theology to a number of pressing issues for today.

By the way, if you swing by Amazon to have a look, check out the graphic in the top right corner of the Contemporary Issues Study Guide. There’s a coffee cup with a halo and wings! Someone on the design team at NavPress should be getting a bonus!

Technorati tags: theology, cyzewski, coffeehouse, contextual, Christianity

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Advertisement: edcyz.com :: Freelance writing :: Nonprofit Support :: Communications

The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: A Review

ed — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:28:31 +0000

Christians are known for inflicting damage on themselves from time to time, sticking many feet in many mouths, and coming up with some outlandish claims, especially when they try to play “prophet” while reading the newspaper headlines. However, Christianity has come under attack by a group often known as the new atheists through a series of books such as the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and A Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. Who will stand up for God and the Christian faith?

Reporter, writer, and satirist Becky Garrison who ably wields her MDiv from Yale steps into the ring to take on these atheist crusaders, who have set out to undermine religion, in her book The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail. Garrison is a Christian writer who contributes to the God’s Politics blog, serves as contributing editor to the Wittenburg Door, among other projects. Though not a scientist, Garrison is an able researcher who carefully steps through the various levels involved in this issue: science, religion, politics, and some pretty flimsy, overblown accusations the new atheists level against Christians.

Keep in mind that while Garrison is fighting the new atheists’ writings toe-to-toe, she’s not setting out to attack them personally. By adopting a kind of zany, light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek tone, Garrison avoids a combative tone, opting instead to kind of playfully slap around the views of the new atheists. She doesn’t deal a knock-out blow, but carefully picks them apart with a wide smile, revealing the foolish bits of their arguments, while never leaving behind a bloody opponent on the mat.

You could call it a humane mercy-killing of the new atheists.

In addition, Garrison uses her journalistic expertise to assemble a carefully chosen group of scientists and religion experts to stand in her corner. She even finds atheists who want nothing to do with the closed-minded new atheists, but rather want a friendly, civil discussion about whether or not God exists (201). With friendly atheists, theologians, God-believing scientists, and Christian activists in her corner, she unleashes round after round of exploration and analysis of the new atheists. While the new atheists may dismiss Garrison because she’s not credentialed into the academic elite, I assure you this book is a knock-out blow to the new atheists brand.

Garrison isn’t so much concerned about debunking all atheists though. She presents plausible explanations about God that will make any atheist think twice, but she isn’t concerned so much with winning a fight to prove God once and for all. I stress this because many apologetic Christian books can adopt a combative, us vs. them tone. Garrison isn’t up to that here. Rather, she’s picking apart the sensational, absolutist claims of the new atheists (I’m stressing the italics here!) who misrepresent God and religion.

What did Garrison find? I’ll tell you:

First of all, the new atheists sound absolutely ridiculous when they talk about Christians or the Bible. In fact, they sound as bad as some Christian theologians who try to explain evolution. Yes, it’s that bad. Dawkins lists Keenan Roberts, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and Fred Phelps in his line-up of Christians in the mainstream, to which Garrison almost lost her lunch (52-53). Garrison experienced similar difficulty with food when she ran into Dawkin’s explanation of the Old and New Testaments (169).
The new atheists generally seem to think religion should be eliminated altogether and in this sense advocate a kind of atheistic fundamentalism. Some are extreme on this point. Same Harris states “Religious dogmatism impedes medical research, starts wars, diverts scarce material and intellectual resources–in short, it gets people killed” (49). Such a statement is an example of the kind of over-the-top sensationalism employed by the new atheists. Journalist Chris Hedges, a liberal Christian who fears conservative Christians (see American Fascists), remarked during a book tour to promote I Don’t Believe in Atheists that he would never again debate Sam Harris because of his use of inflammatory rhetoric and shameless overstatements that render discussion impossible. Garrison has a field day picking apart this dangerous absolutism in the atheist camp.
A willful ignorance that atheist societies are just as likely to commit atrocities as religious societies.

I could go on, but you get the point. Even if the new atheists have some legit issues with explaining the existence of God, their methodology and tactics are often left wanting. I’ll stress again that Garrison is no straw-man stuffing farm girl. She’s a gifted researcher and writer who no doubt favors the Christian view of things, but has no trouble with atheists and even shares a great interview at the end of the book with Hemant Mehta, something every Christian should read. I hope they republish this interview in Christianity Today or some other widely read Christian magazine at some point because Christians need to engage in discussions with thoughtful atheists such as Mehta.

Of course some folks won’t like this book: the kind of people who would much rather read the books Garrison cites. Well, the good news is that the people who wouldn’t like this book have plenty of options. However, and here is the genius of Garrison, this book connects with a wide range of readers. It fills the void often left open when a scholar claims to have published a book for the common lay person, but we all know that Mrs. Jones our Sunday school teacher or our high school youth group would never pick up such a book.

The New Atheist Crusaders is the kind of book I could give to my sisters in high school, my friends from college, my parents, or even some friends from seminary. It’s not going to be on the book list for say a seminary class, but it will be read by many, many Christians and it will make books most would never touch suddenly accessible. This is the kind of book we need, taking the best of scholars and making it accessible, relevant, and, best of all, fun. I won’t say I couldn’t put it down, but I certainly stayed up late reading it when I should have gone to sleep.

Technorati tags: garrison, atheists, dawkins, harris, God, Christians

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

The Evangelical Manifesto: A Lesson in National Pride

ed — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:06:45 +0000

A group of Evangelicals recently released a manifesto detailing some goals for Evangelicals today that include recommitting our focus on the Gospel, untangling ourselves from partisan politics, and immersing ourselves in social justice–by way of naming a few points from a rather lengthy and complex document. I appreciate what they’re trying to do and I respect those who wrote and signed it. Evangelicals are such a slippery, diverse, and evolving movement that no one document or group could hope to exhaustively catch every nuance (though some have pointed out faults).

The reason for the Manifesto is as follows:

“For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform—an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.”

Not a bad goal. Not a bad document from what I’ve read and read about it. Not a bad call for the leaders who wanted to set a new course since leaders are supposed to stick their necks out, take the lead, and let others follow. On the plus side, we now have an official document we can point to if we’re accused of being too political or lacking in compassion. We can now say, “Look, we’ve got people trying to steer us on a new course.” It’s worth a shot!

While we could pick this thing apart all day and snipe at bits and pieces… I have one concern. Do we really think America is the center of Christianity today? Well, it’s the center of the magazine Christianity Today, but I’m wondering if India, South Africa, and heck the whole continent of South America may have something to teach us since there are plenty of Evangelicals there (Mark Knoll says as much in beginning of The Rise of Evangelicalism). The Evangelical movement may have started in Europe and then moved over to America, but we’re not the only ones living this stuff.

When the Nicene Creed was written, Christians from all over the known world gathered together. Travel was tough and treacherous in those days. With e-mail it wouldn’t be that hard to include some global voices in the statement. I’m guessing we would have ended up with a better notion of how to mix faith and justice together and a lot more about the role of the Holy Spirit. Just a hunch.

It’s funny, we really want to change the course of Evangelicalism in America, but we’re not seeking help from those who can help us the most. Ah, the American “can-do” spirit!

Technorati tags: evangelical, america, manifesto, Christianity, creed

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Isaiah’s War on Hunger

ed — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:39:20 +0000

Americans love to fight a war against something. The war on drugs, the war on underage drinking, the war on terror: all of these describe movements of concerted action against something or someone. War is nasty business really, and I wonder sometimes if we could find a better way to describe our aims, however, if war is what we want…

While washing the dishes from last night’s dinner, I had a thought about all of our war-mongering. I thought that perhaps Isaiah was talking about ending our wars against one another and launching a war against hunger in God’s perfect future.

Have a look at this:

Isaiah 2:3-5

3 Many peoples will come and say,
       “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
       to the house of the God of Jacob.
       He will teach us his ways,
       so that we may walk in his paths.”
       The law will go out from Zion,
       the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 He will judge between the nations
       and will settle disputes for many peoples.
       They will beat their swords into plowshares
       and their spears into pruning hooks.
       Nation will not take up sword against nation,
       nor will they train for war anymore.

5 Come, O house of Jacob,
let us walk in the light of the LORD.

So in God’s perfect future there will be justice, so no one will ever want to attack each other. God will settle any pretense we can think of for war. However, I think we can learn something today from the conversion of warfare into farming.

While we never want to ignore the importance of the peace the Christ brings, and hence should never lose the importance of sharing the Gospel, this business of changing from swords to plowshares is captivating. Instead of warring with one another, Isaiah’s vision is one where we fight against hunger. We wage a full-scale war to produce and distribute food.

When I go to the super market I pass the food pantry donation bin. They usually provide a list of what is most needed. At a time with rising fuel and food prices, food pantries are being hit hard with al of those struggling to make ends meet. This business of fighting to make sure those experiencing hunger can be satisfied clicks with my American sensibilities. Perhaps a war on hunger is what we need in place of a war on terror.

Even if I’m mangling the meaning of Isaiah, which I don’t think I’m doing too badly on, we have to admit that Jesus prefers we feed the hungry when we meet them. Remember that bit in Matthew 25:37? If I may be so bold to say it, our salvation depends on it…

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Advertisement: South West Vermont dot com An authoritative blogged guide to South West VT

Evangelicals on the Decline, Or on the Shift?

ed — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:26:53 +0000

While browsing at the Northshire Bookstore I came across The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church by Christine Wicker. If you swing by the book’s Amazon page there is quite a list of endorsers.

I did a pre-read, which means I read the back, inside flap, and table of contents. Hopefully English teachers are still instructing their students in this art. So I can’t say I’ve read the book, but from what I can see at this point, she hits on something that a lot of Evangelicals have probably known: the supposedly strong Evangelical church is rotting a bit on the inside even in the midst of its national profile. Some churches are declining in attendance and numbers appear to be dwindling.

What gives?

If you’re aware of the emerging, house church, Christians-outside-of-church, missional church, and other rumblings on the edges of Evangelicalism and beyond you’re probably aware that dissatisfaction is quite high in some Evangelical circles. For many this branch of the church is still a breath of fresh air. For some who have been breathing it in for a while, we’re sick of some of it. Not all of it, just parts of it.

And that’s the thing about Evangelicalism: it’s been evolving for years. In fact, the attention that Evangelicalism pays to its surrounding culture is perhaps its greatest asset and the reason why its been around since the early 1700’s (set up in the 1600’s by the pietists on the European continent and our other religious thinkers in Great Britain). Evangelicals have some basic tenets in common, but over time we end up looking rather different at times.

Which brings me to my point. I believe that the incarnation of Evangelicals we have known is on its way out. However this movement will keep on in some form because that is what Evangelicalism as a movement has always done. We’ve been adapting, responding, and reimagining. The heros of our past were the dangerous doctrinal radicals of their times, and so we have thinkers today who push the limits, but are actually setting the stage for the next incarnation of Evangelical Christianity.

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Advertisement: edcyz.com :: Freelance writing :: Nonprofit Support :: Communications

Wright and Obama: Juggling Race, Politics, and Theology

ed — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:42:30 +0000

With all of the flap over Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama in the news lately, we really have a perfect storm of sorts as far as stories go. It’s a mix of politics, race, and religion. I still believe that the media is completely ruining this story in many ways and Obama and Wright are in extremely difficult situations. I’d like to try and cut through some of the hype and misinformation out there.

First of all, it is essential to either read or listen to Rev. Wright himself on Bill Moyers or his speech at the National Press Club. I don’t agree with everything Wright has to say, but I agree with a lot of it. Even if he’s wrong on some points, he presents clear arguments for his views. Like them or not, he’s entitled to them.

Here’s the problem. Obama isn’t really fighting Wright. He’s fighting sound bits and public perception of Wright. Wright isn’t really fighting Obama. He’s fighting a very real hostility toward the black church and the injustices that he sees in the world. He’s fighting the media and the those who twist his words.

Obama’s Problem

Obama is intelligent. He gives well-thought-out, nuanced speeches that dig into the heart of issues. His refusal to play along with the cut of the Federal gas tax shows he’s willing to stand up for the big picture, even if it doesn’t look good in the short term. Some analysts believe his voting record bears out this kind of thinking.

In other words, Obama doesn’t always play well with sound bits. Part of that is a shortcoming in his communication: reducing his ideas to simple phrases the media can pass on to those who either don’t have the time to look up the context or don’t care. As I’m insinuating, part of the problem is our unwillingness to look into the larger picture he presents.

When Obama denounces Wright, my take is that he’s making a very broad, general statement that will cover him against any simpleton on cable TV twisting his words. Any qualifier may be exploited as a chink in the armor. In other words, he can’t accept part of Wright’s remarks because the media wants to know if he supports or renounces Wright. That’s it. Either he’s in or out. Of course Obama has to say he’s out. Wright makes some explosive accusations that he would never make on his own. The media has foolishly tried to drop Wright’s words into Obama’s mouth verbatim, so of course Obama has to renounce the words of his former minister.

Once again, I could dig up reasons to not vote for Obama, but the words of his minister are simply ridiculous.

Wright’s Problem

Jeremiah Wright faces a very different problem. He has to speak up for the black church, and his own congregation in particular. Small bits of his sermons are being plastered all over the web and now he has to explain them. To make matters worse, he’s dropping some bad news on people–sharing things about America that run counter to our narrative of America as a just nation. I don’t envy his position.

We can debate the timing, but Wright felt the need to stand up for his church. Can anyone really blame him? We don’t have to like what he says to have sympathy for his position.

Technorati tags: obama, wright, theology, black+church, politics

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

The Old Testament God and the Destiny of Humanity: If Only God Did…

ed — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:36:44 +0000

I have spent time over the past two months thinking through the general flow of the Old Testament, trying to make sense of the perspective presented of God and humanity. The Old Testament can be troubling for some to read. From the early Christian heresies that categorized the Old Testament into a completely different religion with a different God from the gracious God of the New Testament, to Thomas Jefferson who clipped together his own version of the Bible, to skeptics today who can’t believe that God would send a flood or order Israel to attack the Canaanites.

I don’t have easy answers, but I think I understand a little bit better what is going on, though I must begin with a rather large disclaimer. No one should ever think he/she has God figured out. Also, scripture repeatedly cautions us from taking the position of interrogator of God. We can try to figure things out provided that we realize we’re trying to understand the infinite God and that we are his creation. God is certainly personal, but we have to remember our place in any kind of theology.

I’d like to begin with some usual lines of thinking about God…

I call this the “If only God did…” line of reasoning. People speak this way all of the time and have done so throughout scripture. We hear people say if only God would do a miracle, speak in an audible voice, or come down to earth among us, we would surely listen.

Would we?

History tells us otherwise. The Old Testament is in fact filled with stories with God speaking directly to people and doing incredible miracles: moving oceans, sending plagues, and guiding Israel with pillars of cloud and fire. God speaks to lots of people directly throughout the Old Testament. Doesn’t that sound rather definitive? In the New Testament Jesus shows up as God on earth. He does miracles, but the religious leaders don’t buy it.

Would we really respond any differently? Couldn’t we always find reasons to doubt? Unfortunately we will always find a way to doubt God. The Old Testament starts to make a little more sense if we see it as God’s constant struggle to reach out to a doubting humanity, people who place all manner of obstacles in the way of worshipping God. God is trying to break through the religious and cultural norms in order to rescue humanity from itself.

Things end up becoming rather difficult as the people fail to recognize God’s overtures, and that is what we’ll look at next.

Technorati Tags: old+testament - God

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

When Peter Was Demoted

ed — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:18:45 +0000

In digging around the letters by the apostle Peter lately I noticed a rather striking change in his introduction when comparing 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

1 Peter 1:1

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1

“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ”

In the NLT,which I happened to be reading, the word “servant” was “slave,” which gives a stronger sense of Peter’s change. So what exactly happened? Was Peter demoted?

In a sense, I wonder if Peter demoted himself, realizing what it meant to be a true apostle. Perhaps I make too much of this, but notice that servant/slave comes before apostle. Something radical has happened to Peter in between the writing of these two letters and he makes a huge change in how he thinks of himself.

These words of Peter embody the message of Jesus that the greatest must be the servant (Matthew 23:11).

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Advertisement: South West Vermont dot com An authoritative blogged guide to South West VT

Wright Gives a Speech and We Should Care Just Because the Media Reports It

ed — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:07:16 +0000

All Things Considered yesterday provided a great deal of analysis of the latest remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Barack Obama who was at the center of a controversy about his remarks in a sermon that included the phrase, “God damn America.” The report shared the following:

He [Wright] said he was quoting an ambassador to Iraq in that sermon, although he did not give the ambassador’s name.
“Jesus said, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’” Wright added. “You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic, divisive principles.”
Wright said the comment captured on YouTube — in which he says, “Not God bless America, but God damn America” — was taken out of context.
“God doesn’t bless everything,” he said. “God damns some practices, and there’s no excuse for the things that the government — not the American people — have done. That doesn’t make me not like America or unpatriotic.”

Also key to his defense, Wright spoke of black theology and preaching as different, not hostile or bombastic (See Time Magazine as well)

After this report NPR provided some analysis by two senators, one who supported Obama and one who supported Clinton. Curiously they both initially remarked that this controversy has gone on for too long and lamented the way the media has handled it.

I couldn’t agree more. While our candidates should be scrutinized carefully, I think it goes too far to overanalyze a sound byte from a sermon that Obama didn’t even hear. Also, we can’t drop everything Wright says into Obama’s mouth. We can question him about it and be concerned about his beliefs in relation to his pastor, but everything has been blown out of proportion.

There are plenty of things we can scrutinize about Obama without digging into his pastor’s sermons. Let’s look at what he himself has said. I know I don’t agree with every single thing my own pastor has said, and I know that even if I agree with my pastor, there are times when he may say things differently than I would have said them.

Both campaigns recognize this has been blown out of proportion, when will the media catch on?

Technorati Tags: Obama - Wright - religion - America

Got a Few More Minutes? Check Out These Posts

Advertisement: edcyz.com :: Freelance writing :: Nonprofit Support :: Communications