Saturday, February 14, 2009
I deleted yesterday's version(s) of this
video. There had been about 200 views at the
Auburn Journal.
Pushing the envelope
while pulling the door,
there's still room for more,
yes, there's still room . . .
After we showed Holly the video, she offered
some helpful feedback regarding some choppy
editing near the end.
"Yeah, I know...", I thought to myself, " .
. .
I was just playing around. I wasn't working."
Still, her feedback stimulated my heart and
mind. I gave the video more thought during
the night. Then, this morning, I spent the
first few hours 'working' on it.
Yes, tweaking takes time. However, one of
the themes of
SpiritSync®
is that we are incomplete without each
other. We should welcome mutual reasoning.
So, I got to work . . .
First, I cleaned up the area which drew
Holly's attention. I then made the decision
to retain historical references to Lessons
One, Two, and Three (although I decreased
the amplitude of the final fadeout). Those
very lessons remind me that this video isn't
all that it could be but there's plenty of
what it should be.
For those who haven't heard the BellRoad
Sunday Messages of 2009, it might serve as
an introduction.
A final reference to Offense No. 491
involves the risky matter of the full gospel
of Jesus Christ:
(70 x 7) plus the ellipsis of this very moment
and those yet to come . . .
About the birthday of my beloved: Cathy
speaks all of 5 Love Languages fluently. So,
Mary and I have ministered to a few of them
for her.
Late yesterday afternoon, Cathy, Mary, and I
went to Roseville to see the film, "New in
Town". In the script, here are two
references to a personal relationship with
Jesus. I think they are worth discussing if
anyone would care to.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Yesterday was a full-day-of-prayer' on the
grounds at Bell Road. First, Cathy, Heidi
and I walked-and-prayed a couple miles
around the building.
Later, Pastor Matt and I did likewise for a
few more miles..
Then, as Cathy met and led 2 new guests in the PRISM program, I remixed a
portion of our prayer from last Sunday
Night.
It might not be your style...but it inspires
me to pray:
Not
many of you should presume to be teachers,
my brothers, because you know that we who teach
will be judged more strictly.
We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault
in what he says, he is a perfect man,
able to keep his whole body in check."
I feel compelled to make note of my mistake
and plan to address
the principle of human fallibility in the
worship service sometime on a Sunday morning. Yes,
we're being called to dig down deep as we
lay the foundation for a new year of the
public reading, teaching, and preaching of
Scripture.
As a young Christian, I would hear sermons
at different churches, and listen to bible
teachings from various men on the radio,
then 'teach' some of those 'truths' to
others as part of my daily witness for
Christ. I continued in that habit for a
couple years until one particular night when
I experienced a significant directive at an
altar.
God spoke* to me (*in a still small voice).
Our son Jeremiah was a newborn babe. An
unknown parasitic case of Giardia had caused Cathy to become
severely dehydrated (as she nursed
Jeremiah). During a roadtrip back
from Louisiana, she had been rushed by
ambulance to a hospital.
Upon hearing the news, I drove from
Kalamazoo to find Cathy sound asleep with an
I-V attached. She was stable but I had a
profound sense of realizing that I could
have lost her. In humble gratitude, I went
down to the hospital chapel to pray through
the night.
It was at that altar that the Lord impressed
this clarification about the recent calling to preach His
Word: I was not to preach regarding matters
about which I did not have some personal
revelation (from my own study of the Word).
I was to share only what the Holy Spirit
himself had illuminated for me. That
directive connected with 1 Peter 4:11:
"If anyone speaks,
he should do it as one
speaking the very words of God."
εἰ τὶς
λαλέω ὡς
λόγιον θεός
That testimony is as important to me today
as it was that night. Since this issue has
been brought to the surface, I am now
reminded of the very theological discussion
that can be made by comparing this issue as
it related to the decisions made by both
Timothy and Titus.
A parallel question and answer by
John Piper:
"Was Paul
inconsistent
when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3?
After all, he had absolutely refused to
let Titus be circumcised in Galatians
2:3-5. He said that the truth of the gospel
was at stake. To concede that Titus should
be circumcised would be tantamount to
abandoning the gospel of justification by
faith apart from works of law.
But what about Timothy? Acts 16:1-3
says,
Paul came also to Derbe and Lystra. A
disciple was there, named Timothy, the son
of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but
his father was a Greek. He was well spoken
of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium.
Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he
took him and circumcised him because of the
Jews that were in those places, for they all
knew that his father was a Greek.
There are three differences between the
Timothy situation and the Titus situation.
1) Titus was a pure Greek (Galatians
2:3). Timothy was born of a Greek father and
a Jewish mother. According to 2 Timothy
3:15, from childhood Timothy had been taught
the Old Testament scriptures. In other
words, his Jewish mother brought him up as a
Jew. But his Greek father had not allowed
the circumcision. For Titus the pressure was
to become Jewish. Timothy was already very
Jewish by race and by training. For him to
be circumcised would not have had the
implication of moving from Gentile status to
Jew status.
2) The people Paul resisted in
Galatians 2:3-5 were false brothers. The
Jews to whom he catered in Acts 16:3 were
not even Christians. The pressure in
Galatians 2:3-5 was from professing
believers upon another believer to perform a
work of law in order to be accepted. But
Acts 16:2 says Timothy was “well spoken of
by all the brethren at Lystra and Iconium.”
No Christians were pushing for Timothy’s
circumcision. Rather it was “because of the
Jews that were in those places” (16:3) that
Paul had Timothy circumcised. “Jews” is used
over 85 times in Acts and almost without
exception refers to unbelievers. And here
they appear to be distinct from “brethren.”
So it appears that Timothy’s circumcision
was not motivated by “Christian” pressure
from within but by a missionary strategy
from without.
3) Titus was a “test case” in
Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1), but Timothy was
to be a constant travel companion (Acts
16:3). Therefore, in Titus’ case a clear
theological issue was at stake. But in
Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how
unbelieving Jews might best be won to
Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused
Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this
same freedom allowed him to remove the
stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of
circumcision. Paul applied his principle
from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I
became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”
On the basis of these three differences,
then, I would say Paul was not inconsistent
when he resisted Titus’ circumcision but
sought Timothy’s." --John
Piper
Unchurched?