12/20/2005
SNL Chronicles of Narnia Rap
This is quite humorous. I guess SNL still can turn out some funny material from time to time. (Nod to the website YouTube)
12/08/2005
Indy Colts to meet their match
The Onion clearly has a very funny staff writer as part of their sports page. Click here for a hilarious article about the 12-0 Colts being forced to play the Harlem Globetrotters football squad.
12/07/2005
The Best Christmas Special
USA Today has a wonderful article on the classic A Charlie Brown Christmas. The article details how many people were skeptical regarding the show's popularity when it was made and has interviews with many of the folks involved with its production. An early Christmas present from the folks at USA Today.
10/27/2005
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye!
No, this isn't my second Hariet Miers post in a row. Rather it is to bid farewell to another baseball season and a begrudging salute to the Chicago White Sox, who traditionally sing the song to opponents when a pitcher is removed or the Sox are victorious. The White Sox had a magical year where everything went well. All their starting pitchers were healthy throughout the season, and other than a fading Frank Thomas, most of the position players were healthy. In addition to being healthy, most everyone on the squad put up numbers that were at or above expectations. Credit goes to GM Kenny Williams who assembled a squad that had all the elements of a good team: a deep, quality starting pitching staff; live arms in the bullpen blending youth and experience; speed at the top of the lineup; plenty of home run power; excellent defense; execution of the fundamentals of the game; and an overall high level of athleticism on the squad. As a Cubs fan I can only hope that perhaps next year is our turn (The Red Sox had the third longest drought and won last year, the White Sox and the second longest and won this year). However, I am not counting on it unless the team gets another starter, middle relief help, and (most importantly) a leadoff hitter and some hitters at the top of the lineup who will consistently get on base for Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez. Yep, I'm already waiting 'till next year.
10/19/2005
Pragmatic Politicians
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has once again shown that politicians, including this White House, are generally pragmatists when it comes to the means by which they attempt to reach their goals. Ms. Miers is being marketed to Christians as an opponent of Roe v. Wade (I hope that she is) while at the same time others supportive of abortion are told that what she believes or her personal position does not necessarily provide proof on how she would render judgment in an abortion case. This is at odds with the obvious implication to Christians--that Ms. Miers' beliefs are an indicator of how she will decide a case. What does this mean? Well, the obvious--that a person had better listen to all the pronouncements that a politician makes upon a subject in attempting to discern what that person's position is on a matter. A good rule of thumb is that if a person is willing to say something to a group that he knows those listening will disagree with him on, then you have found that person's true position. If the person is unwilling to make the statement in front of certain audiences, then it is not among that person's deepest principles or beliefs.
Additionally, a politician is generally willing to state his core goals in front of any audience. For instance, George W. Bush is willing to state his policies regarding the War on Terror in unambiguous terms at any time. This indicates that this is a primary focus for him personally and his beliefs are deeply held. If President Bush soft pedaled his presentation for certain audiences or circumstances, then it would show that his position is either subject to change, or that certain of his statements on the matter are a means to a different end. The fact that this administration provides contrary arguments regarding the abortion issue with Ms. Miers is a strategic decision to get her confirmed to the court. Which indicates to me that in the Administration's eyes the abortion issue is not the primary reason why Harriet Miers should be on the court. Which is why when I watch her confirmation hearings, I am going to be looking for exactly why the administration wants her on the bench.
Additionally, a politician is generally willing to state his core goals in front of any audience. For instance, George W. Bush is willing to state his policies regarding the War on Terror in unambiguous terms at any time. This indicates that this is a primary focus for him personally and his beliefs are deeply held. If President Bush soft pedaled his presentation for certain audiences or circumstances, then it would show that his position is either subject to change, or that certain of his statements on the matter are a means to a different end. The fact that this administration provides contrary arguments regarding the abortion issue with Ms. Miers is a strategic decision to get her confirmed to the court. Which indicates to me that in the Administration's eyes the abortion issue is not the primary reason why Harriet Miers should be on the court. Which is why when I watch her confirmation hearings, I am going to be looking for exactly why the administration wants her on the bench.
10/12/2005
Return of the Web Log
After a two month hiatus brought on by a busy time at work, my blog will again be active and hopefully worth reading. I can promise you plenty of posts in the upcoming weeks. Whether that is a promise or a threat probably depends on how you view this blog!
8/06/2005
Killearn DTS: Romans 15:14--16:27
In verse 14 of chapter 15, Paul begins winding down his letter to the church at Rome by paying the Christians in Rome the compliment of saying that they are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. Wesley notes that they are full of goodness because of being born again in Christ and are complete in knowledge through long experience in the things of God. Paul states that he wrote boldly to the church at times in his letter because that is what God has called Paul to do—to be a minister of Jesus to the Gentiles and proclaim the gospel to them and thus aid in their becoming acceptable to God and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (v. 15-16). Calvin notes that in order to instruct someone with boldness and offer correction a person needs to be both kind and to have skill in offering useful advice. The latter is obviously necessary, for advice that consistently does not prosper a person will be quickly discarded. The former is necessary both because only a kind person will look to aid those around them, and kindness when giving the advice or correction will make the hearer more inclined to listen. Because of his calling to the Gentiles and the work God is performing in many of them through Christ and the Spirit, Paul glories in the person of Christ in his service to God. (v. 17). Paul’s focus on the person and works of Christ is so great that he wants only to speak of what Christ has done through Paul in leading the Gentiles to obey God by Paul’s works, often accompanied by signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. In obeying his calling, Paul traveled from Jerusalem to Illyricum (near present day Serbia) preaching the Gospel. (v. 18-19). Calvin points out that this passage shows that the purpose of signs and miracles is to serve as a display and testimony to the divine power of God and thus lead us to admire and adore God.
Paul declares that since being converted, his desire has always been to preach the gospel in areas where Christ was not known, so that he would not be building on the foundation of others. (v. 20). This desire is explained with a quote from Isa 52:15, which states that “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will not understand.” Thus it appears that Paul is not so much motivated by ambition, but rather to share the gospel with those who have not heard it. It is because of this desire, Paul explains, that he has often been hindered from visiting the church at Rome in person. (v. 22). However, now that he has fully proclaimed the gospel in that region, he plans to visit with the church at Rome on his way to Spain. (v. 23-24). However, Paul must first return to Jerusalem to present a gift from the churches at Macedonia and Achaia for the poor of the city. (v. 25-26). The believers in these gentile cities were happy to do it, as a way of repaying the Jews for the privilege God has given them to share in the spiritual heritage of the Jewish faith. (v. 27). Once this task is done, Paul will come and visit Rome in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. (v. 28-29). As Calvin notes, Paul is confident that his visit to the Romans will yield spiritual blessings to the church there.
Paul asks the Romans to join in his ministry by praying to God for him, that he will be rescued from unbelievers when he journeys back to Jerusalem, and that his service once there will be acceptable to the saints (believers) there. (v. 30-31). As Calvin notes, if Paul was willing to ask for the prayers of others to aid him, we would be stupid not to do the same in our lives. Paul asks for these prayers so that by God’s will he will come to Rome with joy and will join with the church there in being refreshed. (v. 32). Paul concludes his request for prayer with a quick prayer for the church at Rome, that God will be with them. (v. 33).
Paul concludes his letter with personal greetings that he asks will be passed along to individuals and households in Rome. He begins these by asking that the church receive Phoebe, a deaconess from the church in Cenchrea (port city near Corinth). He commends Phoebe to them, saying that she has been a great help to many people, including Paul himself and asks the church to help her if need be. (v. 1-2). Wesley and Calvin both state that it is Phoebe who is delivering this letter to the Romans. Paul asks for many people to be greeted, including a large number of women believers. Of note are Priscilla and Aquilla (husband and wife, see Acts 18:2), fellow tentmakers who risked their lives for Paul, and Andronicus and Junicas who were in prison with Paul. (v. 3-15). Paul states that all the churches of Christ send their greetings to the church at Rome. (v. 16).
Paul warns the Romans to watch out for persons who cause divisions and place obstacles that are contrary to the instruction in the gospel that they have learned. Paul is quite blunt that such persons are to be avoided because they do not serve the Lord Christ, but rather themselves and their appetites. The false teachers use smooth talk and flattery to deceive the minds of the naïve. (v. 17-18). Calvin is correct in noting that a false prophet can be identified by the fact they concern for themselves first and foremost, rather than for Christ and the good of others. Paul warned about false teachers numerous times, including in Galatians 1:8 and 1 Tim 1:3. Paul states that everyone has heard about the obedience to Christ shown by the saints at Rome, and that he is full of joy over their obedience. Nevertheless, he wants them to be wise about what is good and innocent about what is evil. (v. 19). Paul concludes with en exhortation that God will soon crush Stan under their feet and praying that the grace of “our Lord Jesus be with you.” (v. 20) He passes on greetings of others with him, including Timothy. (v. 21-24). Paul ends with a benediction of praise to God. God, who is able to establish the believer through the gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ. God, who has revealed the mystery of his purpose of redeeming mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Who commanded that these events be prophesied for the purpose of bringing all nations to believe and obey God. That this only wise God be glorified forever through Jesus Christ. (v. 25-27).
Paul declares that since being converted, his desire has always been to preach the gospel in areas where Christ was not known, so that he would not be building on the foundation of others. (v. 20). This desire is explained with a quote from Isa 52:15, which states that “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will not understand.” Thus it appears that Paul is not so much motivated by ambition, but rather to share the gospel with those who have not heard it. It is because of this desire, Paul explains, that he has often been hindered from visiting the church at Rome in person. (v. 22). However, now that he has fully proclaimed the gospel in that region, he plans to visit with the church at Rome on his way to Spain. (v. 23-24). However, Paul must first return to Jerusalem to present a gift from the churches at Macedonia and Achaia for the poor of the city. (v. 25-26). The believers in these gentile cities were happy to do it, as a way of repaying the Jews for the privilege God has given them to share in the spiritual heritage of the Jewish faith. (v. 27). Once this task is done, Paul will come and visit Rome in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. (v. 28-29). As Calvin notes, Paul is confident that his visit to the Romans will yield spiritual blessings to the church there.
Paul asks the Romans to join in his ministry by praying to God for him, that he will be rescued from unbelievers when he journeys back to Jerusalem, and that his service once there will be acceptable to the saints (believers) there. (v. 30-31). As Calvin notes, if Paul was willing to ask for the prayers of others to aid him, we would be stupid not to do the same in our lives. Paul asks for these prayers so that by God’s will he will come to Rome with joy and will join with the church there in being refreshed. (v. 32). Paul concludes his request for prayer with a quick prayer for the church at Rome, that God will be with them. (v. 33).
Paul concludes his letter with personal greetings that he asks will be passed along to individuals and households in Rome. He begins these by asking that the church receive Phoebe, a deaconess from the church in Cenchrea (port city near Corinth). He commends Phoebe to them, saying that she has been a great help to many people, including Paul himself and asks the church to help her if need be. (v. 1-2). Wesley and Calvin both state that it is Phoebe who is delivering this letter to the Romans. Paul asks for many people to be greeted, including a large number of women believers. Of note are Priscilla and Aquilla (husband and wife, see Acts 18:2), fellow tentmakers who risked their lives for Paul, and Andronicus and Junicas who were in prison with Paul. (v. 3-15). Paul states that all the churches of Christ send their greetings to the church at Rome. (v. 16).
Paul warns the Romans to watch out for persons who cause divisions and place obstacles that are contrary to the instruction in the gospel that they have learned. Paul is quite blunt that such persons are to be avoided because they do not serve the Lord Christ, but rather themselves and their appetites. The false teachers use smooth talk and flattery to deceive the minds of the naïve. (v. 17-18). Calvin is correct in noting that a false prophet can be identified by the fact they concern for themselves first and foremost, rather than for Christ and the good of others. Paul warned about false teachers numerous times, including in Galatians 1:8 and 1 Tim 1:3. Paul states that everyone has heard about the obedience to Christ shown by the saints at Rome, and that he is full of joy over their obedience. Nevertheless, he wants them to be wise about what is good and innocent about what is evil. (v. 19). Paul concludes with en exhortation that God will soon crush Stan under their feet and praying that the grace of “our Lord Jesus be with you.” (v. 20) He passes on greetings of others with him, including Timothy. (v. 21-24). Paul ends with a benediction of praise to God. God, who is able to establish the believer through the gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ. God, who has revealed the mystery of his purpose of redeeming mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Who commanded that these events be prophesied for the purpose of bringing all nations to believe and obey God. That this only wise God be glorified forever through Jesus Christ. (v. 25-27).
8/02/2005
Further Evidence Of The Need For A New Spacecraft
If the fact that the shuttle continues to have debris rain from it is not enough to convince you of the need for a new spacecraft (one is in development) and to scrap the shuttle ASAP, read how they plan to repair the bottom of the spacecraft:
(By PAM EASTON, Associated Press Writer)
NASA says the protruding material on Discovery's belly could cause dangerous overheating during re-entry and lead to another Columbia-type disaster.
The agency planned to put astronaut Stephen Robinson on the end of the space station's 58-foot robotic arm Wednesday for the improvised maneuver. Astronauts inside the station will maneuver the arm so Robinson can reach the shuttle's belly. Once there, he'll tug out the ceramic-fabric filler with his gloved hands.
If that doesn't work, he'll use a makeshift hacksaw to cut away the material, which is sticking out about an inch from two spots near Discovery's nose. The saw was improvised out of a blade, plastic ties, duct tape, Velcro and other items aboard the space station. "I am pretty comfortable with using tools very carefully," Robinson said early Tuesday during a crew news conference. "But no doubt about it, this is going to be a very delicate task. But as I say, a simple one." The protruding bits of gap filler are small — one is about the thickness of an index card and the other is the size of three index cards bonded together.
"There won't be any yanking going on at all," Robinson said. "It will be a gentle pull with my hand. If that doesn't work, I have some forceps. I will give it a slightly more than gentle pull. If that doesn't work, I saw it off with a hacksaw."
See the whole article here
(By PAM EASTON, Associated Press Writer)
NASA says the protruding material on Discovery's belly could cause dangerous overheating during re-entry and lead to another Columbia-type disaster.
The agency planned to put astronaut Stephen Robinson on the end of the space station's 58-foot robotic arm Wednesday for the improvised maneuver. Astronauts inside the station will maneuver the arm so Robinson can reach the shuttle's belly. Once there, he'll tug out the ceramic-fabric filler with his gloved hands.
If that doesn't work, he'll use a makeshift hacksaw to cut away the material, which is sticking out about an inch from two spots near Discovery's nose. The saw was improvised out of a blade, plastic ties, duct tape, Velcro and other items aboard the space station. "I am pretty comfortable with using tools very carefully," Robinson said early Tuesday during a crew news conference. "But no doubt about it, this is going to be a very delicate task. But as I say, a simple one." The protruding bits of gap filler are small — one is about the thickness of an index card and the other is the size of three index cards bonded together.
"There won't be any yanking going on at all," Robinson said. "It will be a gentle pull with my hand. If that doesn't work, I have some forceps. I will give it a slightly more than gentle pull. If that doesn't work, I saw it off with a hacksaw."
See the whole article here
7/30/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 14:14--15:13
Verse 14 of chapter 14 is Paul's statement that he is convinced that as a Christian, no food is unclean in and of itself. However, if a person believes something to be unclean, then for that person it is. This was revealed to Peter in Acts 10, and Jesus had declared all foods clean (contrary to the old Jewish law) in Mark 7: 19-23. Jesus based His teaching on the moral fact that what a man thinks in his heart and his actions are what make him unclean--unable to be acceptable to God--not what a person eats. Paul continues in Romans by saying if a fellow Christian is distressed by the eating of food that person considers unclean, then it should not be eaten because it harms that fellow Christian. By harming others through the exercise of Christian freedom, what should be considered a good thing--freedom in Christ through the abolition of the law--may be considered evil because it ends up harming others. (v. 15-16) As Wesley somewhat humorously put it, we should not value our meat over he for whom Christ died. Paul explains both why Christ abolished the dietary laws of the Old Testament and why Christians should also consider the weaknesses of those around them when acting with regard to such matters in verses 17-18. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." Calvin points out that not only do we have freedom in Christ from the external rules of the law, but we also have freedom not to exercise our freedom if doing so would harm others. He additionally notes that Paul states that the kingdom of God consists of righteousness--the nature of which is what is in the heart--and then describes what freedom from the law and a relationship with God and Christ brings. Peace and joy through the Holy Spirit.
--What do you suppose are some of the possible reasons why God declared some foods to be unclean for His chosen people? Paul states that though all foods are clean for the Christian, if a person believes a food unclean, then it is unclean for that person. Why is that the case and what does this show regarding what type of obedience God finds important? Why is it important that our actions not be regarded as evil? What are some of the ways this teaching about the cleanliness of food could be abused? How would you counter an improper use of this teaching?
We are to make every effort to do what leads to peace among Christians and mutual edification, not destroying the good that God is doing in the church community for the sake of food. (v. 19-20). In the end, it is better to abstain from eating food or do other acts than to cause others to fall. (v. 21) Luther rightly points out that Christian freedom should be used to help, not harm the week. When the latter is done, it leads to dissension and despising of the Gospel. Perhaps this is because such acts are selfishly motivated, while using Christian freedom to help others is outwardly motivated. Whatever the Christian believes regarding such a matter should be a private matter between that person and God. It is true that the person who does not feel condemned by unnecessary scruples is blessed. However, if a person has scruples then he should not eat, because his act is not motivated by faith, and all that does not come from faith is sin. (v. 22-23).
--How should difficulties regarding scruples be resolved among Christians? Why does Paul say that all that does not come from faith is sin?
People who are strong in the faith and understand that the OT law has been abolished should bear with the failings of others and not please themselves. The goal should be to build up our neighboors. (v. 1-2). As Wesley and Calvin both explain, those who have greater discernment into the Lord are to exercise that discernment to help others. For even Christ did not please Himself with his life, similar to what is described in Psalm 69:9. (v. 3). Calvin explains that in the Psalm, the prophet states that his zeal for God is so great that when the ungodly insult God, hit hurts him. In a similar fashion, Christ took upon himself the work of God to the extent that He humbled himself to an amazing degree. The scriptures, such as the cite from Psalm 69:9 provides encouragement for Christians, so that we might have hope. (v. 4).
--What does it mean to be "strong" in the faith? How can those who are strong be identified? How is Christ's strength an example for us in helping others? How do the scriptures provide encouragement and hope?
Paul begins Rom 15: 5 with a prayer that God will give the church at Rome a spirit of unity, along with endurance and encouragement, as the church follows Christ. The purpose of this is for the church to glorify God. (v. 6). Christians are to accept on another, in the same way we have been accepted by Christ, in order to bring praise to God. (v. 7) Christ was sent to the Jews to testify to the truthfulness of God and the promises He made to the patriarchs, so that in the end the Gentiles would glorify God. (v. 8-9). Wesley points out that the name Jesus Christ refers both to the name Jesus--by which he is known to the Gentiles, and Christ--his office towards the Jewish people. When Jesus is refered to as Christ, then the author is emphasizing his being the Messiah. Likely it is done here to because Paul is emphasizing God's working through Christ throughout history which culminated in the Gospel being brought to the gentiles and the establishment of the church. Paul then quotes Old Testament scriptures showing that God desires the Gentiles to be in relationship with Him, and quotes the prophecy in Isaiah 11:10 that Christ would rise and that the Gentiles would put their hope in him. (v. 10-12). Paul's desire is that God will fill all with joy and peace as we trust in Him, so that we may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. (15:13).
--What do you suppose are some of the possible reasons why God declared some foods to be unclean for His chosen people? Paul states that though all foods are clean for the Christian, if a person believes a food unclean, then it is unclean for that person. Why is that the case and what does this show regarding what type of obedience God finds important? Why is it important that our actions not be regarded as evil? What are some of the ways this teaching about the cleanliness of food could be abused? How would you counter an improper use of this teaching?
We are to make every effort to do what leads to peace among Christians and mutual edification, not destroying the good that God is doing in the church community for the sake of food. (v. 19-20). In the end, it is better to abstain from eating food or do other acts than to cause others to fall. (v. 21) Luther rightly points out that Christian freedom should be used to help, not harm the week. When the latter is done, it leads to dissension and despising of the Gospel. Perhaps this is because such acts are selfishly motivated, while using Christian freedom to help others is outwardly motivated. Whatever the Christian believes regarding such a matter should be a private matter between that person and God. It is true that the person who does not feel condemned by unnecessary scruples is blessed. However, if a person has scruples then he should not eat, because his act is not motivated by faith, and all that does not come from faith is sin. (v. 22-23).
--How should difficulties regarding scruples be resolved among Christians? Why does Paul say that all that does not come from faith is sin?
People who are strong in the faith and understand that the OT law has been abolished should bear with the failings of others and not please themselves. The goal should be to build up our neighboors. (v. 1-2). As Wesley and Calvin both explain, those who have greater discernment into the Lord are to exercise that discernment to help others. For even Christ did not please Himself with his life, similar to what is described in Psalm 69:9. (v. 3). Calvin explains that in the Psalm, the prophet states that his zeal for God is so great that when the ungodly insult God, hit hurts him. In a similar fashion, Christ took upon himself the work of God to the extent that He humbled himself to an amazing degree. The scriptures, such as the cite from Psalm 69:9 provides encouragement for Christians, so that we might have hope. (v. 4).
--What does it mean to be "strong" in the faith? How can those who are strong be identified? How is Christ's strength an example for us in helping others? How do the scriptures provide encouragement and hope?
Paul begins Rom 15: 5 with a prayer that God will give the church at Rome a spirit of unity, along with endurance and encouragement, as the church follows Christ. The purpose of this is for the church to glorify God. (v. 6). Christians are to accept on another, in the same way we have been accepted by Christ, in order to bring praise to God. (v. 7) Christ was sent to the Jews to testify to the truthfulness of God and the promises He made to the patriarchs, so that in the end the Gentiles would glorify God. (v. 8-9). Wesley points out that the name Jesus Christ refers both to the name Jesus--by which he is known to the Gentiles, and Christ--his office towards the Jewish people. When Jesus is refered to as Christ, then the author is emphasizing his being the Messiah. Likely it is done here to because Paul is emphasizing God's working through Christ throughout history which culminated in the Gospel being brought to the gentiles and the establishment of the church. Paul then quotes Old Testament scriptures showing that God desires the Gentiles to be in relationship with Him, and quotes the prophecy in Isaiah 11:10 that Christ would rise and that the Gentiles would put their hope in him. (v. 10-12). Paul's desire is that God will fill all with joy and peace as we trust in Him, so that we may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. (15:13).
7/27/2005
Time For New Space Vehicle
Given the fact that 2 Space Shuttles have blown up already, and that the billion dollars spent to "ensure the shuttle is safe" have not been able to even fix what appears to be the exact same problem that fatally wounded Columbia, it is time for the US to scrap the shuttle program and develop a new space vehicle. The shuttle's basic design is based on 1970's technology and given all the development in technology over the past 30 years, one would hope that a more effective, useful and safe orbiter could be developed. The development of a new orbiter would also be a boon to the aerospace industry, likely have military benefits and create thousands of jobs. Additionally, the development and creation of a new spacecraft with improved capabilities (perhaps by the creation of a vehicle that can perform the shuttle's current task of Earth orbit while also being adaptable for further travel) would create new interest in the space program and reinvigorate it, while also proving an inspiration for youngsters. Let's all pray that Discovery returns safely to Earth and then make this the last shuttle flight, focusing our efforts and monies on a new spacecraft for the 21st century.
7/20/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 14: 9-13
DTS friends, I apologize for not posting this before heading up to KY. I typed it out and must have accidentally hit the save button, and not the button to post it. Here it is now, doing only half the job that L.G. did last week.
In verses 7 and 8, Paul states that no Christian lives unto himself or dies unto himself. We life for the Lord and at His pleasure, and when we die, we belong to the Lord. Because each person belongs to the Lord, Paul teaches earlier in chapter 14 that Christians should not judge or look down on other Christians if they have different beliefs on non-essential matters of the faith. In verse 9, Paul states that "for this end" Christ died and rose and lived again for the purpose that he might be the Lord of both the living and the dead. As Calvin puts it, Christ earned authority over us by paying the great price of death on a cross, and by showing his authority over death via His resurrection. Given the fact that we all belong to Christ, we should not judge or show contempt for our Christian brothers, for all stand before Christ's judgment seat as stated in Isaiah 45:23. (v. 10-11). Calvin states our judging our fellow Christians makes about as much sense as a criminal attempting to ascend to climb into the judge's chair and exercise his authority. In the end, each one of us gives an account of himself to God. (v. 12). For that reason, we should not judge one another but instead resolve the differences we have so that we do not create stumbling blocks to the faith of others. (v. 13).
In verses 7 and 8, Paul states that no Christian lives unto himself or dies unto himself. We life for the Lord and at His pleasure, and when we die, we belong to the Lord. Because each person belongs to the Lord, Paul teaches earlier in chapter 14 that Christians should not judge or look down on other Christians if they have different beliefs on non-essential matters of the faith. In verse 9, Paul states that "for this end" Christ died and rose and lived again for the purpose that he might be the Lord of both the living and the dead. As Calvin puts it, Christ earned authority over us by paying the great price of death on a cross, and by showing his authority over death via His resurrection. Given the fact that we all belong to Christ, we should not judge or show contempt for our Christian brothers, for all stand before Christ's judgment seat as stated in Isaiah 45:23. (v. 10-11). Calvin states our judging our fellow Christians makes about as much sense as a criminal attempting to ascend to climb into the judge's chair and exercise his authority. In the end, each one of us gives an account of himself to God. (v. 12). For that reason, we should not judge one another but instead resolve the differences we have so that we do not create stumbling blocks to the faith of others. (v. 13).
7/17/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 13: 8 Through 14: 8
Chapter 13 begins with Paul explaining that the Christian must submit himself to the governmental authorities and not believe that he is above the law. Generally, the government is established to maintain order in society and punish wrongdoers, and to the extent a government is properly exercising these functions (punishing evildoers and "commending" Christians and other in society for right actions) the Christian should not run afoul of it. After explaining to the church in Rome how to get along with the secular authorities, Paul gives advice on how to live among one another. The rest of Ch. 13 is perhaps best read as a continuation of the practical advice Paul gives in Ch. 12. In v. 8, Paul says that no debts among believers should be left outstanding, except the ongoing debt we have to love one another. It is in the continual payment of that debt that a person fulfills the Old Testament law, or at least as Calvin puts it, the aspects of the law contained in the 2nd half of the Ten Commandments and summarized by Jesus as "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the various commands of the law telling us not to commit adultery, murder, steal, covet, and the rest are summed up by the command of Leviticus 19:18, which Jesus quoted when telling us to love our neighbor. (v. 9). Wesley notes that Paul is saying that if we love those around us and seek their good, we will obey the various commandments of God. As Paul tells us in verse 10, love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore it is the fulfillment of the law.
--Why is it important not to leave debts outstanding? What barriers can not making a debt good build between people and what principles does it violate? What are the key aspects of the love Paul is speaking of that enable it to automatically conform to the various rules of the Bible? Does the fact that love is the fulfillment of the law indicate that a purpose of the OT law was to help people love on another?
Paul tells his readers to do this in light of the fact that salvation has drawn closer than when the believers first believed. Two possible interpretations can be made here. Traditionally, Paul's reference to salvation drawing closer is a reference to the fact that as time goes on, each person moves closer toward the salvation that only comes after death. Wesley and Calvin read the passage in this way. Some modern interpreters think that Paul believed in the imminent second coming of Christ. If this is so, it does not harm the interpretation of these verses, since here he is using the possibility of an imminent second coming as a motivator towards obeying the teachings in this letter. The Revelation tells us to always eagerly anticipate Christ's return to earth (Rev 22: 17-21) and thus Paul's attitude falls in line with the eager anticipation of Christ's return. In the end, the important point is to realize that life is fleeting, our salvation may be imminent, and thus we should act as living sacrifices for the God we follow. Paul states in verse 12 that since the night is almost over and the day almost here, we should put aside deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Our life on earth is compared with the night, while the resurrection is the dawn of a new day. Wesley is worth quoting at length here. "[W]e are to awake out of sleep; to rise up and throw away our night clothes, fit only for darkness, and put on new; and being soldiers, we are to arm, and prepare for fight, for we are encompassed by so many enemies. The day dawns when we receive faith...[t]hen it is time to rise, to arm, to walk, to work, lest sleep steal upon us again. Final salvation, glory, is nearer to us now than when we first believed. It is continually advancing, flying forward upon the swiftest wings of time. And that which remains between the present hour and eternity is comparatively but a moment." Paul continues by telling the reader in v. 13 to behave decently, as a person would in the daytime. Thus, there should not be sexual immorality, drunkenness, debauchery, dissension, and jealousy. (v. 13). Instead, we are to clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ and not think about how to gratify the sinful nature. (v. 14).
--Does the teaching Paul gives in these verses remind of you of other teaching he made in other letters? If so, which ones?
After telling the Christian that he must offer himself as a living sacrifice to God and love his neighbor as himself, Paul begins a lengthy teaching on the importance of accepting those in the community of faith whose faith is weak. Christians must accept those around them whose faith is weaker than their own, and do so without passing judgment on that person with regard to disputable matters. (v. 1) It is important to understand from the context that will follow, Paul considers "weak faith" to be of the type that has unnecessary scruples regarding spiritual practices such as eating certain foods, holding certian holidays. It may seem counterintuitive to consider such things as a hallmark of a weak faith, but remember that Paul has spent much of the letter explaining why faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation, and that outward works and conformity to the Old Testament law accomplishes nothing. Paul is trying to get his readers to simplify their relationship with God. Believe in Jesus Christ, love God, love those around you. Everything else in the spiritual life will fall into place if these things are done. Therefore, if a person seemed to think that eating certain foods would make God angry (as in the Jewish religious code) then this is a sign that person has yet to attain the full faith necessary to put aside this old way of thinking and instead rely fully on Jesus Christ for salvation through faith. Returning to the text, Paul explains that one man may have faith that allows him to eat anything, while another man eats on vegetables for religious reasons. (v. 2). Neither man should look down on the other, for God has accepted each. (v. 3). We should not judge one other, for each Christian is the servant of God and thus serves Him. To his own master he will either stand or fall, and if that person is truly a Christian, he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand. (v. 4).
--What are disputable matters in the church? What are indisputable matters? We are told not to judge others. What exactly does it mean to judge another person? Does that mean we cannot correct others? Why do you think that most everyone rebels strongly against the judgment of others? What picture of the sustaining grace of God do we get from verse 4?
Paul shows that he is assuming that the person who is "strong" or "weak" in the faith acts out of good motives. He is not defending the person who is rebelling against God and acting badly and yet wants those around him to accept his behavior because we are not allowed to judge. Rather, Paul states that the person who has scruples and the person that does not with regard to holy days or other issues should be fully convinced intellectually of the truthfulness of his belief (v. 5), and as Calvin states, be also convinced that his viewpoint is pleasing to God. The person who has scruples, and the person without them, should perform such acts unto the Lord as acts of worship and give thanks. (v. 6). Calvin makes a good point when he notes that Paul is telling the Christian to consider his acts before the tribunal of God, and thus if a person truly does so, it will restrain that person from acting sinfully or making mistakes of judgment. We must do our acts unto the Lord for no person lives only for himself alone, or even dies for himself alone. (v. 7). As C.S. Lewis put it, either God or the Devil will say "mine" to each thing in creation in the end. God is in the end sovreign over His creation. If we live, we live in submission to the Lord. And if we die, we die in submission to the Lord's wishes. For the same God created man and placed upon each man the curse of death. As such, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. (v. 8).
--If there are things you refrain from doing out of a belief that God does not want you to engage in that action, what are your reasons for this decision? Is there any potential value in having a church community where different people have different beliefs regarding non-essential matters? How should the fact that God is our sovreign (whether we live or die, we belong to him) affect the way we act?
--Why is it important not to leave debts outstanding? What barriers can not making a debt good build between people and what principles does it violate? What are the key aspects of the love Paul is speaking of that enable it to automatically conform to the various rules of the Bible? Does the fact that love is the fulfillment of the law indicate that a purpose of the OT law was to help people love on another?
Paul tells his readers to do this in light of the fact that salvation has drawn closer than when the believers first believed. Two possible interpretations can be made here. Traditionally, Paul's reference to salvation drawing closer is a reference to the fact that as time goes on, each person moves closer toward the salvation that only comes after death. Wesley and Calvin read the passage in this way. Some modern interpreters think that Paul believed in the imminent second coming of Christ. If this is so, it does not harm the interpretation of these verses, since here he is using the possibility of an imminent second coming as a motivator towards obeying the teachings in this letter. The Revelation tells us to always eagerly anticipate Christ's return to earth (Rev 22: 17-21) and thus Paul's attitude falls in line with the eager anticipation of Christ's return. In the end, the important point is to realize that life is fleeting, our salvation may be imminent, and thus we should act as living sacrifices for the God we follow. Paul states in verse 12 that since the night is almost over and the day almost here, we should put aside deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Our life on earth is compared with the night, while the resurrection is the dawn of a new day. Wesley is worth quoting at length here. "[W]e are to awake out of sleep; to rise up and throw away our night clothes, fit only for darkness, and put on new; and being soldiers, we are to arm, and prepare for fight, for we are encompassed by so many enemies. The day dawns when we receive faith...[t]hen it is time to rise, to arm, to walk, to work, lest sleep steal upon us again. Final salvation, glory, is nearer to us now than when we first believed. It is continually advancing, flying forward upon the swiftest wings of time. And that which remains between the present hour and eternity is comparatively but a moment." Paul continues by telling the reader in v. 13 to behave decently, as a person would in the daytime. Thus, there should not be sexual immorality, drunkenness, debauchery, dissension, and jealousy. (v. 13). Instead, we are to clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ and not think about how to gratify the sinful nature. (v. 14).
--Does the teaching Paul gives in these verses remind of you of other teaching he made in other letters? If so, which ones?
After telling the Christian that he must offer himself as a living sacrifice to God and love his neighbor as himself, Paul begins a lengthy teaching on the importance of accepting those in the community of faith whose faith is weak. Christians must accept those around them whose faith is weaker than their own, and do so without passing judgment on that person with regard to disputable matters. (v. 1) It is important to understand from the context that will follow, Paul considers "weak faith" to be of the type that has unnecessary scruples regarding spiritual practices such as eating certain foods, holding certian holidays. It may seem counterintuitive to consider such things as a hallmark of a weak faith, but remember that Paul has spent much of the letter explaining why faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation, and that outward works and conformity to the Old Testament law accomplishes nothing. Paul is trying to get his readers to simplify their relationship with God. Believe in Jesus Christ, love God, love those around you. Everything else in the spiritual life will fall into place if these things are done. Therefore, if a person seemed to think that eating certain foods would make God angry (as in the Jewish religious code) then this is a sign that person has yet to attain the full faith necessary to put aside this old way of thinking and instead rely fully on Jesus Christ for salvation through faith. Returning to the text, Paul explains that one man may have faith that allows him to eat anything, while another man eats on vegetables for religious reasons. (v. 2). Neither man should look down on the other, for God has accepted each. (v. 3). We should not judge one other, for each Christian is the servant of God and thus serves Him. To his own master he will either stand or fall, and if that person is truly a Christian, he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand. (v. 4).
--What are disputable matters in the church? What are indisputable matters? We are told not to judge others. What exactly does it mean to judge another person? Does that mean we cannot correct others? Why do you think that most everyone rebels strongly against the judgment of others? What picture of the sustaining grace of God do we get from verse 4?
Paul shows that he is assuming that the person who is "strong" or "weak" in the faith acts out of good motives. He is not defending the person who is rebelling against God and acting badly and yet wants those around him to accept his behavior because we are not allowed to judge. Rather, Paul states that the person who has scruples and the person that does not with regard to holy days or other issues should be fully convinced intellectually of the truthfulness of his belief (v. 5), and as Calvin states, be also convinced that his viewpoint is pleasing to God. The person who has scruples, and the person without them, should perform such acts unto the Lord as acts of worship and give thanks. (v. 6). Calvin makes a good point when he notes that Paul is telling the Christian to consider his acts before the tribunal of God, and thus if a person truly does so, it will restrain that person from acting sinfully or making mistakes of judgment. We must do our acts unto the Lord for no person lives only for himself alone, or even dies for himself alone. (v. 7). As C.S. Lewis put it, either God or the Devil will say "mine" to each thing in creation in the end. God is in the end sovreign over His creation. If we live, we live in submission to the Lord. And if we die, we die in submission to the Lord's wishes. For the same God created man and placed upon each man the curse of death. As such, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. (v. 8).
--If there are things you refrain from doing out of a belief that God does not want you to engage in that action, what are your reasons for this decision? Is there any potential value in having a church community where different people have different beliefs regarding non-essential matters? How should the fact that God is our sovreign (whether we live or die, we belong to him) affect the way we act?
7/03/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 13: 1-7
The obedience that is due governmental authorities from a Christian is Paul's subject in Romans 13: 1-7. As Wesley points out, since the epistle is directed to the church at Rome--the seat of power--the question is especially pertinent to this church. Additionally, the Jewish people were chafing under Rome's rule, a situation that would eventually result in a Jewish rebellion that eventually was crushed and destroyed the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. The instructions are also important to all believers in the church as the Romans often suspected the Christians of being treasonous since they would not swear fealty to the Roman gods, but only to Christ alone. As such, Wesley states that the letter also serves as a public defense of the Christian religion that attempts to show that Christians are not formenting rebellion against the empire.
Paul begins (v. 1) by saying that all persons must be obedient to the higher powers. Two powers are mentioned. First, there is the supreme power of God. Second, God in his supreme power establishes the governmental authorities. Those that resist the governmental authorities therefore resisit the ordinance of God and are subject to punishment from God. With regard to the governmental authorities, Wesley states that the governmental authorities are subordinate to and their authority thus is worthy of Christian obedience. Calvin notes that all persons must be obedient to the authorities, and that all leaders have been placed in their position by God's hand. With regard to tyrannies and unjust ruleers, Calvin states such governments are disordered and thus not ordained by God.
--What does it mean that God establishes the governmental authorities? Does He establish all governmental authorities directly as part of His plan, or are some tyrannies allowed to exist but not actually established by God? Calvin states that tyrannies are not ordained by God. Do you agree? Explain your thoughts on the matter.
Paul continues by giving practical advice regarding the government, its useful, and the proper Christian response. Governments do not act against good works, but rather evil ones. Thus, the Christian who does good should not fear the government, which will look kindly upon those who are doing good within society. (v. 3). As such, the magistrate is a minister of God sent for our benefit if we do good, but a minister of wrath to us if we do evil who bears the sword not in vain. (v. 4). According to Calvin, governments are established for the public order and good, to provide safety to good people and restrain wickedness. Opposing this function is tantamount to opposing the good of humanity. Calvin also says that even a wicked magistrate should be obeyed, however, since such a person is sent as a punishment from God for our sins. Wesley says that Paul's instructions are generally true, but that some governments are exceptions to the teaching in verse 3. Both Wesley and Calvin state that verse 4 refers to capital punishment, which each believes God authorizes to be inflicted.
--If a government acts against good works and supports evil, would the Christian be freed from obeying it? Paul says the purpose of governmental authorities is to restrain evil and allow good to flourish. What other purposes, if any, are there? Do you agree with Calvin that wicked rulers are sent as a punishment from God? Does v. 4 authorize capital punishment?
The governmental authorities should be obeyed not only for practical reasons such as avoiding punishment, but also for conscience sake. (v. 5) The Christian is also to pay taxes for the public good. (v. 6). In the end, we should render the proper respect and actions to the governmental authorities by paying taxes and customs, and obeying and honoring those who have power. (v. 7). As Wesley states, obedience to God is important here. Calvin notes here in his commentary that the discourse Paul is giving applies only to legitigimate authorities and is inapplicable to tyrannies that try to rule over the consciences of men. Interestingly, Luther says that we are to be subject to the secular authorities for practical reasons, and that doing so does not make us virtuous in God's sight. Calvin states that obedience is an acceptable service to God.
--It appears that a Christian is required to pay taxes for the public good. Does this mean the IRS is God's holy instrument? What does this indicate about the authority of government to lvy taxes? Who do you agree with regard to the spiritual benefit of obedience to authority--Luther or Calvin? In the end, does this passage teach that Christians must be obedient to the governmental authorities regardless of their actions? Explain your answer. If you do not think so, state what acts of a government would cause it to forfeit its right to our obedience?
Paul begins (v. 1) by saying that all persons must be obedient to the higher powers. Two powers are mentioned. First, there is the supreme power of God. Second, God in his supreme power establishes the governmental authorities. Those that resist the governmental authorities therefore resisit the ordinance of God and are subject to punishment from God. With regard to the governmental authorities, Wesley states that the governmental authorities are subordinate to and their authority thus is worthy of Christian obedience. Calvin notes that all persons must be obedient to the authorities, and that all leaders have been placed in their position by God's hand. With regard to tyrannies and unjust ruleers, Calvin states such governments are disordered and thus not ordained by God.
--What does it mean that God establishes the governmental authorities? Does He establish all governmental authorities directly as part of His plan, or are some tyrannies allowed to exist but not actually established by God? Calvin states that tyrannies are not ordained by God. Do you agree? Explain your thoughts on the matter.
Paul continues by giving practical advice regarding the government, its useful, and the proper Christian response. Governments do not act against good works, but rather evil ones. Thus, the Christian who does good should not fear the government, which will look kindly upon those who are doing good within society. (v. 3). As such, the magistrate is a minister of God sent for our benefit if we do good, but a minister of wrath to us if we do evil who bears the sword not in vain. (v. 4). According to Calvin, governments are established for the public order and good, to provide safety to good people and restrain wickedness. Opposing this function is tantamount to opposing the good of humanity. Calvin also says that even a wicked magistrate should be obeyed, however, since such a person is sent as a punishment from God for our sins. Wesley says that Paul's instructions are generally true, but that some governments are exceptions to the teaching in verse 3. Both Wesley and Calvin state that verse 4 refers to capital punishment, which each believes God authorizes to be inflicted.
--If a government acts against good works and supports evil, would the Christian be freed from obeying it? Paul says the purpose of governmental authorities is to restrain evil and allow good to flourish. What other purposes, if any, are there? Do you agree with Calvin that wicked rulers are sent as a punishment from God? Does v. 4 authorize capital punishment?
The governmental authorities should be obeyed not only for practical reasons such as avoiding punishment, but also for conscience sake. (v. 5) The Christian is also to pay taxes for the public good. (v. 6). In the end, we should render the proper respect and actions to the governmental authorities by paying taxes and customs, and obeying and honoring those who have power. (v. 7). As Wesley states, obedience to God is important here. Calvin notes here in his commentary that the discourse Paul is giving applies only to legitigimate authorities and is inapplicable to tyrannies that try to rule over the consciences of men. Interestingly, Luther says that we are to be subject to the secular authorities for practical reasons, and that doing so does not make us virtuous in God's sight. Calvin states that obedience is an acceptable service to God.
--It appears that a Christian is required to pay taxes for the public good. Does this mean the IRS is God's holy instrument? What does this indicate about the authority of government to lvy taxes? Who do you agree with regard to the spiritual benefit of obedience to authority--Luther or Calvin? In the end, does this passage teach that Christians must be obedient to the governmental authorities regardless of their actions? Explain your answer. If you do not think so, state what acts of a government would cause it to forfeit its right to our obedience?
6/25/2005
6/22/2005
Air Force Academy Flies Past Religious Intolerance Charge
It is good to hear that that the US Air Force Academy was not found to be a hotbed of evangelical Christian intolerance by an investigating panel. One of the more egregious acts of a campus chaplain was to tell new cadets to be born again or risk the fires of Hell. While that may be a bit extreme and probably should be moderated, one would hope that our future military leaders can handle the occassional heavy handed tactic by clergy. Other "charges" by the report border on the ludicrous. Apparently some have complained that chaplains have had the gall to pressure cadets to "attend religious services and receive theological training." Shocking! A chaplain telling folks to go to church and learn about their religion. Wow, clearly these chaplains need to understand that all roads lead to God, not make any recommendations regarding the spiritual life since feeling that God loves you is what is important, and become well-mannered ministers of secularism. Of course, the chaplains and cadets at the academy should respect the various religious and non-religious viewpoints of others. At the same time, however, if the Air Force wants to have religious chaplains it needs to be willing to let those folks express their religious creeds to those around them, for as too many secularists forget, tolerance is a two-way street.
Klansman Reminder of Southern Church's Heritage
The manslaughter conviction of Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers in Mississippi hopefully brings a measure of justice for the deaths of three young men (1 black and 2 white) who were murdered by a group of Klansmen for aiding the cause of ending segregation. In addition to his Klan membership, Killen was also an ordained Baptist minister. As most everyone is aware, many churches in the south during the civil rights era actively opposed the battle to end segregation. In a sad indictment of the Christian church of the time, Martin Luther King, Jr. had anticipated that white clergymen would see the rightness of the cause of black equality both under the law and in human hearts and that southern white churches would support his movement. However, many churches instead actively opposed the movement and never came en masse to effect change, leaving King disappointed and disillusioned. While few white churches in the south are actively racist today, the sins committed by Christians during the civil rights period continue to have long standing effects on the church today. Most churches remain racially segregated today, limiting the effectiveness the church has in enacting the social components of the gospel. And much of society looks at the moral stands that many theologically traditional southern churches take today against abortion, sexual immorality, and other issues and simply think that it is the same hateful, intolerant attitude of the 60's expressed in different ways. Granted, there are reasonable answers to this charge that I think are sufficient to rebut it, but the lesson to learn is that the wages of sin often are not only death, but last for generations thereafter.
6/19/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 12: 9-21
After commenting on the use of spiritual gifts within the church, Paul provides rules of conduct or Christian living that are to be followed by believers. First, he writes that love must be sincere. Calvin notes that often many people put on a false face when dealing with others and that this must be put aside. Additionally, we are told to cling to those things that are good, and hate evil. (v. 9). Christians are to love one another with brotherly love, and honor one another above ourselves. (v. 10). Wesley gives the practical advice that we should consider what is good in others in evil in ourselves, which will lead us to do this. The Christian should not lack in zeal, but instead maintain his or her spiritual fervor (v. 11). Wesley and Calvin both apply this verse to our work in business. Paul then gives an exortation to be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, and faithful in prayer. Wesley and Calvin both say that the hope of eternal life is important in doing these things, and Wesley adds the hope of holiness. (v. 12) Christians should help fellow believers in need and practice hospitality. (v. 13). As Calvin notes, when we help those in need, we cannot expect a personal gain and thus such service helps to show the legitimacy of our love.
--Why is Paul concerned that Christians act in sincere love with one another? What is the brotherly love that Paul exorts us to? Is it difficult to maintain spiritual fervor, and how should we maintain it? What is the importance of hospitality?
Paul provides rules for living in harmony, some of which are difficult. He tells us to bless those who persecute us and not to curse. This, Calvin notes, is arduous and wholly opposed to the nature of man. (v. 14). We are also to rejoice with those who are rejoicing, and mourn with those in mourning. (v. 15). We are to live in harmony with one another and associate with people of low positions, not being conceited. (v. 16). The Christian is not to repay retaliate for evil with an evil act. Additionally, we are to attempt to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone. (v. 17). To the extent it is possible, Christians are to live in peace with those around us. (v. 18). Revenge should not be taken by the Christian, but instead the matter should be left to God, and we should treat our enemies kindly for it will often have the effect of showing him his bad behavior and tormenting him. (v. 19-20). To summarize, we are not to be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good. (v. 21).
--How is it that we are to bless those that persecute us? Why is it important that we rejoice and mourn in community, and what does doing such things indicate about ourselves? Do our churches today associate with people of low position? What benefits do such association provide to individuals and communities? Why is it important to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone? What is "the extent possible" that Paul limits the requirement that Christians live in peace with those around them? Why should revenge be saved for God? Is Paul right that right kind actions against our enemies can torment them? When we retaliate in evil, how is it that we are thus overcome by evil? How is it that evil is overcome by good?
--Why is Paul concerned that Christians act in sincere love with one another? What is the brotherly love that Paul exorts us to? Is it difficult to maintain spiritual fervor, and how should we maintain it? What is the importance of hospitality?
Paul provides rules for living in harmony, some of which are difficult. He tells us to bless those who persecute us and not to curse. This, Calvin notes, is arduous and wholly opposed to the nature of man. (v. 14). We are also to rejoice with those who are rejoicing, and mourn with those in mourning. (v. 15). We are to live in harmony with one another and associate with people of low positions, not being conceited. (v. 16). The Christian is not to repay retaliate for evil with an evil act. Additionally, we are to attempt to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone. (v. 17). To the extent it is possible, Christians are to live in peace with those around us. (v. 18). Revenge should not be taken by the Christian, but instead the matter should be left to God, and we should treat our enemies kindly for it will often have the effect of showing him his bad behavior and tormenting him. (v. 19-20). To summarize, we are not to be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good. (v. 21).
--How is it that we are to bless those that persecute us? Why is it important that we rejoice and mourn in community, and what does doing such things indicate about ourselves? Do our churches today associate with people of low position? What benefits do such association provide to individuals and communities? Why is it important to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone? What is "the extent possible" that Paul limits the requirement that Christians live in peace with those around them? Why should revenge be saved for God? Is Paul right that right kind actions against our enemies can torment them? When we retaliate in evil, how is it that we are thus overcome by evil? How is it that evil is overcome by good?
6/17/2005
Wierd Scientology
With all the hulabaloo surrounding Tom Cruise's acting like a cheshire cat on methamphetamines while publicising his relationship with Katie Holmes, the religion/cult/scam of scientology has been in the news quite a bit. HERE is a link to a well known 1990 Time magazine cover story on the group. A good photo of the cover art can be found here. The Scientologists apparently sued over this one, but the US Supreme Court denied their petition. I don't think I'll be joining anytime soon. I don't have the money.
6/12/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 12: 3-8
After proclaiming that every Christian is to present his or her body as a living sacrifice onto God (live a life dedicated towards God as His servant), Paul states that the Christian should "not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." Calvin states that Paul is not here giving a general teaching promoting humility, though he does recommend it often throughout his epistles. In this passage, Paul is telling the members of the Church to accurately assess their own abilities and role in the community accurately, which involves having humility and discernment in being honest with one's self. This can be seen from the following verses (4-8) which talk about the various roles in the church.
In verses 4-8, Paul teaches that the church is a diverse community of people with different talents working in a unified fashion and serving as the body of Christ on Earth. Paul compares the church community to our own bodies, which have various different parts that each have a function, but are still all part of the same body. In much the same way, the people of the church form one body in wich each member belongs to the others. (v. 5). Because we are one body, we are to help one another. The members of the church body have different abilities that are gifts from God. As Calvin notes, accepting that different members of the community are more gifted in some areas than ourselves takes humility. The first gift Paul mentions is the gift of prophesy, which Wesley states is where "heavenly mysteries are revealed to men." Prophesy is to be undertaken in proportion to the person's faith. It is interesting that both Wesley and Calvin interpret this verse as referring to the exposition of scripture, with Calvin stating that it is being able to discern the will of God and not necessarily making predictions. (v. 6). Paul then mentions other gifts. A person who serves should do so. A person who can teach should serve the church by doing so. An encouraging person should act on that ability. A person who can help meet the needs of others should give generously. A leader should govern diligently. A person who shows mercy should do so cheerfully. (v. 7-8).
--What are the abilities that you have as a Christian? Weaknesses? How should you act upon your abilities? How should you act with regard to your weaknesses?
--What do each of the gifts mentioned here bring to a church and why are they important? What other gifts can you think of that are important?
In verses 4-8, Paul teaches that the church is a diverse community of people with different talents working in a unified fashion and serving as the body of Christ on Earth. Paul compares the church community to our own bodies, which have various different parts that each have a function, but are still all part of the same body. In much the same way, the people of the church form one body in wich each member belongs to the others. (v. 5). Because we are one body, we are to help one another. The members of the church body have different abilities that are gifts from God. As Calvin notes, accepting that different members of the community are more gifted in some areas than ourselves takes humility. The first gift Paul mentions is the gift of prophesy, which Wesley states is where "heavenly mysteries are revealed to men." Prophesy is to be undertaken in proportion to the person's faith. It is interesting that both Wesley and Calvin interpret this verse as referring to the exposition of scripture, with Calvin stating that it is being able to discern the will of God and not necessarily making predictions. (v. 6). Paul then mentions other gifts. A person who serves should do so. A person who can teach should serve the church by doing so. An encouraging person should act on that ability. A person who can help meet the needs of others should give generously. A leader should govern diligently. A person who shows mercy should do so cheerfully. (v. 7-8).
--What are the abilities that you have as a Christian? Weaknesses? How should you act upon your abilities? How should you act with regard to your weaknesses?
--What do each of the gifts mentioned here bring to a church and why are they important? What other gifts can you think of that are important?
6/07/2005
Florida Voucher Program Before Supreme Court
Florida's Opportunity Scholarship school voucher program, which provides roughly a $4,000 yearly stipend to the parents of children who are attending failing public schools for the purpose of sending them to a private school, is being challenged before the Florida Supreme Court today. (SEE HERE) The program is of limited scope as only students who attend double F public schools are eligible to qualify. To date, only 741 students have taken advantage of vouchers. However, as Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas POINTS out, if the Opportunity Scholarship program is found unconstitutional other voucher programs such as the McKay Scholarship Program which serves over 12,000 students may also be found unconsitutional, along with the newly enacted pre-K program and perhaps the Bright Futures scholarship program.
The most likely ground for a finding of unconstitutionality is Art I, Sect. 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[n]o revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or inderectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." It is likely that the state will defend the voucher program by drawing a distinction that the money is not going to aid the sectarian institutions (religious schools) but rather to aid students who control where the money is spent and are free to go to a non-religious private school. I would also expect the state to argue that since Art I, Sect. 3 begins with a statement prohibiting laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, this language should be considered the overarching purpose of the section and must be read in conjunction with the prohibition against state funds. Thus, the argument would be that the voucher program does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion, is not provided for the purpose of benefiting a sectarian instution, and thus is constitutionally permissible.
My job does not permit me to comment too strongly on an issue such as this, but let me say that I was struck by the large pro-voucher demonstration that I viewed outside my office window this morning. It had probably close to 2,000 people taking part, and racial minorities were the predominant protestors. To the extent that we continue to spend our money for new schools by placing them in affluent (largely white) neighborhoods, at some point we must provide access to high quality education for less affluent (and often more diverse) populations. Simply saying "public education is great and nothing is wrong" is not satisfactory. At least the protestors outside my window this morning don't think so. And I tend to agree with them.
The most likely ground for a finding of unconstitutionality is Art I, Sect. 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[n]o revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or inderectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." It is likely that the state will defend the voucher program by drawing a distinction that the money is not going to aid the sectarian institutions (religious schools) but rather to aid students who control where the money is spent and are free to go to a non-religious private school. I would also expect the state to argue that since Art I, Sect. 3 begins with a statement prohibiting laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, this language should be considered the overarching purpose of the section and must be read in conjunction with the prohibition against state funds. Thus, the argument would be that the voucher program does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion, is not provided for the purpose of benefiting a sectarian instution, and thus is constitutionally permissible.
My job does not permit me to comment too strongly on an issue such as this, but let me say that I was struck by the large pro-voucher demonstration that I viewed outside my office window this morning. It had probably close to 2,000 people taking part, and racial minorities were the predominant protestors. To the extent that we continue to spend our money for new schools by placing them in affluent (largely white) neighborhoods, at some point we must provide access to high quality education for less affluent (and often more diverse) populations. Simply saying "public education is great and nothing is wrong" is not satisfactory. At least the protestors outside my window this morning don't think so. And I tend to agree with them.
6/05/2005
Killearn DTS: Romans 12: 1-2
In the first 11 Chapters of Romans, Paul presents the reader with a historical and theological account of God's dealings with humanity. He explains why salvation is necessary, why it must be through grace, and how God is dealing with his chosen people of Israel now that the gospel of Jesus Christ has appeared. Beginning in Chapter 12, Paul changes tracks and gives practical, pastoral advice on why and how Christians are to live holy lives, and what it means to live a life of virtue and goodness. Chapter 12 begins with one of the most well known passages of scripture. Paul states that in light of the gospel of grace and all the kindness and mercy of God, we are to present our bodies as living sacrifices before God that are holy and pleasing to Him. Wesley notes that Paul says that it is because of God's mercy that we should offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, which is the converse of Romans 1: 8 where Paul says God is revealing his wrath against all forms of ungodliness. Calvin states that when Paul writes that we are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God, this refers to the whole person including the soul and spirit. Offering ourselves as a living sacrifice is the reasonable act of service that we are to present before God, says Calvin, and is a summary statement of how the Christian is supposed to live his or her life.
In addition to offering ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul tells us in v. 2 to not conform to the patterns of this world, but instead renew our minds in order that we may be able to discern that which is good, namely the will of God. As Calvin put it, our minds need to be renovated. Wesley adds that the good Paul is referring to that is the will of God are precepts of Christianity, or the rules for day to day living. God sets out before his people His will for how they are to live their lives, and the application of the rules in various contexts is a large part of what true wisdom entails.
--What type of living sacrifice does God find acceptable? What needs to be the condition of the sacrifice? What does it mean to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice? What aspects of the Christian's life should be offered?
--What are some of the patterns of this world that Paul refers to in v. 2? How is it that we are to renew our minds? What will this entail? What types of knowledge are we free to pursue under Christianity?
In addition to offering ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul tells us in v. 2 to not conform to the patterns of this world, but instead renew our minds in order that we may be able to discern that which is good, namely the will of God. As Calvin put it, our minds need to be renovated. Wesley adds that the good Paul is referring to that is the will of God are precepts of Christianity, or the rules for day to day living. God sets out before his people His will for how they are to live their lives, and the application of the rules in various contexts is a large part of what true wisdom entails.
--What type of living sacrifice does God find acceptable? What needs to be the condition of the sacrifice? What does it mean to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice? What aspects of the Christian's life should be offered?
--What are some of the patterns of this world that Paul refers to in v. 2? How is it that we are to renew our minds? What will this entail? What types of knowledge are we free to pursue under Christianity?
6/04/2005
Movie Review: Cinderella Man (****)
Cinderella Man is an excellent movie, and likely will be the best major studio release from Hollywood this year. The movie tells the story of James J. Braddock, a heavyweight contender of the 1920's and 30's. The movie introduces us to Braddock (Russell Crowe) as an up and coming fighter who ends up with a shot at the light-heavyweight title in 1929, and who lives in comfort with his wife and family in their New Jersey home. However, Braddock is unable to win the title, later breaks his hand and eventually had his boxing license revoked after the Great Depression began. The combination of the economic collapse along with Braddock's inability to box forces the family to live in poverty, unable to afford food or pay electril bills during the New York winter. The Great Depression was a horribly difficult time for millions of Americans, and Cinderalla man succeds at showing us the poverty and desperation of the period. Despite the tough times, Braddock's wife Mae (Renee Zellwegger) lovingly stands by her man. Through some good fortune, Braddock re-emerges in 1934 and '35 as a top contender culminating in a title bout with heavyweight champion Max Baer. The film is directed by Ron Howard, who may have the honor of winning another best picture to go along with A Beautiful Mind.
Cinderella Man accomplishes a wonderful thing. It presents the moviegoer with a portrait of a kind and decent family man in James J. Braddock. Braddock is both a loving husband to his wife Mae and a doting father to their three children Jay, Rosemarie, and Howard. Russell Crowe is brilliant in his portrayal of the man, presenting us with a kind, morally upright man who has self-respect but not arrogance, and displays wisdom in his actions. Braddock understands the importance of loving and supporting his family, and when he stages his comeback, he is motivated by putting milk on his family's table. Braddock is a wonderful example of what a man and a father should be, something sorely missing from today's cynical movies that assume every moral, good man must have skeletons in his closet.
Cinderella Man is beautifully shot, well directed and features multiple outstanding acting jobs. In addition to Russell Crowe's outstanding portrayal of Braddock, Renee Zellwegger turns in a good performance as Mae Braddock, who loves her husband and family with all her heart, but like Adrian from Rocky, fears for her husband's life in the ring. Mae is a strong woman, but Zellwegger is at her best when displaying her love and affection for her husband. Paul Giamatti of Sideways fame portrays Braddock's wise-cracking manager Joe Gould, and he and Crowe present us with an excellent portrayal of male friendship and you can see genuine affection between the numerous wisecracks and barbs the two men share. Craig Bierko also does a nice job in his small role as the charismatic Max Baer.
The old cliche is "If you are going to see only one movie this year, see (insert movie here)." Well, insert "Cinderella Man" at the end of that sentence. It is a movie that is well acted, well shot, well written, dramatic, and carries positive messages about family and perserverance. It's a knockout.
Cinderella Man accomplishes a wonderful thing. It presents the moviegoer with a portrait of a kind and decent family man in James J. Braddock. Braddock is both a loving husband to his wife Mae and a doting father to their three children Jay, Rosemarie, and Howard. Russell Crowe is brilliant in his portrayal of the man, presenting us with a kind, morally upright man who has self-respect but not arrogance, and displays wisdom in his actions. Braddock understands the importance of loving and supporting his family, and when he stages his comeback, he is motivated by putting milk on his family's table. Braddock is a wonderful example of what a man and a father should be, something sorely missing from today's cynical movies that assume every moral, good man must have skeletons in his closet.
Cinderella Man is beautifully shot, well directed and features multiple outstanding acting jobs. In addition to Russell Crowe's outstanding portrayal of Braddock, Renee Zellwegger turns in a good performance as Mae Braddock, who loves her husband and family with all her heart, but like Adrian from Rocky, fears for her husband's life in the ring. Mae is a strong woman, but Zellwegger is at her best when displaying her love and affection for her husband. Paul Giamatti of Sideways fame portrays Braddock's wise-cracking manager Joe Gould, and he and Crowe present us with an excellent portrayal of male friendship and you can see genuine affection between the numerous wisecracks and barbs the two men share. Craig Bierko also does a nice job in his small role as the charismatic Max Baer.
The old cliche is "If you are going to see only one movie this year, see (insert movie here)." Well, insert "Cinderella Man" at the end of that sentence. It is a movie that is well acted, well shot, well written, dramatic, and carries positive messages about family and perserverance. It's a knockout.
5/31/2005
Cubs Finally Above .500, But Injuries Are Going To Be Damaging
The Cubbies have won 4 straight games and finally are over the .500 mark on the season. I have to agree with Rick Morrissey of the Chicago Tribune that Dusty Baker is actually doing a pretty good job of managing this team given all the injuries and holes that is has:
- Nomar Garciaparra injured until August.
- Kerry Wood injured since late April.
- Mark Prior hit by line drive and currently injured.
- Todd Walker (2B) injured for a month.
- Joe Borowski hit by line drive and injured for first month and a half.
- No true lead-off hitter.
- LaTroy Hawkins blowing saves.
- Team draws few walks.
- Aramis Ramirez off to a slow start. (appears to be heating up, though)
The Cubs have been able to keep from completely falling apart because Derrek Lee has been the best player in the National League, leading the league in all three of the triple crown categories. Other players have also played decently for the Cubs. Jeromy Burnitz has been solid and Neifi Perez has filled in nicely for Nomar. Carlos Zambrano and Greg Maddux have pitched decent baseball and Glendon Rusch continues to blossom into a pretty good lefty. However, the loss of Mark Prior, who was 4-1 with a sub 3.00 ERA when he went down, is going to really hurt this team. Prior is the team's superstar player and perhaps the best young pitcher in baseball when healthy. With Prior joining Kerry Wood on the DL, the Cubs will be forced to start Sergio Mitre and a random minor leaguer--this week it is John Koronka, who has a 5.05 ERA for AAA Iowa. This means that the club will be usually be facing a serious pitching disadvantage 2 of the 5 games it plays in each trip through the rotation. The inevitable result of which is that the Cubs will not be able to make a serious move towards the top of the standings unless everything goes perfectly (such as recently acquired Jerome Williams being called up and pitching well). If the Cubs are at .500 at the end of June, they should count their blessings, hope they get healthy, and try to make a wild-card run in the second half of the season.
5/29/2005
Killearn DTS: Romans 11: 17-36
1) After explaining that the apostasy of Israel has benefited the gentiles, and that Israel's eventual acceptance of Christ will lead to even greater benefit, Paul explains why gentiles should not look down upon the Jews. In verses 17-20, Paul uses the analogy of the gentiles being branches from a wild olive tree being grafted into the olive tree of faith after some of that tree's branches have been broken off. However, the fact that the gentiles have been brought into the family of God should not give them cause to be prideful. In verse 21, Paul notes that if God was willing to let this happen to the natural branches (Israel), the same possibly could happen to the grafted branches (gentiles). Paul advises his readers to consider both God's goodness as well as his severity, stating that they can count on receiving God's goodness if they "continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (v. 22).
--Paul warns against having pride in once's position as a Christian to the extent that we use it to hold it over the Jews. Theologically, why shouldn't Christians exhibit pride? Why is it practically important that the Christian not exhibit pride? Who are some groups that today Christians often exhibit pride against?
--Wesley notes that when Paul tells the gentile believers not to have pride, but rather fear, that the fear being spoke of here has the effect of preventing against pride and security. Wesley takes the opportunity to say that Christians can fall from their faith, noting that Paul specifically states that God's goodness is experienced by those who continue in His goodness, but those who do not continue will be cut off. Calvin says it is a warning that does not change the fact that Christians are eternally secure. Calvin does this by saying Paul is addressing the gentiles as a group and saying that just as the Jews were broken off, the gentiles as a group could be also. Who do you think is right?
2) Paul states that if the Jews do not persist in their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree of the family of God. After all, if God could bring the gentiles into the family of faith, then it makes sense that He can bring the Jews back in since they are God's chosen people. (v. 23-24). Paul says that it is a mystery of God why the Jews have becomed partially blind towards the things of God, but that once all the Gentile believers are grafted in all Isreal will be saved, quoting scripture regarding God's covenant promises to Isreal. Paul quotes Isa 59: 20 to that effect. (v. 25-27). Paul points out that while the Jews are enemies of the Gospel, they are still loved by God for the sake of their forefathers because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (v. 28-29). For just as the gentiles were once disobedient but have been shown mercy, the same will apply to the Jews. (v. 30-31). Paul says that Paul has committed all over to disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all. (v. 32). Paul concludes with a brief meditation on the depth of God's wisdom and knowledge, and the impossibility of fully understanding the ways of God. Isaiah 40:13 and Jeremiah 23:18 and Job 41:11 are quoted in verses 34-35. Paul concludes this section of his epistle dealing with God's dealings with Israel celebrating the fact that God is the creator, sustainer and God (natch) of all things.
--Paul indicates that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Should we find comfort in this fact?
--Calvin states that verse 32 means that God has so arranged all of creation in such a way that every person would be guilty of unbelief, but that he does not directly cause the unbelief of these persons. This is done so that God can provide salvation that is depending solely on the goodness of God. Wesley interprets this passage less that God is arranging creation so that all will rebel against Him, but rather that God has permitted this to happen. With whom do you believe? How should we interpret the statement that God has allowed disobedience in order to "have mercy on all." If some reformed theologians teach that Romans 9-11 teaches that God has specifically bound all persons over to disobedience so that he can elect certain persons, doesn't this verse indicate that all persons will be saved? Because of this, all three chapters are best read as a discussion of God's dealing with his chosen people as a group, not as how he acts with regard to individuals.
--Why is it important that we recognize the impossibility of figuring out all the ways of God? Why do you think Paul ended this section of the epistle (ch. 1-11) the way he did, praising the sovreignty of God?
--Paul warns against having pride in once's position as a Christian to the extent that we use it to hold it over the Jews. Theologically, why shouldn't Christians exhibit pride? Why is it practically important that the Christian not exhibit pride? Who are some groups that today Christians often exhibit pride against?
--Wesley notes that when Paul tells the gentile believers not to have pride, but rather fear, that the fear being spoke of here has the effect of preventing against pride and security. Wesley takes the opportunity to say that Christians can fall from their faith, noting that Paul specifically states that God's goodness is experienced by those who continue in His goodness, but those who do not continue will be cut off. Calvin says it is a warning that does not change the fact that Christians are eternally secure. Calvin does this by saying Paul is addressing the gentiles as a group and saying that just as the Jews were broken off, the gentiles as a group could be also. Who do you think is right?
2) Paul states that if the Jews do not persist in their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree of the family of God. After all, if God could bring the gentiles into the family of faith, then it makes sense that He can bring the Jews back in since they are God's chosen people. (v. 23-24). Paul says that it is a mystery of God why the Jews have becomed partially blind towards the things of God, but that once all the Gentile believers are grafted in all Isreal will be saved, quoting scripture regarding God's covenant promises to Isreal. Paul quotes Isa 59: 20 to that effect. (v. 25-27). Paul points out that while the Jews are enemies of the Gospel, they are still loved by God for the sake of their forefathers because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (v. 28-29). For just as the gentiles were once disobedient but have been shown mercy, the same will apply to the Jews. (v. 30-31). Paul says that Paul has committed all over to disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all. (v. 32). Paul concludes with a brief meditation on the depth of God's wisdom and knowledge, and the impossibility of fully understanding the ways of God. Isaiah 40:13 and Jeremiah 23:18 and Job 41:11 are quoted in verses 34-35. Paul concludes this section of his epistle dealing with God's dealings with Israel celebrating the fact that God is the creator, sustainer and God (natch) of all things.
--Paul indicates that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Should we find comfort in this fact?
--Calvin states that verse 32 means that God has so arranged all of creation in such a way that every person would be guilty of unbelief, but that he does not directly cause the unbelief of these persons. This is done so that God can provide salvation that is depending solely on the goodness of God. Wesley interprets this passage less that God is arranging creation so that all will rebel against Him, but rather that God has permitted this to happen. With whom do you believe? How should we interpret the statement that God has allowed disobedience in order to "have mercy on all." If some reformed theologians teach that Romans 9-11 teaches that God has specifically bound all persons over to disobedience so that he can elect certain persons, doesn't this verse indicate that all persons will be saved? Because of this, all three chapters are best read as a discussion of God's dealing with his chosen people as a group, not as how he acts with regard to individuals.
--Why is it important that we recognize the impossibility of figuring out all the ways of God? Why do you think Paul ended this section of the epistle (ch. 1-11) the way he did, praising the sovreignty of God?
5/27/2005
Establishment Clause Showdown in the Desert
As reported in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, the ACLU has won a federal appellate case that would require the removal of a six-foot tall cross erected in 1934 by WWI veterans to honor their fallen comrades from land designated a national preserve in 1994. The memorial is currently maintained by private citizens. Naturally, some old soldiers honoring their forebears with a cross has been interpreted as the establishment of religion in America. The pettiness and opportunism of such suits is striking. A desolate monument designed to honor brave men who died for this country should not be allowed to exist, simply because it uses the same religious symbol that can be found in Arlington National Cemetary to honor fallen soldiers of wars and deceased political figures. God forbid a person should be forced to see a religious symbol that our fellow citizens deem meaningful and erect in honor of their friends and loved ones on property that the government annexed 60 years after the erection of the monument. Additionally, as the Wall Street journal notes, the ACLU has cashed in on private citizens to the tune of $60,000+ by bringing this suit. Who knew that banishing all traces of religion from the public square could be so profitable? The establishment clause is designed to prevent a state church and government coercion designed to promote a particular faith. This monument is neither, but sadly our establishment clause jurisprudence is in such disarray that the ruling has a good chance of standing.
(Nod to the "Galley Slaves" weblog for pointing this story out)
(Nod to the "Galley Slaves" weblog for pointing this story out)
The Devil Rays are Golden
My Tampa Bay Devil Rays are starting to show some signs of life, having swept the nefarious Oakland A's with their 2-1 victory. The day before, the Rays put up 10 runs in the first inning in a 14-6 victory. The Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, and the rest of the AL had better watch out, as the Rays are quickly becoming the talk of the universe with their 18-30 record. The Mariners are next, and might as well forfeit at this point.
Christian Political Shifts in the Wind?
David Brooks of the New York Times has an interesting Op-Ed piece here on the increasing willingness of many evangelical Christians and political liberals to join forces on social justice issues such as care for the poor. I hope that Brooks is correct that many evangelicals are broadening their political vision to seek and looking to apply their faith to a wider range of problems and issues facing the world today. A deeper Christian involvement in helping the poor and downtrodden, if done with wisdom, serves to show the love of Christ to an unbelieving world. You can read the article HERE if you have signed up for the free Times version on the web.
5/25/2005
Motley Crue Files Suit Against NBC
Apparently, Motley Crue is suing NBC for refusing to put them on the airwaves after the band's lead singer used an expletitve in December 2004 on the Tonight Show. I would have thought a class action lawsuit against NBC for subjecting us to their "music" to be more apropos, but I guess it really is a wacky world that we live in. Click HERE to read the NY Times reporting on the story.
PS: Motley Crue is still making music? Seriously? Wow.
PS: Motley Crue is still making music? Seriously? Wow.
Stem Cell Veto
Kudos should go out to President Bush for his upcoming VETO of a bill that would expand federal funding for embyonic stem-cell research. The President stated that "This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake." I agree with the President on this one. I fear that humans being what we are, we will beginning a slow march where we are willing to use some humans, and alter humanity, for the purpose of bringing greater health and prosperity to some. In other words, use the weak and downtrodden to benefit those in power.
5/24/2005
Movie Review: Star Wars Episode III--Revenge of the Sith (***):
( *** out of **** stars: Good)
The most eagerly awaited movie of the summer, Star Wars III details the fall of the Galatic Republic, the ascention of the Galactic Empire led (appropriately) by the Emperor Lord Sidious, and most importantly Anakin Skywalker's embrace of the dark side whereby he becomes Darth Vader. After two mediocre prequels in The Phantom Menace (**1/2) and The Clone Wars (**1/2), there has been quite a bit of trepidation regarding whether ROTS would finally provide moviegoers with a film that stands up to the films in the original trilogy. The answer is yes, this is a much better film than its two recent predecessors, though not the unparalled triumph that many have stated.
First, the positives. Director George Lucas did a fantastic job with special effects, and the movie really looks great. Also, the acting performances are much improved across the board, with Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine) giving the best performances. The light saber scenes are quite entertaining, particularly those involving Darth Sidious, and the battle between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader (Hayden Christensen) may be the best of all the Star Wars Movies. The pacing of the movie is also better than the two previous films, as things move briskly for the first half-hour and last 45 minutes of the film. Most importantly, Lucas does a pretty good job of connecting all the story arcs between these prequels and the original trilogy. Revenge of the Sith has much to recommend it, but it also has a few flaws that prevent it from achieving the heights that the original Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back reached.
The key flaw of the whole film, and indeed these prequels, is that Lucas decided to have the fall of Anakin largely due to his marriage with Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). However, the "love scenes" in all three prequels between the two feature poor dialogue and a lack of chemistry between the two actors. It is hard for the viewer to relate to Anakin's desire to protect his wife by any means necessary since the movies fail to establish a convincing love and chemistry between the two. Thus, the dramatic and emotional heft of Anakin's tragic fall are greatly reduced. Other failures in the movie include the opening space battle scene, which looks great but lacks any dramatic tension. The reason it lacks tension is because the Jedi Heroes do not actually do any dogfighting with enemy pilots. Instead, they have to dodge missles coming from nameless, faceless fighters, and primarily need to get gremlin like mini-droids off their ship. The tension is missinig because we do not have any opponent we can root against in the battle.
No review of a Star Wars film would be complete without a brief discussion of the themes that Lucas presents in the film. Though I think it is wise not to take a Star Wars film too seriously, as Lucas is not a deep theological or moral thinker, the fall of Anakin is worth discussing briefly. First, as the movie goes on it becomes clear that Annakin is willing to use evil means to achieve the good of saving the life of his wife Padme, and that he is doing it not so much for her overall good, but rather to ensure that he will not lose her. In the end, he treats her as a means to his happiness and his love for her is turned to selfishness. It is a potential flaw in our love of any person not to care for their well being but rather use them to satisfy our needs. Anakin shows his supreme selfishness in that he is willing to betray his ideals, his friends, and in the end his wife to meet his own needs. To the extent that this theme is internalized by moviegoers, Lucas has shared a valuable truth with his audience.
In the end, Revenge of the Sith qualifies as a good move and one worthy of being a Star Wars film. However it is not a great movie. It is not a self-contained film like the original Star Wars that manages to introduce all its characters, revolutionize special effects, provide outstanding action, humor, and an iconic story all in one film. Nor does it pack the emotional wallop and surprises of Empire Strikes Back, a film that is also the best directed of the series. The force is with this one, but it is not the chosen one that some claim it to be.
The most eagerly awaited movie of the summer, Star Wars III details the fall of the Galatic Republic, the ascention of the Galactic Empire led (appropriately) by the Emperor Lord Sidious, and most importantly Anakin Skywalker's embrace of the dark side whereby he becomes Darth Vader. After two mediocre prequels in The Phantom Menace (**1/2) and The Clone Wars (**1/2), there has been quite a bit of trepidation regarding whether ROTS would finally provide moviegoers with a film that stands up to the films in the original trilogy. The answer is yes, this is a much better film than its two recent predecessors, though not the unparalled triumph that many have stated.
First, the positives. Director George Lucas did a fantastic job with special effects, and the movie really looks great. Also, the acting performances are much improved across the board, with Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine) giving the best performances. The light saber scenes are quite entertaining, particularly those involving Darth Sidious, and the battle between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader (Hayden Christensen) may be the best of all the Star Wars Movies. The pacing of the movie is also better than the two previous films, as things move briskly for the first half-hour and last 45 minutes of the film. Most importantly, Lucas does a pretty good job of connecting all the story arcs between these prequels and the original trilogy. Revenge of the Sith has much to recommend it, but it also has a few flaws that prevent it from achieving the heights that the original Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back reached.
The key flaw of the whole film, and indeed these prequels, is that Lucas decided to have the fall of Anakin largely due to his marriage with Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). However, the "love scenes" in all three prequels between the two feature poor dialogue and a lack of chemistry between the two actors. It is hard for the viewer to relate to Anakin's desire to protect his wife by any means necessary since the movies fail to establish a convincing love and chemistry between the two. Thus, the dramatic and emotional heft of Anakin's tragic fall are greatly reduced. Other failures in the movie include the opening space battle scene, which looks great but lacks any dramatic tension. The reason it lacks tension is because the Jedi Heroes do not actually do any dogfighting with enemy pilots. Instead, they have to dodge missles coming from nameless, faceless fighters, and primarily need to get gremlin like mini-droids off their ship. The tension is missinig because we do not have any opponent we can root against in the battle.
No review of a Star Wars film would be complete without a brief discussion of the themes that Lucas presents in the film. Though I think it is wise not to take a Star Wars film too seriously, as Lucas is not a deep theological or moral thinker, the fall of Anakin is worth discussing briefly. First, as the movie goes on it becomes clear that Annakin is willing to use evil means to achieve the good of saving the life of his wife Padme, and that he is doing it not so much for her overall good, but rather to ensure that he will not lose her. In the end, he treats her as a means to his happiness and his love for her is turned to selfishness. It is a potential flaw in our love of any person not to care for their well being but rather use them to satisfy our needs. Anakin shows his supreme selfishness in that he is willing to betray his ideals, his friends, and in the end his wife to meet his own needs. To the extent that this theme is internalized by moviegoers, Lucas has shared a valuable truth with his audience.
In the end, Revenge of the Sith qualifies as a good move and one worthy of being a Star Wars film. However it is not a great movie. It is not a self-contained film like the original Star Wars that manages to introduce all its characters, revolutionize special effects, provide outstanding action, humor, and an iconic story all in one film. Nor does it pack the emotional wallop and surprises of Empire Strikes Back, a film that is also the best directed of the series. The force is with this one, but it is not the chosen one that some claim it to be.
Star Wars Geeks Get Hurt
Apparently, being a Star Wars geek can be hazardous to your health. See HERE.
5/23/2005
Movie Review: The Interpreter
With the arrival of summer, there are finally some movies worth seeing and reviewing. Here are my thoughts on The Interpreter. (**** excellent, *** good, ** fair, * poor)
The Interpreter (**1/2*): The Interpreter is an international political thriller directed by Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa, The Firm) and starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman. Kidman plays Silvia Broom, a United Nations interpreter who hears whispers late one night that she thinks are a plot to assassinate a corrupt African dictator who is coming to the UN to give a speech defending his rule. She reports what she has heard, and US Secret Service agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) is given the assignment of investigating the potential assassination. Keller is suspicious of Ms. Broom's motivations and the movie focuses on the possible plot to kill the African dictator and the evolving relationship between Penn and Kidman's character. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this movie is that it is the first film shot inside the UN, and we should not be surprised since the film has only nice things to say about the organization. The plot is solid, but plods along at times. The film takes too long to reach its conclusion, and the change in the relationship between Penn and Kidman that takes place about midway through the film is not sufficiently explained or convincing. The Interpreter is a solid but unspectacular thriller that is worth renting on DVD once, but never again, as you will likely forget all about it soon enough.
The Interpreter (**1/2*): The Interpreter is an international political thriller directed by Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa, The Firm) and starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman. Kidman plays Silvia Broom, a United Nations interpreter who hears whispers late one night that she thinks are a plot to assassinate a corrupt African dictator who is coming to the UN to give a speech defending his rule. She reports what she has heard, and US Secret Service agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) is given the assignment of investigating the potential assassination. Keller is suspicious of Ms. Broom's motivations and the movie focuses on the possible plot to kill the African dictator and the evolving relationship between Penn and Kidman's character. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this movie is that it is the first film shot inside the UN, and we should not be surprised since the film has only nice things to say about the organization. The plot is solid, but plods along at times. The film takes too long to reach its conclusion, and the change in the relationship between Penn and Kidman that takes place about midway through the film is not sufficiently explained or convincing. The Interpreter is a solid but unspectacular thriller that is worth renting on DVD once, but never again, as you will likely forget all about it soon enough.
Deception in Pat Tillman Death
As reported in the Washington post HERE, it is sad to see that the U.S. Army and our government's leaders apparently lied to the nation and the Tillman family regarding the fact that he died via friendly fire. In case you are not familiar with the story, Tillman was a millionaire NFL player who left his riches to serve as a soldier in the U.S. army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tillman was killed in April 2004, in what the Pentagon and U.S. government said was a battle with insurgents. Tillman was given a hero's funeral, but the truth surrounding his death was not widely known until a Washington Post December 2004 ARTICLE which detailed the facts surrounding his death via friendly fire (US troops). His parents have a right to be angry with the Army. If the Army and our political leaders did lie about Tillman's death in the immediate aftermath (when national attention, emotional interest, and press coverage were greatest) then we should all be disappointed as Americans in their conduct.
5/22/2005
The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe Preview
C.S. Lewis classic children's book, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is coming to theaters this December. Since Lewis is my favorite author and this is an amazing children's book that can be read with profit by adults, I am cautiously very optomistic. If you'd like to see the trailer for the movie, click here
Killearn DTS Romans 11: 1-16
In Romans 11, Paul finishes explaining Isreal's current position with God in light of the coming of the Gospel. In v. 1 Paul states emphatically that God has not rejected the Isrealites, explaining that it could not be so since Paul himself is a Christian and also of Isreal. Calvin states that this is because adoption is dependent solely on God, and not on men, with which Luther agrees in his introduction. Paul then quotes 1 Kings 19:10, and draws a parallel between that time and his. Elijah despaired becaused it seemed to him that all had turned away from God. However, God informs him that not all have turned, and that God has reserved a remnant among Isreal who did not bow down to the false god Baal. In much the same way, there is a remnant among Isreal who believes in Christ (v. 6) that was chosen by God's grace and not works.
--Why is it in accordance with God's character that He has chosen not to reject the people of Isreal?
--Calvin states that only those Christians who are chosen by God (the elect) shall end up being saved, pointing out that though circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Isreal and God, it was only an outward sign that was ineffectual without faith. Calvin goes on to say that the only reason for God's electing some persons and not others simply because it is God has willed it to be so, for if he chose on the basis of who He knew would accept or who is most moral, then it would be based on works. This is something Calvin states God chose to do with His creation before the foundation of the world. Is believing in something a work?
--Wesley states that this passage, in particular v. 5, must be read in light of Romans 3:22, which states that the righteousness from the Gospel comes to all who believe. God's purpose is that all who believe will be saved, and this is the remnant chosen by grace. If God offers salvation to all, and man decides whether to believe in God, can God be assured that his purpose of having a remnant will be fulfilled? Does the concept of foreknowledge, which Wesley believed in, provide an answer?
Paul writes in v. 7, that the righteousness before God that Isreal attempted to achieve through works was instead obtained by the elect, while others were hardened. Paul then quotes passages from the O.T. to prove his point. He first quotes Deut 28:4, and Isa: 29:10, to the effect that the people of Isreal still do not truly understand the purposes and desires of God, and also quotes David from psalm 69 to the same effect. Paul is once again making the point that the chosen people have a long history of not understanding or obeying God.
--Wesley states that those whose hearts are hardened are in that state because of their own willful blindness. How does God harden hearts? Does He make the creature do evil? Does he withdraw His restraint?
Isreal has not fallen to the point that they cannot be redeemed (v. 11), rather God has used their rejection (of Christ) to bring salvation to the Gentiles and thus make Isreal envious. And since God has used evil to do good, how much more good will abound once Isreal comes to God (v. 12). Paul states that part of the motivation of his ministry to the Gentiles is to provoke his own people to have faith in Christ. (v. 13-14). Paul then appears to tie in the acceptance of Christ be Isreal with life from the dead. Whether this means that the dead nation of Isreal will eventually believe in Christ and become alive, or that all Isreal will believe when the resurrection of the dead occurs is not clear. Wesley states that v. 16 is a use of metaphor to indicate that the remnant of Isreal that believes will eventually lead to all of Isreal believing.
--Does the concept of provoking Isreal to envy and thus acceptance of Christ make sense in a Calvinist worldview whereby God alone decides who will believe in him? Does an Arminian view of salvation allow it to be possible for God to make the claim that all Isreal will believe? What does the faithfulness of God to Isreal reveal about His character?
--Why is it in accordance with God's character that He has chosen not to reject the people of Isreal?
--Calvin states that only those Christians who are chosen by God (the elect) shall end up being saved, pointing out that though circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Isreal and God, it was only an outward sign that was ineffectual without faith. Calvin goes on to say that the only reason for God's electing some persons and not others simply because it is God has willed it to be so, for if he chose on the basis of who He knew would accept or who is most moral, then it would be based on works. This is something Calvin states God chose to do with His creation before the foundation of the world. Is believing in something a work?
--Wesley states that this passage, in particular v. 5, must be read in light of Romans 3:22, which states that the righteousness from the Gospel comes to all who believe. God's purpose is that all who believe will be saved, and this is the remnant chosen by grace. If God offers salvation to all, and man decides whether to believe in God, can God be assured that his purpose of having a remnant will be fulfilled? Does the concept of foreknowledge, which Wesley believed in, provide an answer?
Paul writes in v. 7, that the righteousness before God that Isreal attempted to achieve through works was instead obtained by the elect, while others were hardened. Paul then quotes passages from the O.T. to prove his point. He first quotes Deut 28:4, and Isa: 29:10, to the effect that the people of Isreal still do not truly understand the purposes and desires of God, and also quotes David from psalm 69 to the same effect. Paul is once again making the point that the chosen people have a long history of not understanding or obeying God.
--Wesley states that those whose hearts are hardened are in that state because of their own willful blindness. How does God harden hearts? Does He make the creature do evil? Does he withdraw His restraint?
Isreal has not fallen to the point that they cannot be redeemed (v. 11), rather God has used their rejection (of Christ) to bring salvation to the Gentiles and thus make Isreal envious. And since God has used evil to do good, how much more good will abound once Isreal comes to God (v. 12). Paul states that part of the motivation of his ministry to the Gentiles is to provoke his own people to have faith in Christ. (v. 13-14). Paul then appears to tie in the acceptance of Christ be Isreal with life from the dead. Whether this means that the dead nation of Isreal will eventually believe in Christ and become alive, or that all Isreal will believe when the resurrection of the dead occurs is not clear. Wesley states that v. 16 is a use of metaphor to indicate that the remnant of Isreal that believes will eventually lead to all of Isreal believing.
--Does the concept of provoking Isreal to envy and thus acceptance of Christ make sense in a Calvinist worldview whereby God alone decides who will believe in him? Does an Arminian view of salvation allow it to be possible for God to make the claim that all Isreal will believe? What does the faithfulness of God to Isreal reveal about His character?
5/18/2005
Good Times in Ohio
My trip to visit Sarah in Canton, OH is over and I am back in Tallahassee. The extended weekend was a lot of fun. Friday night we went to a local Japanese restaurant and enjoyed a nice dinner and celebrated her birthday (on Friday the 13th, no less--naturally it rained and was lightning). Saturday was rather laid back as well. We visited the William McKinley National Memorial, where the President and his wife are entombed. It was quite impressive, and I must assume that all US Presidents have impressive monuments after visiting this one. Later in the day we watched The Interpreter (**1/2, look for a group of movie reviews in a little while) and then had a delicious meal at Sahara, a local Greek restaurant. Sunday was a very big day, as Sarah and I drove 4 hours to Niagra Falls in Canada. The falls are quite awesome, and I recommend a trip to see them if you haven't already. We rode the Maid of the Mist, a boat that takes you reasonably close to the falls in order to see them up close, and I recommend it heartily so long as you don't mind getting a bit wet. We stayed until nighttime, when they use klieg lights to light up the falls, and then drove home, not getting in until late in the evening. Monday, we drove up to Cleveland and watched the Cleveland Indians take on the LA/Anaheim Angels at Jacobs Field. The Angels won 3-1, but the ballpark was very nice and we had good seats behind home plate. My time with Sarah ended Tuesday afternoon after lunch at the Macaroni Grill. It was a very fun weekend, and both of us had a great time celebrating her birthday. I'll post a couple pictures taken during the weekend during the next couple of days so you can see a bit of what I am talking about.
5/10/2005
Bible Study Cancelled Sunday May 15
Because I am out of town and most of the rest of the class will be also, the DTS class is cancelled. We will resume in Romans 10. Thanks for your understanding and I look forward to seeing you all on the 22nd.
Legislative Session Over; Good Times!
For those of you who check in on this weblog, rest assured there will be more content on the site now that the Legislative session is over, having ended Friday May 6. I will try and post more on things going on in my life, humorous links, commentary on various topics, my Bible study and topical articles, and more. So if you check in now, you will probably find more than my usual Bible Study outlines.
I am very excited to be visiting Sarah up in Canton, OH this coming weekend of the 13th. We plan to drive to Niagra Falls (about 3 hours in the car) and take that in for a day. It is Sarah's birthday, and she has always wanted to see the falls, so I think that will be a very nice time for the two of us. We also will be taking in the Indians vs. Angels game at Jacobs Field on Monday, something I know I will enjoy, and Sarah has stated that she thinks she will like it too and I hope she is right. Since she is a smart and discerning woman, I think she will.
Already, things are more laid back for me. It is nice to leave the office at 5pm again, rather than between 9 and midnight. It is also nice to have the time to eat a bit more healthy and get to the YMCA. I put on a few pounds like always during session, so I need to be sure to take them off the next month or two (like I usually do). I am also glad to finally get a bit of a raise, as with rising gas prices and inflaction in general, my salary hasn't bought as much as it did when I was hired. That also should reduce my stress level. Now, if the Cubs start winning a few games, things will be really going well.
I am very excited to be visiting Sarah up in Canton, OH this coming weekend of the 13th. We plan to drive to Niagra Falls (about 3 hours in the car) and take that in for a day. It is Sarah's birthday, and she has always wanted to see the falls, so I think that will be a very nice time for the two of us. We also will be taking in the Indians vs. Angels game at Jacobs Field on Monday, something I know I will enjoy, and Sarah has stated that she thinks she will like it too and I hope she is right. Since she is a smart and discerning woman, I think she will.
Already, things are more laid back for me. It is nice to leave the office at 5pm again, rather than between 9 and midnight. It is also nice to have the time to eat a bit more healthy and get to the YMCA. I put on a few pounds like always during session, so I need to be sure to take them off the next month or two (like I usually do). I am also glad to finally get a bit of a raise, as with rising gas prices and inflaction in general, my salary hasn't bought as much as it did when I was hired. That also should reduce my stress level. Now, if the Cubs start winning a few games, things will be really going well.
5/08/2005
Listen closely
5/01/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 10: 1-9
1) In Chapter 10, Paul focuses on the necessity of the Jews (and everyone) to obtain salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. He begins by reiterating his good motives and his desire that the Isrealites be saved. In verse 2, he states that the Jews are zealous for God, but that such zeal is not based on knowledge. Wesley notes that while the Jews of this time may have had zeal without knowledge, too often the Christians of Wesley's time had knowledge without zeal. Calvin takes the opportunity to make the point that ignorace of God is no excuse of bad actions and refusing to submit to God. Paul continues in v. 3 by saying that the Jews did not know the righteousness that comes from God, and instead attempted to create their own righteousness (via the law). Their lack of knowledge is seen in that they do not understand that Christ is the end of the law, and provides righteousness for those who believe.
--Why is it important that zeal and knowledge go together in the Christian life? What sorts of knowledge are necessary and how is it obtained?
2) In v. 5, Paul gives an example of the righteousness that comes through law, quoting Lev. 18:5, which states "the man who does these things will live by them." Wesley and Calvin both note that because it is impossible to perfectly keep the law, obtaining righteousness through the law is impossible. Paul then provides examples that the righteousness that comes through faith is not hidden to anyone or inacessible, but is obtainable. He quotes Deut 30: 12-13, modifying the meaning of the quotes. The language of going to heaven or descending to the deep was used in the original passage by Moses to tell the people that the law of God was given to them and is accessible. In similar fashion, the provision of Christ is not hidden, but rather accessible. Paul then quotes Deut 30: 12-13, to the effect that the word of the Lord is in the people's heart and mouth. Similarly, the righteousness from faith is available and readily known, for if a person confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes He was raised from the dead, that person will be saved.
--Moses told the people that the law was accessible and known to them, thus they could not try to excuse their behavior by saying that they do not know it. Does this contradict what Paul has to say about the impossibility of keeping the law? What were the purposes of the law being given?
--Paul is arguing that the Jews need to accept Christ. If God is wholly in charge of who accepts Him, what is the purpose of this passage? If belief and acceptance of Christ is wholly imparted by God, why doesn't Paul make mention of that fact in v. 9?
--Why is it important that zeal and knowledge go together in the Christian life? What sorts of knowledge are necessary and how is it obtained?
2) In v. 5, Paul gives an example of the righteousness that comes through law, quoting Lev. 18:5, which states "the man who does these things will live by them." Wesley and Calvin both note that because it is impossible to perfectly keep the law, obtaining righteousness through the law is impossible. Paul then provides examples that the righteousness that comes through faith is not hidden to anyone or inacessible, but is obtainable. He quotes Deut 30: 12-13, modifying the meaning of the quotes. The language of going to heaven or descending to the deep was used in the original passage by Moses to tell the people that the law of God was given to them and is accessible. In similar fashion, the provision of Christ is not hidden, but rather accessible. Paul then quotes Deut 30: 12-13, to the effect that the word of the Lord is in the people's heart and mouth. Similarly, the righteousness from faith is available and readily known, for if a person confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes He was raised from the dead, that person will be saved.
--Moses told the people that the law was accessible and known to them, thus they could not try to excuse their behavior by saying that they do not know it. Does this contradict what Paul has to say about the impossibility of keeping the law? What were the purposes of the law being given?
--Paul is arguing that the Jews need to accept Christ. If God is wholly in charge of who accepts Him, what is the purpose of this passage? If belief and acceptance of Christ is wholly imparted by God, why doesn't Paul make mention of that fact in v. 9?
4/25/2005
Rich Young Rulers: Part I
Recently, the leadership of my church announced that it is going to form a new church on the other side of town designed to appeal to the 21-40 age group. It is a noble goal, as this age cohort is far less likely to attend church than previous generations. I am 29 years old--planted squarely in the middle of this age group--and have had nearly a decade of dealing with my fellow Gen X and Y'rs. A church seeking to bring members of this generation to Jesus has to understand the attributes and desires of the group and deal intelligently with these traits.
Two attributes and two desires are greatly influenced by the pervasive influences of this age. The attributes are consumerism and confusion about truth. The deisres are a desire for commmunity and a desire for control. Some aspects of these attributes, concerns, and desires of the group are good, but often are sought improperly and in destructive ways. Others are problematic to the core from a Christian perspective. The negative aspects of these attributes and desires are a result of this generation's relentless pursuit of self-gratification.
Not every person in the generation will have all the same attributes, but I think that each attribute is applicable to a large number of people and it would be a very rare person indeed who is not effected by one of these for things. This article discusses each of these attributes and the challenges they pose to a church that seeks to have its members be imitators of Christ. This will be followed by an in-depth treatment of the cult of self-gratification. Subsequent articles will contain proposals and ideas regarding how we can counteract the negative aspects of these influences, both in our personal lives, in our communities, and the culture at large.
Consumerism
Personal autonomy is the demand of almost all Gen Y'rs. In this, it is unlikely that they are much different from many previous generations, but this demand has been directed more towards the satisfaction of personal desires by the fact that we life in a consumer society. Day after day, advertisements in all forms of media and the culture at large equate personal happiness with pleasure, which is obtained by purchasing certain items, engaging in certain actions, or experiencing certain things. And the advertisements do not try to convince the person to purchase them through reason and argument--the argument is usually not that the product is of the finest quality. Instead, the advertiser often appeals to the person's desires by using images and peer pressure.
These constant messages have multiple results. First, the listener becomes accustomed to a mode of thinking whereby he or she is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Who has the best cola? Well, I'll taste and decide for myself. Additionally, the criteria of whether something is valuable is not whether something is true or achieves excellence, but whether it brings pleasure or happiness. McDonalds doesn't say they have the best burgers, they just show people eating the food with a smile on their face and the caption "I'm lovin' it." It is also worth noting that modern advertising relies on images and evoking emotion rather than convincing a person via evidence that this product is the best. In making decisions, the listener is encouraged to make decisions on the basis of desire and emotion, often to the exclusion or limitation of reason. Finally, the listener is told that their status in society and among their peers will improve if they choose this product. In other words, an appeal to vanity is made. This can been seen in the facts that in advertisements it is almost always beautiful people and celebrities that are utilized, and that so many advertisers attempt to show that their wares are "cutting edge" and "trendy." The result is that people are trained to assume the utilitarian presumption that the maximization of happiness is the highest goal of life and society, but without the presumption that reason is the means by which to make the determination. The carnal desires are elevated, while reason is diminished and spirituality ignored.
Uncertainty About Truth
Many members of Generation Y are divided into two camps. In the first camp are those people who care whether things are true and may even consider it more important than personal pleasure. This does not mean that they necessarily believe that there is a God, or an objective moral law, or that there is a specific purpose to life. But they are willing to think about such matters and would concede that they are important. The second camp could care less about the truth, and is more than happy to use any means that will maximize happiness. Members of both camps are often cynical about the existence of truth and are quick to reject authority.
Among many who think truth is important, and especially among those who do not, there is a cynicism regarding whether truth exists. There are multiple reasons for this. As more people enter higher education, they come under the influence of a relativism in education that too often focuses more on debunking arguments through ad hominem attacks and claiming that all our intellectual predecessors were biased or simply trying to exercise power. Examining an argument on its merits is too often neglected. And while there are signs that the influence of relativism is lessening, its effects can still be seen in segments of society that teach that true tolerance is not giving in to the bigoted viewpoint that "if X is true, then not X is false." Evangelicalism deserves some blame for this state of affairs, having neglected the life of the mind, often despising reason, and failing to engage the world outside the church with a Christian worldview and ethic that encompasses all of life. As evangelical scholar Mark Noll puts it, it is a scandal, and one the church must work to remedy.
The result of all of this is that a cynical generation has emerged. Members of this generation who sense that the promises of the advertisers to bring happiness are bankrupt, are now wary of other promises to bring happiness. And those who continue to satisfy their needs chiefly through consumer culture generally do not believe or care that there may be a higher calling in life. The generation that has heard so many contrary voices of authority more concerned with publishing a novel paper than what is true or false (see academics) or winning an argument rather than discovering truth (see politicians) now distrusts authority. A world that says personal pleasure equals happiness and is the highest purpose in life, and that this is achieved through hedonism, cannot even deliver "the goods" (pleasure and temporary happiness) of this diminished goal through consumer culture. Thus it is no surprise that many do not believe that they have been designed with a purpose. As a result, it is very common for members of this generation to drift through life with an undefined life purpose. Too many drift through life, just trying to make the best of it and adopt a soft nihilism that creates low expectations and a life of limted joy.
Desire for Community
Generation Y'rs crave community. The lack of caring communities and meaningful interaction between friends has created a huge unmet need among today's young adults. There are multiple causes for this situation. First, families are far more likely to fragment. Everyone knows about the 50% divorce rate in our society. Another cause is the fact that young adults often leave home to go to school and try to "make it on their own" which takes them away from family and friends into new cities where they know few if any people. Even families that do not divorce increasingly separate to different parts of the country, and are only see each other on holidays. When Gen Y'rs get a job, it will often be for only a few years before they move to another job, in perhaps another city, thus even the work community is increasingly transitory. Our communities are filled with young adults who are lonely and searching for meaningful interation. A church potluck is not going to meet this need, nor are the handshakes and salutations that occur in the 5 to 10 minutes after a sunday worship service.
Another desire for community takes a different form. In addition to interaction, Gen Y'rs want to be part of communities where their talents are appreciated and valaued. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, a common interest is often the fertile ground in which friendship grows. To the extent that a young adult cannot find others in a community who share his or her interests, that person is not likely to have many friends. A person who cannot find friends within a community is going to feel isolated and not appreciated. Talent truly is on loan from God, but sadly our churches are too often places where the various talents of its members are squandered. If you can teach the Bible, or sing well, you're in luck. But God forbid if your talent is in painting, scientific inquiry, or a multitude of other areas of expertise or creativity.
Teaching our young how to use their talents for the glory of God is key if we hope to live in churches that bring the Gospel message of redemption to bear on all areas of our lives. As part of that message, however, we must also teach that the use of talent for God is done as an act of service. Too often, we are only willing to serve in ways that suit ourselves. After all, most of the "serious" members of a congregation can give a long outline of the deficiencies of our leaders in the clergy. We need to be willing to serve when asked, and perhaps even in ways that may not feed our egos or be totally within our control. We need to live that lesson out, and teach it to others.
Desire for Control
Generation Y--perhaps like most young adults in most generations--has an overwhelming desire to be in control of their own lives and tends to distrust authority. This does not mean that all members of this generation have purely selfish desires. Some may give their lives to causes outside themselves, but any such decision will be made by that person. We tend to be the captains of our own ships, with the possible exception of those who have unmet needs for community and may subbordinate their autonomy to meet that felt need.
As mentioned earlier, the consumer culture we live in creates habits of mind where we look to ourselves alone in making decisions. We consider satisfaction of our desire for pleasure as the key criteria in making decisions, and choose our options. We are told to seek out that which is trendy and stylish (two things that are in constant flux, unlike the objective moral truth of Jesus) as a means of setting ourselves apart. We are told to be one of the select few worthy of being considered better than those around us by buying a certain product--just like the other 10 million people who have seen the commercial.
And don't think about questioning this way of life for a second. If you do, that means that you are subjugating your freedom and not expressing your individuality. After all, what could be more freeing than spending all our time acquiring possessions, and more individualistic than joining the "hardy few" in our culture who are look to self-gratification as the ultimate purpose in life. As a church, we must show that it is in following Christ that we gain control of our lives. There is a reason Christ told us we cannot serve both God and money. Obviously, the main reason is because it is so easy for us to seek to gratify ourselves with false idols. But it is also because when we follow after the god "mammon" we end up in serving a God who tyrannizes us into a slavery where we seek pleasures and a purpose that false idol cannot provide; things that in the end dominate us. The question is whether we seek a life where our appetites dominate us, or instead choose to serve Jesus Christ, who transforms us into the people God designed us to be, and allows us the freedom that comes with contentment and being loved. For it is God who is the creator and ruler of the created order, and it is His command that we exercise dominion over all creation by loving and serving Him and one another. This is a vital lesson for our churches to teach, and one for many in my generation (including myself) to learn.
__________________________________________________
Thank you for reading this far. The next article in the Rich Young Rulers series will be an analysis of the "cult of self-gratification" that my generation and the culture at large has embraced. God Bless.
Two attributes and two desires are greatly influenced by the pervasive influences of this age. The attributes are consumerism and confusion about truth. The deisres are a desire for commmunity and a desire for control. Some aspects of these attributes, concerns, and desires of the group are good, but often are sought improperly and in destructive ways. Others are problematic to the core from a Christian perspective. The negative aspects of these attributes and desires are a result of this generation's relentless pursuit of self-gratification.
Not every person in the generation will have all the same attributes, but I think that each attribute is applicable to a large number of people and it would be a very rare person indeed who is not effected by one of these for things. This article discusses each of these attributes and the challenges they pose to a church that seeks to have its members be imitators of Christ. This will be followed by an in-depth treatment of the cult of self-gratification. Subsequent articles will contain proposals and ideas regarding how we can counteract the negative aspects of these influences, both in our personal lives, in our communities, and the culture at large.
Consumerism
Personal autonomy is the demand of almost all Gen Y'rs. In this, it is unlikely that they are much different from many previous generations, but this demand has been directed more towards the satisfaction of personal desires by the fact that we life in a consumer society. Day after day, advertisements in all forms of media and the culture at large equate personal happiness with pleasure, which is obtained by purchasing certain items, engaging in certain actions, or experiencing certain things. And the advertisements do not try to convince the person to purchase them through reason and argument--the argument is usually not that the product is of the finest quality. Instead, the advertiser often appeals to the person's desires by using images and peer pressure.
These constant messages have multiple results. First, the listener becomes accustomed to a mode of thinking whereby he or she is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Who has the best cola? Well, I'll taste and decide for myself. Additionally, the criteria of whether something is valuable is not whether something is true or achieves excellence, but whether it brings pleasure or happiness. McDonalds doesn't say they have the best burgers, they just show people eating the food with a smile on their face and the caption "I'm lovin' it." It is also worth noting that modern advertising relies on images and evoking emotion rather than convincing a person via evidence that this product is the best. In making decisions, the listener is encouraged to make decisions on the basis of desire and emotion, often to the exclusion or limitation of reason. Finally, the listener is told that their status in society and among their peers will improve if they choose this product. In other words, an appeal to vanity is made. This can been seen in the facts that in advertisements it is almost always beautiful people and celebrities that are utilized, and that so many advertisers attempt to show that their wares are "cutting edge" and "trendy." The result is that people are trained to assume the utilitarian presumption that the maximization of happiness is the highest goal of life and society, but without the presumption that reason is the means by which to make the determination. The carnal desires are elevated, while reason is diminished and spirituality ignored.
Uncertainty About Truth
Many members of Generation Y are divided into two camps. In the first camp are those people who care whether things are true and may even consider it more important than personal pleasure. This does not mean that they necessarily believe that there is a God, or an objective moral law, or that there is a specific purpose to life. But they are willing to think about such matters and would concede that they are important. The second camp could care less about the truth, and is more than happy to use any means that will maximize happiness. Members of both camps are often cynical about the existence of truth and are quick to reject authority.
Among many who think truth is important, and especially among those who do not, there is a cynicism regarding whether truth exists. There are multiple reasons for this. As more people enter higher education, they come under the influence of a relativism in education that too often focuses more on debunking arguments through ad hominem attacks and claiming that all our intellectual predecessors were biased or simply trying to exercise power. Examining an argument on its merits is too often neglected. And while there are signs that the influence of relativism is lessening, its effects can still be seen in segments of society that teach that true tolerance is not giving in to the bigoted viewpoint that "if X is true, then not X is false." Evangelicalism deserves some blame for this state of affairs, having neglected the life of the mind, often despising reason, and failing to engage the world outside the church with a Christian worldview and ethic that encompasses all of life. As evangelical scholar Mark Noll puts it, it is a scandal, and one the church must work to remedy.
The result of all of this is that a cynical generation has emerged. Members of this generation who sense that the promises of the advertisers to bring happiness are bankrupt, are now wary of other promises to bring happiness. And those who continue to satisfy their needs chiefly through consumer culture generally do not believe or care that there may be a higher calling in life. The generation that has heard so many contrary voices of authority more concerned with publishing a novel paper than what is true or false (see academics) or winning an argument rather than discovering truth (see politicians) now distrusts authority. A world that says personal pleasure equals happiness and is the highest purpose in life, and that this is achieved through hedonism, cannot even deliver "the goods" (pleasure and temporary happiness) of this diminished goal through consumer culture. Thus it is no surprise that many do not believe that they have been designed with a purpose. As a result, it is very common for members of this generation to drift through life with an undefined life purpose. Too many drift through life, just trying to make the best of it and adopt a soft nihilism that creates low expectations and a life of limted joy.
Desire for Community
Generation Y'rs crave community. The lack of caring communities and meaningful interaction between friends has created a huge unmet need among today's young adults. There are multiple causes for this situation. First, families are far more likely to fragment. Everyone knows about the 50% divorce rate in our society. Another cause is the fact that young adults often leave home to go to school and try to "make it on their own" which takes them away from family and friends into new cities where they know few if any people. Even families that do not divorce increasingly separate to different parts of the country, and are only see each other on holidays. When Gen Y'rs get a job, it will often be for only a few years before they move to another job, in perhaps another city, thus even the work community is increasingly transitory. Our communities are filled with young adults who are lonely and searching for meaningful interation. A church potluck is not going to meet this need, nor are the handshakes and salutations that occur in the 5 to 10 minutes after a sunday worship service.
Another desire for community takes a different form. In addition to interaction, Gen Y'rs want to be part of communities where their talents are appreciated and valaued. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, a common interest is often the fertile ground in which friendship grows. To the extent that a young adult cannot find others in a community who share his or her interests, that person is not likely to have many friends. A person who cannot find friends within a community is going to feel isolated and not appreciated. Talent truly is on loan from God, but sadly our churches are too often places where the various talents of its members are squandered. If you can teach the Bible, or sing well, you're in luck. But God forbid if your talent is in painting, scientific inquiry, or a multitude of other areas of expertise or creativity.
Teaching our young how to use their talents for the glory of God is key if we hope to live in churches that bring the Gospel message of redemption to bear on all areas of our lives. As part of that message, however, we must also teach that the use of talent for God is done as an act of service. Too often, we are only willing to serve in ways that suit ourselves. After all, most of the "serious" members of a congregation can give a long outline of the deficiencies of our leaders in the clergy. We need to be willing to serve when asked, and perhaps even in ways that may not feed our egos or be totally within our control. We need to live that lesson out, and teach it to others.
Desire for Control
Generation Y--perhaps like most young adults in most generations--has an overwhelming desire to be in control of their own lives and tends to distrust authority. This does not mean that all members of this generation have purely selfish desires. Some may give their lives to causes outside themselves, but any such decision will be made by that person. We tend to be the captains of our own ships, with the possible exception of those who have unmet needs for community and may subbordinate their autonomy to meet that felt need.
As mentioned earlier, the consumer culture we live in creates habits of mind where we look to ourselves alone in making decisions. We consider satisfaction of our desire for pleasure as the key criteria in making decisions, and choose our options. We are told to seek out that which is trendy and stylish (two things that are in constant flux, unlike the objective moral truth of Jesus) as a means of setting ourselves apart. We are told to be one of the select few worthy of being considered better than those around us by buying a certain product--just like the other 10 million people who have seen the commercial.
And don't think about questioning this way of life for a second. If you do, that means that you are subjugating your freedom and not expressing your individuality. After all, what could be more freeing than spending all our time acquiring possessions, and more individualistic than joining the "hardy few" in our culture who are look to self-gratification as the ultimate purpose in life. As a church, we must show that it is in following Christ that we gain control of our lives. There is a reason Christ told us we cannot serve both God and money. Obviously, the main reason is because it is so easy for us to seek to gratify ourselves with false idols. But it is also because when we follow after the god "mammon" we end up in serving a God who tyrannizes us into a slavery where we seek pleasures and a purpose that false idol cannot provide; things that in the end dominate us. The question is whether we seek a life where our appetites dominate us, or instead choose to serve Jesus Christ, who transforms us into the people God designed us to be, and allows us the freedom that comes with contentment and being loved. For it is God who is the creator and ruler of the created order, and it is His command that we exercise dominion over all creation by loving and serving Him and one another. This is a vital lesson for our churches to teach, and one for many in my generation (including myself) to learn.
__________________________________________________
Thank you for reading this far. The next article in the Rich Young Rulers series will be an analysis of the "cult of self-gratification" that my generation and the culture at large has embraced. God Bless.
4/24/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 9: 14-31
1) In verse 14, Paul asks a question in light of God choosing Issac and Jacob to receive the covenant blessings he began through Abraham. The question is whether God is unjust for having chosen one person over the other. It occurs to me that there are two objections that Paul may be addressing here. The first possible objection is "why doesn't God shower his grace upon all peoples?" In context of the passage however, it appears more likely that the issues are "has God's covenant with us failed, and aren't all Isrealites part of the kingdom of God since they are part of the community with which God has covenanted" (see verses 6 and 7). Paul cites the election of Issac and Jacob as examples to answer the objections regarding Isreal. God chose Issac and Jacob to receive the covenant blessing as a means of fulfilling his purposes. So we see God chosing to favor certain persons as a means of enacting the covenant, not causing it to be breached on God's side. As verse 15 tells us, God chooses to give his grace to those he wants to. We cannot dictate to God who will receive it. (v. 16) God's mercy does not depend on how much we want it or on our efforts to get it, but rather on God's forgiveness. As Wesley stated, the will of man is opposed to God's grace.
--Since God has decided to enact his purposes largely through man in the course of history, is it inevitable that he would purpose that certain men would receive blessing?
In verse 17, Paul cites the example of Pharoah in Egypt, who is told by God (through Moses) that he has been raised up to power in order that God might show his power, and that the peoples of the Earth would become aware of the His existence. Mission certainly accomplished by God, as the account of the Exodus is famous around the world. As Paul puts it (v 18) God has mercy on those He want to, and hardens those he want to. Wesley stated that in order to display His power, God rose to the throne in Egypt the most obstinant and proud man possible, but not a man whom God had made that way. In doing this, the punishment he received was more than just.
--If God created a person for the purpose of doing evil, and he does so, does that make God the author of evil? Explain your answer.
3) In verse 19, Paul anticipates an objection that the Isrealites might have to his argument. The objection is that if God has purposed for certain people to object Him and certain to accept, then how can we be held accountable, for who can resist God's will? In response, Paul quotes passages from Isaiah stating that the created should not question the will of the creator, just as the potter cannot be questioned by the pot for the way it was made, or the purposes it will serve. (v. 20-21). It is worth noting that in both examples from Isaiah, not only is the will of God being questioned, but also whether God sees the evil deeds of the people and will act.
Wesley states that God's dealings with us are invisible in some circumstances and clearly known in others. We cannot clearly see His purposes and working in things like when and where we live, our parents, our bodies and minds. These are ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules we do not know. On the other hand, God has revealed to us clearly how he deals with us as our Judge--he rewards every man in accordance with his works. Those who believe are saved, those who do not believe aren't. Because of this fact, it is not tyrannical of God to furnish his mercy to some, because God offers his grace to those who accept His terms (Jer 18:7). From Calvin's point of view, God may harden an unbelieving man not only because He is sovreign, but also because that man would automatically be opposed to God because it is in man's nature to be so. As all men are opposed to God, it is not unjust for God to only choose some to receive His grace, because it would be just for God to punish every person who ever lived because that is what our sins have merited.
--Since God is sovreign and all powerful, is the fact that some come to God and others do not evidence that he has purposed for only some to come to Him? What is the role that free-will plays here?
4) Paul then presents a hypothetical in verses 22-29. What if, he asks, God bore with patience the objects of His wrath--prepared for destruction--as a means of showing his power? What if He did this in order to show the glory of His mercies to those he prepared in advance for glory? Paul cites examples from scripture that show God has chosen people both from within and outside the covenant community of Isreal to deal with. He points out that God has told the people in certain contexts that only a few of the community would be saved, and that if it were not for God's intervention, the community would have already merited destruction for its evil acts (and thus is not without blame or receiving an unjust "punishment").
--In verse 23, is Paul making the case that without seeing God's wrath, we would not be able to comprehend his grace? Does this mean that it is necessary for God to have allowed sin to exist?
In verses 30-33, Paul once again says that the Gentiles have received a righteousness that comes from faith, even though the outside world never sought to obey God's law. This has happened because Isreal as a community has not fully understood that what God desires is faith and trust in Him. A love of God, not mere obedience of rules. It is a stumbling block for them, and that is why they have failed to understand the life and purposes of Jesus Christ (v. 33).
--Since God has decided to enact his purposes largely through man in the course of history, is it inevitable that he would purpose that certain men would receive blessing?
In verse 17, Paul cites the example of Pharoah in Egypt, who is told by God (through Moses) that he has been raised up to power in order that God might show his power, and that the peoples of the Earth would become aware of the His existence. Mission certainly accomplished by God, as the account of the Exodus is famous around the world. As Paul puts it (v 18) God has mercy on those He want to, and hardens those he want to. Wesley stated that in order to display His power, God rose to the throne in Egypt the most obstinant and proud man possible, but not a man whom God had made that way. In doing this, the punishment he received was more than just.
--If God created a person for the purpose of doing evil, and he does so, does that make God the author of evil? Explain your answer.
3) In verse 19, Paul anticipates an objection that the Isrealites might have to his argument. The objection is that if God has purposed for certain people to object Him and certain to accept, then how can we be held accountable, for who can resist God's will? In response, Paul quotes passages from Isaiah stating that the created should not question the will of the creator, just as the potter cannot be questioned by the pot for the way it was made, or the purposes it will serve. (v. 20-21). It is worth noting that in both examples from Isaiah, not only is the will of God being questioned, but also whether God sees the evil deeds of the people and will act.
Wesley states that God's dealings with us are invisible in some circumstances and clearly known in others. We cannot clearly see His purposes and working in things like when and where we live, our parents, our bodies and minds. These are ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules we do not know. On the other hand, God has revealed to us clearly how he deals with us as our Judge--he rewards every man in accordance with his works. Those who believe are saved, those who do not believe aren't. Because of this fact, it is not tyrannical of God to furnish his mercy to some, because God offers his grace to those who accept His terms (Jer 18:7). From Calvin's point of view, God may harden an unbelieving man not only because He is sovreign, but also because that man would automatically be opposed to God because it is in man's nature to be so. As all men are opposed to God, it is not unjust for God to only choose some to receive His grace, because it would be just for God to punish every person who ever lived because that is what our sins have merited.
--Since God is sovreign and all powerful, is the fact that some come to God and others do not evidence that he has purposed for only some to come to Him? What is the role that free-will plays here?
4) Paul then presents a hypothetical in verses 22-29. What if, he asks, God bore with patience the objects of His wrath--prepared for destruction--as a means of showing his power? What if He did this in order to show the glory of His mercies to those he prepared in advance for glory? Paul cites examples from scripture that show God has chosen people both from within and outside the covenant community of Isreal to deal with. He points out that God has told the people in certain contexts that only a few of the community would be saved, and that if it were not for God's intervention, the community would have already merited destruction for its evil acts (and thus is not without blame or receiving an unjust "punishment").
--In verse 23, is Paul making the case that without seeing God's wrath, we would not be able to comprehend his grace? Does this mean that it is necessary for God to have allowed sin to exist?
In verses 30-33, Paul once again says that the Gentiles have received a righteousness that comes from faith, even though the outside world never sought to obey God's law. This has happened because Isreal as a community has not fully understood that what God desires is faith and trust in Him. A love of God, not mere obedience of rules. It is a stumbling block for them, and that is why they have failed to understand the life and purposes of Jesus Christ (v. 33).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)