Nixon’s Reaction to Roe v. Wade / Nixon’s racism:
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”
Abolish the Bank of England
List of Christian Libertarian websites
This will be the final article in this series on the importance of fellowship. It also serves as a summary of the nature and motivation of fellowship. Read the other parts here:
Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction
Unconditional Love
I need not list here the incredible plethora of biblical passages dealing with the primacy and importance of love. But I want to talk a little bit about biblical love in fellowship versus other kinds of “love” between people which often gets erroneously classified with biblical love.
Briefly, in order to quickly define biblical love, we need only look at the gospel. God loved us so much, despite our deliberate and aggressive rebellion against him, that he chose to provide his own son for our salvation. The key for this topic of love is this - that we were at enmity with God when he saved us. We didn’t become righteous enough and then God forgave us. We did not make the first move, God did (1 John 4:19).
This is unconditional love. If the gospel were conditional, we would all blow it (again, and again, and again). Fortunately, God has made a unilateral contract with us that we cannot break. The very nature of this contract is one-sided - if God has chosen to save us, then we cannot thwart God. There is nothing we can do to nullify the contract, and we had no requirement to first initiate the contract. The only thing God pounced on was our need for forgiveness.
Contractual “Love”
In human society, and also in some biblical cases, there is also contractual love. This is most simply defined as an “if/then” kind of love. If party A does X, then party B will do Y. If my friend John will listen to me complain about my job, then I will buy John’s beers tonight.
Sometimes unconditional love is confused with contractual love. For example, Christians might acknowledge that God has provided salvation by his grace, but then also believe that we can “lose” our salvation or otherwise nullify it by our actions. Somewhere in their mind, a unilateral contract has been turned into an if/then contract. It should be noted that, ironically, I have never seen someone make this statement about themselves - it is always made about someone else: a friend, a neighbour, even a celebrity. In other words, it is a shift that conveniently allows one to claim they prefer grace, whilst allowing them to simultaneously practice god-like judgement.
It is also a way to make sense of grace - which is a difficult concept to grapple with - especially with our eye-for-an-eye sense of justice. Unmerited favour is tough to get one’s head around. Sometimes importing more understandable concepts can help us get our bearings. Unfortunately, it can also be heresy.
The Love in Fellowship
As you may have guessed, fellowship requires unconditional love, not contractual love. We are to love other believers in the same way that God has loved us. We are to forgive other believers in the same way God has forgiven us. Between Christians, we are not to have if/then love.
I was listening to a teaching online where a pastor was going through Luke 17. This pastor used verse four to justify not forgiving other believers. Here’s the passage (Luke12:3-4):
3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”
This pastor took the passage to mean that if believers do not repent of their sin, we don’t have to forgive them. I thank God that he doesn’t have the same philosophy as this pastor!
Jesus forgave those murdering him, despite their lack of repentance. Whilst Stephen was being stoned to death by men full of anger and hatred, he cried out that God would forgive them. The fact is that all God requires of us is our sin. Repentance is our acknowledgement of that sin - “to say the same thing” in the Greek. Repentance is simply realising that we have sinned.
But even still, the Luke 17 passage is not saying if/then in the contractual sense. The “if” in Luke 17 is used the same way we would use “if” in order to tell a hypothetical story or share an anecdote. It is like saying, “If a man walks into a cafe and pays $2, you should give him a coffee.” The “if” denotes that we are dealing with a hypothetical scenario. For Jesus to have meant “if” as an exclusive conditional, then he would have said “only if he repents, forgive him.”But Christ was sharing a scenario reminding us to forgive, not making excuses for petty keeping of grudges (which God himself doesn’t follow).
Consider marriage. A marriage is made up of two sets of unilateral contracts. The vows do not go, “if you bear with me in sickness and in health, I will will bear with you until death do us part.” Rather, the husband and wife issue vows to one another unilaterally. My loving my wife is not conditional on her submission to me. My wife’s submission to me is not conditional on me loving her. I am to forgive my wife whenever she wrongs me regardless of whether she’s sorry or repents because I have made a vow that I will.
Fellowship And Individualism
Individualism actually plays a critical role in fellowship then. Because our fellowship-love is unilateral and unconditional, then conflicts, problems and barriers to fellowship always start with one’s self. We have to ask ourselves what we can change, repent of or do in order to break down barriers to fellowship. It is not our place to begin judging and condemning others first.
If I am angry at my wife, then rather than deal with her problems and sins against me, I am to first deal with my own sin. And, I need to forgive. The process of looking at our own hearts should reveal our own sin-nature, reminding us of the gospel. This should then remind us to forgive others who have wronged us - because Christ forgave us when we have wronged him so much greater.
Individual responsibility is critical here. Forgiveness is all about my attitudes and my sin - it has nothing to do with the actions, motives, statements or personality of others. The repentance of others does not enable me to forgive - it makes it easier - no question, but repentance is not a barrier to forgiveness.
The calling of Christ, and the burden of unconditional love, is to forgive even when it is most difficult - where others are outright at enmity with us. God has forgiven us, despite the gravity of our sin.
Defense Department sees protests as terrorism:
Antiterrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense teach that public protests should be regarded as “low level terrorism,” according to a letter of complaint sent to the department today by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
Former AmeriCorps Official Says Obama Removed Him for ‘Doing My Job‘
Keep some of that extra weight, it might be helpful afterall
The 11 people every youth group needs
This is part of an eight part series on the importance of fellowship. Read the other parts here:
Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction
I’d like to qualify a term that I am going to throw around in this peice:
anti-fellowship: the building up of barriers and walls between believers that discourage biblical fellowship; often through - but not exclusively limited to - traits, traditions, attitudes and outright lies that that Christians tell themselves and one another to avoid and thwart fellowship and it’s fruit in their lives.
One of the most significant contributions to anti-fellowship is dishonesty. It is a major problem with the church, and I will qualify “in the church” as meaning - individual bible-believing, born again Christians. We lie. We lie to ourselves of course - convincing ourselves that we are good people, that we’re smart, that we’re popular (etc…). But I am specifically speaking about the lies we project - the deliberate misrepresentation of who we are and what were about to other Christians.
Lia, Liar - But Your Pants Aren’t On Fire (Because You’re Saved)
John talks about this dishonesty (John 1:8-10):
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
The language in John’s epistles always struck me as awkward, even harsh at times - is he really calling some Christians liars? Is really saying things like - “his word is not in us” and meaning actual Christians? I used to chalk John’s harsh words up to those “obviously” fake Christians and never even began to think that they could apply to me or people like me, who are saved, perhaps even in ministry, believe in the bible and go to decent churches.
But John is just articulating the obvious - we don’t want to admit we’re sinners, that we have needs or that we’re immature. John also is reminding us of the severity of our sin problems. But lastly, John is also telling us that we have indwelling sin and a propensity to hide, ignore and deny our sin nature.
This is a reason we avoid fellowship. The lies we have told to ourselves and to others will be exposed by fellowship. For example, even though someone may never say “I never gossip and am generally trustworthy” they might have this view of themself. They might go to great lengths both deliberately and out of habit to appear to be righteous and good. At some point in this process, they convince themself that they really have “conquered gossip” and are somehow without sin in the area.
A person who has become this deluded is going to have a crashing revelation when either they realise themself, or someone points out to them, that actually they are sinning and have not, in fact, conquered anything. Obviously this “crashing” can be made worse by judgemental friends and leadership, or by confrontational/angry rebukes. But these are separate sins, and while important, ultimately have no linked, causal or excusable relationship to the first sin(s). And this original sense of exposure and judgement is completely fabricated - John tells us so. The cure to sin is not our righteousness, but confessing our sins.
Examples of Lies
Some other examples of self deception and “saying we have no sin” are easy to identify in ourselves. Here are some common lies we tell ourselves:
I am righteous - Some like to pretend they are more moral and righteous than other people. These are usually the first ones to condemn others: homosexuals, adulterers, politicians and other easy targets. It is the same tactic governments use to propagandise a war - take the focus away from the crimes you are committing and focus on the otherness of someone else - effectively demonising them. It has been fashionable in the last decade or so to also include academics and theologians in this group of disconnected and “elitist” others. Someone with a PhD or a seminary education is classified into categories such as “liberal”, “postmodern” or “progressive” just because they have a formal education.
I am popular - Some like to pretend they are popular and well-liked. These are the first to gossip. Oh, not things like “John is such a jerk and I don’t like him” - but rather - “you know, we should really pray for John. He’s been having family trouble lately. And after being put on disciplinary probation at work, he’s sure to need our help.” The fact that someone compulsively gossips shows that they take a lot of stock in the opinions of others and could be a point of revelation about this lie. Confession is tremendously important here - specifically, confessing idolising men’s opinions above God’s. These people need to focus on their own sin, their own hearts and the grace that God has given them through the cross.
I am gifted - Some like to pretend their gifts are greater than others. These are the first to shirk those “lesser responsibilities” such as feeding the poor, comforting the weak and even prayer. Oftentimes an overzealousness for doing ministry is a way to distract ourselves from getting the ministry we need. It’s easy to subdivide Christianity into a) those who minister and b) those who need ministry. But there is no such division in the bible - we all have needs and we all have gifts. We should be simultaneously ministering and being ministered to. And we also need to stop idolising ministry as a “position” or a title - as though we can only minister in some official capacity in a church.
In the process of changing churches, I had an opportunity to take four months off of any worship leading. I felt overwhelmed with all of the ministry I was getting, and my relationship with God grew by leaps and bounds. I wonder if I had been so focussed on “giving ministry” that I was missing opportunities to be ministered to by others. Moreover, I got to expand my ministry in ways I never thought possible - helping people with manual labour, praying for them, providing counsel and giving financially.
Dealing with dishonesty is not complicated - it simply requires confession: to “say the same thing” - as the Greek declares. But part of this is an understanding from all Christians that instead of trying to appear perfect, it is much more important we recognise and embrace our imperfections, focussing on the God who is perfecting us (Philippians 3:12), and not attempt to muster up the initiative and power to change ourselves.
Onto the final entry: Part 8: Unconditional Love.
I’ve been in church nearly every Sunday of my life. I was taken there as a baby and I attended the morning my baby was born, squirming during every contraction. Church attendance is just part of who I am.
Six months ago I left the local church which I’d faithfully attended for several years. Why I left is not the topic of this post. What I want to talk about is the thinking I went through to find a new church. I’ve now found a new church and have decided that, at least for now, that church is going to be my local church which I will support and become involved in.
First, a little background. I live in the southern half of the United States, in the Bible belt. In fact, I live in the Buckle of the Bible belt—there is a huge number of churches nearby in a variety of denominations, sizes, styles, color. Therefore, I had a lot of choices. The other thing I want to mention about my search for a church is that I wasn’t doing this alone. Quite probably the place I ended up would have been different if I had been church shopping only for my own needs and desires.
For me, there were Big Things, Medium-sized Things, and Little things that I considered while looking for a new local church. My list likely wouldn’t be the same as your list. Some things on my list aren’t very “spiritual,” I admit that. I’m just honestly telling what was important to me.
The Big Things
The Middle-Sized Things
The Little Things
Some of you might say, “Well, what about the people and the fellowship?” My reply: that takes a little time. I wouldn’t be able to choose a church based on people and fellowship because those things aren’t evident until I’ve been there a while and some time has passed.
Readers: please understand that I am using deliberately sarcastic and overdone language in a specific attempt to add some humour. I’ve been writing such serious stuff in the past two months that I thought it might be nice to have a little fun. Please read this piece with a sense of humour and humility. It is not my intent to be too offensive.
Remember in the presidential debates when everyone was screaming about how Iran was this huge threat to the world and we need to keep “all the options on the table?” Remember the axis of evil? Remember this article from two years ago explaining how leaving Iran alone might actually lead to a popular revolution and do our dirty work for us? …erm… sorry about that last one - it only got 4 diggs.
But nevertheless, I’m feeling another bout of “I told you so” coming on. Before we began really screwing with the middle east in 2003, Iran was about to go significantly more towards the pro-western side of the Islamic Republic spectrum. By now, we probably could have been travelling there on vacation - maybe even having some foreign exchange students waking us up at 5am doing yoga or whatever it is they do on our living room carpet?
But one of the unintended consequences of having a nut like George W. Bush at the helm is that people in the middle east are going to be scared. And people who are scared vote like, well, they freaking vote like people who are scared.
Remember what happened in our country when we got scared? We federalised airport security. We passed the PATRIOT act. We supported two undeclared wars. We re-elected GW for chrikey’s sake.
Iran of course got scared and elected their own nut:
And this guy was the Iranian equivalent of GW in a lot of ways - aggressive language and posturing and so on. And while I don’t speak Persian, I’m sure he’s probably said a few dumb things and had a few awkward moments.
Nevertheless, the people in Iran are about to kick this guy out. Moreover, it could result in more than that - perhaps some radical reforms in their system of government. All of this in spite of a bunch of old white men making juvenile threats to Iran (have I ever mentioned how much of demagogue Mike Huckabee is? And yes, for anyone who wants to accuse me of “changing” definitions or using them inappropriately, I mean the freaking dictionary definition of demagogue - “a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.”).
Anyway, fortunately Huckabee isn’t in federal office and US threats against Iran have been a little bit less overt in the past few months. This has led to problems for Islamic fundamentalists in Iran who have been able to maintain power, in part, because they can play on people’s fears of an aggressive US, thus, diverting pressure away from reform.
If we want the people of Iran to have the most success in reform, and also want to foster long-term stability - perhaps even future trade and diplomacy with Iran (but I ain’t hosting any exchange students - especially this guy) than our federal government should not do any of the following:
For once in the last century, maybe the US can mind its own business. Perhaps our politicians will realise that the world doesn’t need Team America to play good cop / bad cop in every internal conflict and reform effort under the sun.
Let’s leave Iran alone for a little bit and let freedom and liberty do their thing.
I wasn’t surprised to see that Oregon’s unemployment numbers have steadily risen over the past five years. I’m even less surprised that it has reached a whopping 12.4% and is second in the country.
A lot of people will point to the recession as the chief culprit for high unemployment - not merely in Oregon, but around the world. And while it is true that businesses closing puts immediate pressure on unemployment figures, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
The state of Oregon, for example, decided to tie the minimum wage to rising prices in 2004. This was put to the voters as a way to “lift all boats” in a rising tide of wage-increase and general prosperity. It was argued that the poorest would benefit as employers were forced to pay them more and that the increased wages would stimulate the economy.
Oregon now has the second highest minimum wage and the second highest unemployment rate (behind Michigan). These two statistics are directly correlated. The minimum wage is not a rising tide that lifts all boats - rather it is a barrier over which one has to jump to get a job. Raising the minimum wage does not force employers to pay their employees more - rather, it forces them to fire anyone who is not productive enough to earn for them at least their worth in the new minimum wage. Any employer who continues to employ a worker who earns them less than the minimum wage will eventually go out of business (or at least he will have to subsidise this worker by taking from other employees, investments or profits).
If the federal and state governments want to see employment numbers go back up, they should abolish the minimum wage.
Of course the first fear is that existing workers would suddenly have their wages dropped drastically. But this is fundamentally false - as these employees are currently demonstrating that they can produce at greater than the minimum wage (otherwise they would not be employed). What would happen is that companies, even individuals, would suddenly be able to afford more help. This would increase their efficiency, their profits and money moving into the least productive members of society.
But governments have an interest as well - they would see their revenues rise as more employment and more income means more revenue.
At the very least, it would put downward pressure on unemployment - working against the increase that are being facilitated by the recession.
Please feel free to read my full analysis of the minimum wage:
The Minimum Wage I: Economic Analysis
The Minimum Wage II: Social Analysis
This is part of an eight part series on the importance of fellowship. Read the other parts here:
Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction
I realise it has been over a month and a half since I have written anything even remotely political. Over the past couple years of this blog, I have found it much harder to articulate thoughts on my faith - and instead relied heavily on politics, economics and philosophy.
I am not sure what’s wrong with me.
Experiencing biblical fellowship over the past nine months has had a radical impact on my life. But more than that, these last nine months have been cataclysmic opening of things that I have been convinced about for most of my Christian life, but I had been simply bereft of the language (both externally and internally) for articulating them. I hope the writing from this past month has provided a clear idea of some of my thoughts on the matter.
This subject - superficiality - is one I probably could have written before this transition took place, albeit, without the doctrine and theology that I have now amalgamated into my thinking. This doctrinal ally, I hope, will enable to me to write this blog without the personal feelings and experiences that had coloured my thoughts of superficiality (and erroneously defined “fellowship”) in the past. None of us should ever presume to be unbiased or unaffected by past events, situations and relationships - reading this guys blog (and keeping grace in perspective) reminds me that my own past mistakes aren’t that bad, and that those who have annoyed, angered or offended me didn’t do anything so severe.
In a lot of ways, this series has been a detox and I will write it as long as it serves a benefit for me and hopefully encourages others to seek out reliable, biblical and sanctifying fellowship.
Superficiality: The Enemy of Sanctification
That is the main problem with superficiality in fellowship - there is no way sanctification can take place. As I mentioned last time, sanctification is critical in fellowship - it’s part of God’s design for it. We have to be allowing God to use us to make each other holy. We have to be open to the Holy Spirit making us more like Christ, and we have to admit that we aren’t going to get all the answers by flipping through our bible alone, casually attending church or waiting for an angelic visitor to reveal hidden mysteries to us.
But we are doing ourselves a great disservice by holding superficial relationships up as fellowship. I was in a discussion with a friend of mine in leadership some time ago about this subject, and I noticed how his conversation about fellowship slipped seamlessly in and out of sanctification and superficiality. On the one hand, he was speaking about being accountable and offering encouragement to one another as fellowship but then he would speak about having a church barbeque and movie-night as ways to stimulate fellowship.
I’ll post more from Why Small Groups - it’s just articulated too well not to use:
You may think fellowship with God is all you need. After all, doesn’t the Bible teach that God and his Word are sufficient for all our needs pertaining to life and godliness? Yes, it does. But the error comes in limiting the means God uses to help us apply truth to our lives. Only the Spirit can illuminate Scripture to our minds and give us the power to obey it.
Yet the Spirit often chooses to employ other people as a means of communicating his truth to our ears and heart. Who are we to argue with him? He will of course use teachers of the word through sermons, books, and tapes. But he will also use the regular guy in your small group—and there’s the rub. We can ignore teachers, close books, and turn off tapes. When we do pay attention, we can conveniently misapply teachings. But the people closest to us, if they’re doing their job in fellowship, are not likely to let us ignore God’s urgings so easily.
The chief reason we love superficiality is because it removes the danger of being confronted with truth that we don’t want to hear. That’s right - not only are you harbouring pride and dishonesty in your heart about who you are, but you are actively protecting it, keeping it from being exposed by talking about the weather, sports, celebrity gossip, your new couches, music or anything else that blocks God’s truth from working in your life.
This applies to all of us to some degree. Remember, we aren’t yet sanctified - so sin still pollutes us and affects us. Our natural man wants to survive. We all have to take this word as for us - we need to systematically set up fellowship because there are going to be times when we don’t want to deal with our sin.
Case in point. I meet with a guy regularly to keep me accountable, encourage me and regularly point out my own blind spots to sin in my life. How often to I want to meet with this guy? Almost never. It isn’t because he’s not a swell guy - on the contrary, we share common interests and passions, and our personalities seem to mesh well. It’s not because I think he’s going to point out something to me that’s way off, judgemental or wrong. It’s because I am terrified that he is going to share truth with me that tears down my pride and exposes my weakness.
If I did fellowship simply “as I felt led” then I would never do it. Who feels led to be humbled? Good luck finding someone like that! No, it is important to set up relationships where you share some trust, and to put in a framework that enables you to benefit from fellowship.
Think about church. Sometimes Sunday morning church is annoying. Can’t we just all meet together whenever we feel like it? Yes we can - but if we didn’t institutionalise one day a week or so to meet - we’d probably neglect it sooner or later.
Dumbing it Down
Superficiality is the dumbing down of fellowship - where the forms of fellowship still exist (communication, relationships, emotions, passions, connections) but the substance has been completely removed. I believe this is a direct consequence of abandoning deliberate, systematic fellowship. When the zeal for change and reform fade, and we begin to want to plateau, then fellowship is slowly replaced with superficiality.
Solve this slide by setting up a devotion with your spouse. Meet with another believer to pray for one another. Join (or create) a small group at your church which deals with application. Ask another believer to watch your behaviour and to feel free to point out areas where you are blind to your own sin. Worship God with passion corporately, singing and proclaiming how great He is.
Most importantly, know that God’s truth is only going to improve things. The initial discomfort is just your natural man resisting. If you are with even remotely mature Christians, then no one is going to judge you, and in fact, you are likely going to be a means of grace for others - encouraging them by your own exampl to seek fellowship themselves.
On to Part 7: Honesty.
I hope my friend Charles won’t mind if I post a significant portion of a great summary he worked up on the big picture of national socialism in America. I have made several posts in the past couple of years accusing both right and left wingers of propelling the country towards national socialism and the response has been everything from cautious agreement to outright mockery. I have had dictionary and Wikipedia definitions of socialism thrown at me, as well as radical names like Hitler and Stalin, as if to show that national socialism is not in the mainstream today and it is not a concern.
I think Charles does a great job of summing up the amazing progress towards even more socialism in the past year or so:
• Treasury now holds essentially unchecked power to intervene in capital markets as it sees fit. Geithner himself argues that this mandate is perpetual, essentially permanent.
• The Federal government has taken controlling positions in the insurance, banking, and automotive industries. Obama promises that by the end of this year it will also essentially have taken over the health care industry. The government is also intervening heavily in energy, through regulation and subsidy.
• Despite claims from Obama and co. that they are unwilling owners of the economy, there’s substantial reason to think they’ve intentionally exacerbated the economic crisis in order to justify these nationalizations.
• Despite claims from Obama and co. that they hope the nationalizations will be short-lived, they’ve acted to block banks from paying back bailout funds, and they have no plan at all for ending the nationalizations.
• Despite claims from Obama and co. that they have no intention of actively managing nationalized firms, they are doing so, e.g. in the auto industry.
• The net effect of these developments is that the Federal government is seizing what Lenin identified as, and Obama calls (in his budget proposal) the “commanding heights of the economy,” and is giving indications of establishing what is effectively a form of central planning (one more akin to that of the Third Reich than that of the USSR).
• The Federal government is also likely to “bail out” otherwise bankrupt states, such as California. If so, once the Federal government has “nationalized” state governments, there’ll be no vestiges left of federalism. We’ll have an unchecked central government that controls the economy.
• If the EPA does indeed receive power to regulate carbon dioxide, there’s no aspect of life that won’t be subject to executive branch regulation. The 60 day comment clock is ticking on this one, and there’s great danger it will come to pass.
• Obama is maintaining and expanding the Bush policies on domestic spying.
• Obama’s Secretary of Transportation spoke in favor of mandating a GPS unit on every vehicle in America for purposes of tracking and taxing miles driven. He was subsequently ordered to shut up on this, and now simply talks about his role in modifying citizens’ behavior.
• And, and, and…the list goes on.
• Couple all of this with Obama’s accelerated fiscal and monetary irresponsibility, madness that makes Bush’s policy look almost responsible. (Note that most of the above was begun by George W. Bush; Barack Obama is Bush on steroids. It’s bizarre how his cult of personality has blinded his supporters to this.)
And don’t start throwing Wikipedia articles at Charles about socialism - he was there, having lived in the Soviet Union. I think he knows socialism when he sees it.
A couple more links:
Energy Department Fails its Own Energy Audit
Dr. Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered at his church, was previously excommunicated by a Lutheran congregation for refusing to repent and cease his profession.
GetReligion.org has some more discussion about the media’s failure to report on Tiller’s religious history: Tiller’s missing excommunication
As has already been established in part 1 of this series, Christ is the basis of our faith, and the grounding upon which the church is built. There can be no foundation laid without Christ being established as the cornerstone. Here are some facts from the gospel accounts about Christ that must be established before anyone can attempt to rightly build on this foundation:
We must now address the question of how the church is to build upon the foundation that has been established. In other words, which teachings apart from the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God are to be emphasized in order to secure a doctrinal foundation in those who already believe in Christ?
Many churches today disagree about which teachings are essentials. In fact, some teachings which are identified as essential are not even emphasized in the New Testament. The doctrine of the Trinity, while certainly important in my opinion, is not essential considering the New Testament record of doctrinal emphases; yet it is regarded as such in many churches. Again, I am not saying it is unimportant, because I believe it is. But it is not listed among the foundational doctrines of Christ listed in Hebrews 6, and there little if any evidence that teaching about the triune nature of God was a major emphasis of the early church. I comment on this only to communicate that what church tradition has prioritized in the way of teaching, in many instances, is not the express priority of God as outlined in the Scriptures.
The First Principles of the Oracles of God
In Hebrews 6, the author outlines the foundational teachings of Christ:
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Here we see that these teachings are the basis from which one may progress toward spiritual maturity. Believers who lack this foundation are not in a position to lead successful Christian lives.
The Sincere Milk of the Word
Jesus, quoting from Deuteronomy, said, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4). By this he illustrated that God’s word is a source of spiritual sustenance, just like natural food is a source of physical sustenance. This same principle is emphasized in the epistles.
Just as there are stages of physical development, there are stages of spiritual development for believers. The stage of spiritual development one is in determines the proper diet he should partake of. Naturally speaking, infants need a steady diet of milk before they are capable of digesting solid food. The same is true for spiritual babies. Notice what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.
Here Paul explained his responsibility to “feed” the Corinthians. He determined their spiritual condition and taught them accordingly.
In Hebrews 5, the chapter preceding the one where the foundational teachings are presented, the author indicates that this audience was maturing at a much slower rate than they should have been. Although they should have grown considerably more, they had not graduated beyond babyhood.
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
From this point, the author transitions into his statement about the foundational teachings of Christ in the very next verse in chapter 6, making it clear that the milk he was referring to were these basic doctrines. These are synonymous with the “first principles of the oracles of God” listed in Hebrews 5:12.
Recent Comments
Darius T., Atanamis, Darius T., Atanamis, Lew [...]
Atanamis, Darius T., Jew, thainamu
Colin, steve
Colin, cchrisr, Atanamis, cchrisr, Atanamis [...]
thainamu, Sharon, Atanamis, thainamu, cchrisr [...]
Lew, Dave in Colorado, Montana Man, ChadTudor, Lew [...]
Chris A, Colin, Thainamu, Colin, thainamu
Ardith, Atanamis, Colin, gurr8, Ornot the Majestic [...]