Energion Direct

Category: Uncategorized

  • Couples Should Talk about Religion

    by Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle

     
    [ene_ptp]I recently wrote a book entitled A HOME UNITED ( Energion, 2015) in which I contend that, among the many important topics for conversation and communication for couples, the topic of religion is one that should not be ignored. I also make the observation that it often is because many people deem it to be so divisive and controversial that it could create discomfort within the relationship. Sadly, when one looks at how religion has all too often been understood and used, one can certainly see how people would not want it to be an impediment in a relationship that has the potential to be lasting.
    While I understand the hesitancy involved in creating obstacles and ruining what is and could be a very good thing, I would also contend that there are MANY good reasons, even necessary reasons, to put the topic of religion on the table. It belongs among the many important topics couples discuss as their love unfolds and they explore the possibility of sharing life together.
    For your consideration, I list some of the reasons:

    1. Understanding another’s religious values is a way of getting to know the inner life of a person well. As couples reveal themselves to each other, that revelation includes the values they share and what really makes them tick.
    2. In a relationship, each person, while being committed to their partner, remains an individual. Religious conviction is a very important part of many individuals’ lives. To bury that important part of oneself in the name of avoiding discomfort carries with it the potential for a greater discomfort down the road.
    3. If a relationship eventually leads to children, decisions need to be made regarding raising those children religiously. In order to avoid the situation where this becomes a divisive matter for the couple, it helps to put it on the list of important issues to explore as the relationship grows deeper and a child is not imminent.

    I would also add that, in some family situations, members of the couple’s extended family might have such strong opinions on the subject that their attempt to exert influence may be discomforting to the couple. A couple is strengthened in this situation if ongoing, in-depth communication on this issue is part of their relationship.
    My book, A Home United, is written as a resource for couples and those who work with them. For couples, I offer questions and pose scenarios for them to explore. These are intended to help them come to an understanding of religious values in the other and to assist them in making good, conscientious decisions. For those who work in premarital counseling, including those in church premarital programs, this book offers material to help these leaders and counselors move couples in the direction of having important and necessary discussions.
    These comments and the book apply to ALL couples seeking to share a life together, including those in same sex relationships!

     [slideshow_deploy id=’2576′]

    For more about author Robert R. LaRochelle, click on his picture. Click on a book cover to get more information about that book.

  • Credible Christians for a Credible Gospel

    by Allan Bevere

     
    Colossians 1:3-10
    In the opening of their letter to the Colossians, Paul and Timothy offer specific prayers for the church there: [ene_ptp] …asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God (1:9-10).
    In ancient Judaism the knowledge of God’s will is known through the Law of Moses (e.g. Rom. 2:17-20; Bar. 3:24-4:4; Sir. 24:23). Such knowledge is to be had through “spiritual wisdom and understanding.”
    According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, wisdom and understanding were two of the three principal intellectual virtues. Unlike what Aristotle called “the moral virtues” which were acquired through education, he believed that the intellectual virtues were given by a combination of nature and nurture, that is, while such virtues could be strengthened through experience and education, it was necessary that a person be given them by “natural endowments” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1143b 8-9; Aristotle will contradict himself on this later in his Ethics).
    Paul and Timothy, however, appear to have a more Jewish understanding in mind.
    Wisdom and understanding are not given by nature, but are received as divine gifts. Thus, the writers can pray and ask God to grant these “virtues” to the Christians at Colossae. Even though such virtues are divinely received, they can also be nurtured as one travels with Christ and his church along the way of discipleship. Paul prays that the Colossians may be “filled with the knowledge of God’s will.” Such filling suggests movement toward a completed or finished state. Spiritual growth is in mind here. So while knowledge revealed through spiritual wisdom and understanding are divinely given, the believer plays an important role in nurturing those gifts.
    Such knowledge “suggests the ability to discern the truth and to make good decisions based on that truth” (Moo, Colossians, p. 94). This knowledge is necessary if the Christians at Colossae are to “bear fruit in every good work.” The imagery of bearing fruit in one’s life is found throughout ancient Jewish literature, particularly in the prophets of the Old Testament (e.g. Isa. 37:31; Jer. 17:8; Ezek. 17:23).
    The authors of Colossians are not interested in divine knowledge for its own sake. Rather, it is to aid the Colossians in their life together as the church. The gospel is credible in and of itself, but it only gains credibility as it is demonstrated by individual saints and the church collectively in the good works that bear witness to God’s kingdom. Christian convictions must be revealed in practice (cf. James 2:18). Being credible and living credibly cannot be separated.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

    Click on the author picture for more information about Allan R. Bevere or on one of the cover images to get more information about his books.

  • Becoming Conscious of Your Essential Beliefs

    [Editor’s Note: This post requires time to mull it over, so we’re reprising it today]

    by Henry Neufeld, Energion Publisher

    Henry picOn the front of a local church, prominently displayed, is a list of the critical doctrines of that congregation. These include KJV 1611, dispensationalism, premillennialism, and pretribulationalism. If I were about to enter the church, I would look at the sign and realize I would not fit in.
    While this list of doctrines is not one that would attract me, I am not writing this to complain about their doctrinal narrowness. They sound to me like they might be a bit narrow, but many churches have long and detailed doctrinal statements, and no warning on their sign or the front of your church. Until you’re sitting in the pew you may not realize that everyone around you is reading only the KJV, or you may learn through stern comments in Sunday School that you have come to a place where the timing of the rapture is settled doctrine, not open to discussion.
    Most of us have some list of doctrines that are absolutely settled, even if that is only the settled doctrine that there are no settled doctrines. We have varied responses to discussing such doctrines. For a community, some sort of statement of beliefs and/or goals is necessary. Why is it that you choose to meet together at certain intervals? Why do you support one another? What goals do you have in organizing?
    When I was looking at congregations of the United Methodist Church for the first time I spoke to two different pastors. One told me that he and his congregation didn’t care what I believed. Just come be with them if I would enjoy the congregation. The other asked me about my spiritual walk at the time. Often churches try to follow the pattern of that first pastor in welcoming everyone irrespective of their beliefs. But there are also problems with this approach. In general, churches that have expectations of their members grow faster than those that don’t. It’s nice to be accepted, but one wants to be accepted into something.
    This same issue can arise when a church accepts people with limits. For example, does your church accept divorced people into membership? Will your church allow a divorced person to take a position of leadership? My purpose here is not to argue for or against whatever standards are involved, but rather to suggest that we examine our reason and be honest with those who come into the church.
    A person who joins a church congregation is likely to have a purpose in doing so. If that purpose cannot be fulfilled, or if such persons do not find a place where they can be useful and valued, they will likely move on or become apathetic. I do not have statistics, just personal conversations, but I suspect that many apathetic, uninvolved Christians lost their drive and energy because somebody thought they were not good enough to go beyond pew warming. We may not say it that way, but our behavior makes it clear that some people are just not good enough for our church.
    Some church members have discovered that their beliefs or their histories are considered less acceptable than that of other church members only when they have tried to move into new levels of ministry with that congregation. In one case (I’m intentionally not citing specific people or congregations here), a couple discovered that they were expected to sign a statement affirming opposition to same-sex marriage, but were only told about this after they were in the process of training for leadership. Nobody had said anything before. Membership was OK, and nobody had discussed same-sex marriage before that moment, nor had they heard it mentioned from the pulpit, but to step into leadership they had to sign a statement.
    Again, my purpose here is not to question the policies of that church, but rather to point out the difficulty that arises when our beliefs and the emotional vehemence with which we hold them sneak up on us. We need to think about what is really essential so that our emotions, and I think more importantly, our local culture (whether church or community) doesn’t have us unintentionally emphasizing things that we’re used to, but that we can’t defend as truly essential.
    I wrote a post for my personal blog about 10 years ago, and in it I used the following illustration, which I have redrawn for this post:
    church_member_types_essentialsWith just four church member types you can be confident that there is something stereotyped about these. I think I tend to have some sympathy for #2, for example, and I would deny allowing doctrine to trump service; doctrine can drive service, but shouldn’t trump it. But that is a danger.
    What I want to show with the diagram is that the more doctrines we make essential, the harder it is to work with one another. If everything is essential and certain, it’s very hard for us to accept others who may disagree. That’s the case of the fanatic, for whom all that is necessary is that he or she holds a belief for it to be critical. One who disagrees on anything more important than color preferences is immediately anathema.
    But there is also danger in #3. While I didn’t draw it, there are those who eliminate almost all doctrine from consideration, and then we lose both coherence and motivation. To be motivated to serve, one likely needs to believe, at a minimum, that service is desirable.
    In addition, one should be careful to ask “essential for what?” when discussing essential doctrines. I consider myself part of a Christian community that includes Calvinists. I have no objection to working with them, and I do believe I share a faith with them. I’m less likely to actually join a congregation that is Calvinist, especially if predestination is, or approaches, an essential for that congregation. That doesn’t mean we can’t run a soup kitchen together or do evangelism together.
    On the other hand, a small group within a church might unite on a longer list of doctrines than the church congregation as a whole. For example, a church might welcome both Calvinists and Arminians. But sometimes it’s nice to get together in a study in which you don’t have to defend everything, so such a church might have small groups defined by one position or the other.
    I’ve done all this to suggest an individual exercise. If you feel comfortable with it, write up the results in a comment, or post about it on your blog and post the link in a comment. I recommend writing the answers down and then thinking about them.
    Answer these questions:

    1. For what purpose are you defining essentials? [for example: determining what is “Christian”?, church congregation, small group, debate]
    2. For the defined group or purpose, what would you consider essential doctrines? These are the doctrines that would be a requirement for someone to join your group or participate in your activity.
    3. What are some specific non-essentials, things that you believe but don’t feel others must agree to?
    4. How strong are the boundaries? Are there any essentials that you might allow exceptions to? Are there any non-essentials that you might find difficult, even if you think they should be non-essential?
    5. Finally, ask yourself if you are satisfied with this list in connection with the gospel commission. Would you want other people to view you with reference to the same list? Remember that this is in reference to the group or activity you chose in #1.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2364′]  

  • Politics as Usual?

    by Bob Cornwall

    PicI must admit that I’m a bit puzzled by the current political season? I may be a pastor, but I’ve always been interested in politics. I first got involved in politics as a ten-year-old. It was 1968. My parents were both active in the Republican Party. I got to spend time at the Republican headquarters and stood with the teenagers who lined the road when Richard Nixon came to town. We all wore sashes that declared “Nixon’s the One.” Four years later, as a fourteen-year-old, I went door-to-door for the party’s candidates. I was so interested in politics that I began to dream of a day when I could enter the political ring. I admit I was young and maybe naïve, but I believed that this was an honorable profession.
    I’m older now. I changed parties during seminary. I’m not quite as active in politics as I was as a fourteen-year-old, but despite everything I continue to believe that politics can be an honorable profession. At least I hope so. If not, then I fear for the country in which I have spent my life. There has always been a dark side to politics, but there was a time, or at least I thought there was, when people could sit down and work out their differences.
    As a Christian and as a religious leader I believe that people of faith can play a productive role in public life. But to do so, we need to recognize the importance of political pluralism. I have a responsibility to advocate for just laws. I have a responsibility to be a good citizen. I live in a democracy (a republican form), in which my vote has important implications. As I vote I should ask what my implications for the nation and the world that vote has.
    People like to complain about the state of our politics, but have we forgotten that those in positions of political leadership were put there by the citizens of this nation. Unfortunately, many citizens forgo their opportunity to cast a vote. Participation is extremely low. If Congress is dysfunctional or the courts seem unaccountable, could it be that we have been negligent in our voting patterns, especially in off-year elections?
    At the same time as some choose not to vote, others work to disenfranchise citizens. They make it difficult to vote due to limited polling places, inconvenient voting times, or placing barriers to getting registered. These burdens have hit those who poor and those whose ethnicity differs from the majority. I don’t think we should force people to vote, but I do think we need to take our citizenship seriously. If for no other reason, then out of concern for our neighbors, whomever they are and wherever they may live. That is, let us expand our neighborhoods to embrace the entirety of the community.
    I write this as a follower of Jesus who believes that my love for God can and should be expressed by my love for my neighbor. As this is the season of Lent and the journey takes us toward the cross, I’m ever mindful that Jesus was tortured and executed by the state. Jesus, I believe, identifies with the tortured and the executed. Thus, I should do the same.
    Like I said at the beginning, I’m puzzled by this political season. I hear lots of rhetoric that is rather unseemly. I hear candidates embrace torture and exclusion. Is this politics as usual? Am I naïve to believe that public service is honorable? I hope not! It is for this reason that I wrote the essays that form my book Faith in the Public Square, even as I continue to give to God my Ultimate Allegiance!
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]

  • What the Same-sex Marriage Discussion Brings to Light

    by Steve Kindle

    [ncsoc_items product_list=”1631990093″ width=”150″ height=”250″ type=’h’]Many of you read the post and comments in opposition to and in favor of same-sex marriage. What did it bring to light? I know some of you are thinking–Nothing! Most of us are probably set in our considered opinions on the subject of gays and gay marriage. What more can be said than has been said over the past fifty-five years that the church has struggled with this issue? Surely, nothing new surfaced in terms of new arguments. We were exposed to more of the same, including what I had to say on the subject. This is not to say that the pros and cons are irrelevant anymore, just repetitive. Of course, not everything that could be said would occur in our discussions, and possibly something of value may yet come forth. But our discussion ended in an impasse–a draw, if you will, where it seems no minds were changed.
    But changing minds might not be the most important reason for the discussion. After all, if all we want to do is change another’s mind, in my view (and Martin Buber’s, too), we treat each other as objects to be defeated, not equals to learn from. In the process, we deny the other the status of human being, equal to our self.
    Full disclosure:  I am a stanch advocate for gay equality in the church and society. I am the executive director of an organization that works with churches and individuals to encourage gay inclusion. I have given seminars literally from coast to coast including Hawaii, and published two books on the subject. I have stood with LGBTQs in public protests when we were driven off the sidewalks by angry truck drivers. I’ve had stones throne at me during vigils, I know the stories of countless gays whose parents disowned them, churches ex-communicated them, and society discriminated against them and finally shunned them.
    Yet, this is not the end of the story. One thing changed all this. Over the last couple of decades, gays “came out” by the thousands, even hundreds of thousands. We discovered that they are our brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, pastors, doctors, even our parents. Our minds changed from thinking all gays are like the demonstrators in the pride parades to seeing they are just like us, for they are us. So now America is solidly behind full equality, including same-sex marriage.
    I bring this up because minds do change. They change, not because they have been argued into a new position, but because they have a personal relationship with someone gay they know well. Most people I have encountered over the years who were pro or anti gay were so out of a disposition, not out of a well-reasoned proposition. The anti-gay folk just found it “unnatural,” and the pro-gay folk disliked discrimination of any kind. In Christian circles, “My Bible says…” was met with “No it doesn’t.” Yet, the anti-gay folk changed their minds in droves, and the pro-gay folk learned personally why they hated discrimination.
    So, what did I learn from our discussion on EDN? Mostly that we are talking past one another. Each side begins from such a different place that communication is almost impossible. Our views of how to understand the Bible turn that document into a jumble of interpretations that make no sense if you don’t hold the same view. Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 didn’t come up, but for many, this is all one needs to know that gay sex is an abomination. Those with an inclusive view can’t understand how a Bible verse can carry such import as to condemn a whole people; we prefer theology to proof-texting.
    I wanted to make clear my total commitment to my position in order to make a larger point. I prefer having a relationship with those who disagree with me over winning the argument. My chief antagonists, Elgin and Nancy (see comments), are model Christians whose lives I admire, and who I hope hold me in the same regard. I can say this, because over the years I have burned a few bridges and wish I had not valued my own position over our friendship. So, in the future, I hope we can continue to raise controversial issues and maintain the priority of people over opinion. Being the liberal I am, I believe God prefers it this way.
    Go in peace, dear ones. God loves us all.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

  • Am I Willing?

    by Jody Neufeld

     

    Pic“Our Father God loved all of His children so much that He gave the only Son He has as the blood sacrifice, so that everyone who has faith in him who did this, will have eternal life and never really die. And Father God did not send his Son to this world to live with us and condemn us. He sent him to save us!” – John 3:16-17 (my paraphrase and emphasis)
    This is arguably the most known New Testament Scripture, and yet, it is not just the lost souls of this world or even the nominal Believers who occasionally sit in a pew one hour a week who do not get it. We, the Church, do not understand it either! For if we did, the Church would be on fire with love for God and would infect the world!
    There is nothing that I can do to make God love me more. [ene_ptp]

    God’s love is perfect and complete. There is no “more” or “less” in His love for me. Even the love that I have for my child is not that perfect but it does give me a point of reference. Do I love my child less when he/she lies? No. I am sad that they made that choice. Do I love my child more when they throw me a birthday party? No. But I am happy that we spend time together!
    What are we teaching in our fellowships? Are we teaching by our words and actions that there is a checklist which will bring us in greater favor with God? Or are we showing by our teachings how much God loves us? And are we being the hands and feet of God to show how much God loves, even when we are unlovable?
    There is no program that I can conceive which can explain God’s love other than for me to love. Programs, the characteristic of being organized to be God’s hands and feet, are not a bad thing. But when the program, rigid adherence to its tasks and applause to its members, becomes the focus instead of the people it serves and their changing needs, then God is no longer being glorified.
    A thrift store or a food pantry which is conceived in order to meet the needs of the poor, is a wonderful, community-focused 21st century concept which is much like what the apostles did in the first century Church. But what if someone has a need and has no transportation to the store? Will the hands and feet of this program deliver the food or transport the needy? Do those who come have to prove their need? Are they required to confess their need for the Savior first? How many people knew who Jesus was and confessed their belief in Him as Messiah before He healed them?
    Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, did not come to earth to condemn or judge, I do that to myself by my choice. It is so easy to speak John 3:16 and not hear it in context with the whole of that chapter, or for that matter, the whole of Jesus’ three year message. I am still reading and studying that! But if I read John 3:17-21, I am taught, as a member of Christ’s Church, that judgment is not mine to even consider, much less execute. Each person makes their own choice. I am to love. I am to give. I am to go. I do not judge. And isn’t that freeing when I think about my life and what God asks of me, calls me to do in this world?
    My friends, my brothers and sisters who are loved by Father God, let us not grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9). Let us just keep doing good like Jesus did. Whoever may come into my path today needs to know that Father God loves them. And Father God has given me the opportunity to deliver that message in a real, true, tangible way. Am I willing? Yes, LORD!

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2498′]

    To get more details about the author or a book, just click on the picture or cover.

  • Universalism in a Pluralistic Age—Part Two

    A Wideness in God’s Mercy: God’s Personal Universalism

    by Bruce Epperly

     
    Epperly picAs he looks over Jerusalem, Jesus compares himself to a mother hen, whose desire is to protect her chicks. For Jesus, God’s love is like a mother – or a father – who is willing to do anything to save her child. Indeed, divine love is so great it goes to the cross for us and our salvation.
    God loves too much, at least in the estimate of many preachers and theologians. They can’t imagine a god who chooses to have no enemies, who rescues the perishing and cares for the dying, even when they’ve gone astray. But, that’s precisely what God does: God rescues the wayward sheep, the coin caught in the cracks, and a son who purposely snubs his father. (see Luke 15) If anyone is not saved, it is surely not God’s doing or intention. “All who call upon God’s name will be saved” (Romans 10:13). What is it about “all” these preachers and theologians don’t get? [ene_ptp] While I have gained from the work of Augustine and Calvin, their vision of an omnipotent deity who is fully responsible for our salvation and either overlooks or predestines the majority of humankind is a far cry from Jesus’ message. Further, the notion that our salvation depends on the recitation of a few sentences is equally distant from the all-embracing love of God. For grace to be grace, there can be no conditions. There may be consequences as a result of our behaviors, but nothing we can do can nullify God’s love for us.   God never gives up on us, even when we give up on God. That’s the love of a parent, the love of a mother for her death row son, the love of a father for his addicted daughter. Isn’t God’s love as great as ours?
    Divine universalism takes two forms: God’s intent to save all persons and God’s desire to be known by all creatures. In the first case, God’s love never ends and has no limits in time or space.   Not even death can defeat God’s love. This is in contrast to the beliefs of many orthodox Christians who see death as stronger than God, that is, if we die in sin or without a relationship with God, God gives up on us.
    For God, death is a “comma” and not a “period.” Beyond the grave, I believe, God continues to work in our lives, enabling us to grow in love and grace and to eventually say “yes” to the One who loved us into life and received us in our deaths.
    In the second case, God provides many ways for us to know God. God reveals Godself in every culture, historical epoch, and religious tradition. It is my belief that the omni-active, omnipresent God, is the ultimate source of spiritual diversity. God’s revelations are tailor made to the world’s differing cultures. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are not falls from grace, but revelations of divine love appropriate to their time and place. Moreover, the world’s various religious traditions are dynamic, not static, and evolving in relationship to culture and history. Today, the world’s religions are evolving as a result of their encounters with one another. This is as much a result of God’s doing as our own.
    Furthermore, God approaches each person uniquely. God’s call is adjusted to who we are and to our spiritual maturity. In God’s universal love, God is the ultimate relativist, seeking a personal relationship with each unique human. God is a “different god” depending our life situation. That’s what it means for God to have a personal relationship with us.
    I hope to expand on these universalist reflections later, but in the meantime, I solicit your questions and thoughts as we seek to be attentive to the One who loves us into life and whose love companions us into an everlasting adventure.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]  
     

  • Universalism in a Pluralistic Age—Part One

    by Bruce G. Epperly

     
    Epperly picWhen I was a child, there was only one flavor of religion in our small town. We are all Christians, and though Catholics  were forbidden to go into Protestant churches and Protestants weren’t welcome in our town’s Catholic Church, we all shared some variation of Christianity. There might have been a few atheists and agnostics and perhaps a Jewish family in my hometown, but they were quiet about their beliefs. Virtually all the churches believed that there was no salvation apart from a relationship with Christ and his church.
    Today, the world is very different. Christianity is no longer the only option. A click of the mouse can introduce you to hundreds of religious options, and a growing number of people identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious,” gathering their insights from a variety of perspectives, usually shaped by American optimism – Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, New Age. My congregation sponsors programs on yoga and reiki healing touch, both of which have roots in non-Christian faith traditions, and members read books by Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh. [ene_ptp] Pluralism is a reality in the marketplace of religions, and a growing number of Christians, including evangelical ]Christians, believe persons outside the faith can experience salvation.  Their positive experience of non-Christians in their dorms, in the medical community, and in the news has opened them to the good faith of persons outside Christianity. This growing universalism has led to cries of relativism and the demise of North American Christianity from fundamentalist preachers and the recent censure of the American Episcopal Church by Southern hemisphere Anglicans for its welcoming of gay and lesbian priests and affirmation of same-sex marriage.
    We can’t turn back the clock to a religiously homogeneous time. In fact, fidelity to God may compel us to recognize truth and salvation outside the Christian witness. The question is: how to open to wider visions of inspiration and salvation without jettisoning the truths of our own faith?
    The bible is a good place to begin, but a careful reading of the bible leaves us with as many questions as answers in the area of universalism. The bible tends to recognize the superiority of the Hebraic tradition over its pagan neighbors. However, scripture also affirms the piety of pagans and their ability to respond to God’s call to repentance, even though it is unclear that they change spiritual affiliations. (See the Book of Jonah, in particular.) While the New Testament affirms the universality of Jesus’ message of salvation, it also suggests that all will be saved as a result of the cross, affirms the continuing witness of God among the Jewish community, and recognizes the universality of divine revelation. Salvation occurs as a result of a relationship with Jesus, many passages affirm, but this relationship is seen as ethical as well as doctrinal, that is, affirming the way of Jesus as well as belief in Jesus as Messiah. Moreover, the Prologue to John’s Gospel clearly notes that the light of the world (Christ) enlightens all people, without distinguishing between followers of Jesus and other faiths. Paul’s speech at the Areopagus proclaims the spiritual superiority of Christ, but also recognizes that revelation is found in Greek philosophy’s claim that God is the one in whom we live and move and have our being. These passages balance the more exclusivist statements of scripture, which limit salvation and truth to those who explicitly call on the name of Jesus.
    Over the past 2000 years, Christian theologians have wrestled with the realities of pluralism, including pluralism in the Christian church. Heterodox, or heretical, factions have suffered persecution and excommunication. Nearly everyone has an ancestor who has been excommunicated for their heretical viewpoints by one faction or another of our faith. Today, some Roman Catholics still claim that they possess the fullness of Christianity, while certain Christian sects wonder if Catholics will be saved as a result of their purported worship of Mary and the Pope! Needless to say, these are not helpful options in a pluralistic age.
    Our own Christian faith suggests a constantly enlarging circle of affirmation. Most Christians recognize diverse expressions of their own faith and are willing to learn from one another’s traditions. We are coming to believe that faith is not static but evolves as new light descends on our scriptures and theological beliefs.
    Still, we struggle with questions of truth and salvation within and beyond our faith tradition.   In the next installment, my focus will be theological in orientation, grounded in my belief that religious truth is manifold as the result of the interplay of divine revelation and human response.

    [Editor’s Note: Part Two runs tomorrow.]

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]  

  • Why Same-sex Marriage Is Not Good for America

    by Elgin Hushbieck, Jr.

    [ene_ptp] A supporter of same sex marriage recently asked me, “Why should I care what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom?” It is a common question and even a valid one in some contexts, but it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, except that it encapsulates a great deal of the problems with this issue.
    To see this just consider the following fact, and it is a fact: The recent Supreme Court ruling forcing states to accept same-sex marriage across the country had absolutely no effect on what people could or could not do in the privacy of their bedroom. None.
    A major reason for this is that marriage is not a private matter, is it a public commitment, and a societal construct. As someone who has been concerned about what author Maggie Gallagher described as “The Abolition of Marriage” long before same-sex marriage was even on the horizon, much less a pressing issue, I approached this debate as yet another in a long line of attacks on marriage, and in many respects one of the final nails in the coffin of marriage, if not the final.
    While I believe there is an important religious component to marriage, religion was not the primary factor in my views. After all, the traditional view of marriage is hardly restricted to evangelical Christians, it is about as universal as any human convention as ever been. Even in societies that had no objection to homosexuality, marriage was still between and man and a woman. The main social experiment was with polygamy, but that seems to be driven more by male desire than family values and was at least until recently seen as undesirable at best, and degrading to women. We are already seeing signs of people pressing for this and other forms of marriage. Given the so-called “legal reasoning” of the decision, I do not seen any way to prevent it, and therein lies the problem.
    Something that can mean anything means nothing; that is pretty much where we are today, with the only thread remaining being a grouping of 2. But, given that historically there is more foundation for polygamy, I cannot see how that will be able to stand for long. Marriage will end up being anything and thus will be nothing. It will effectively have been abolished.
    Neither do I believe this is at all accidental. Serious thinkers on the left have attacked the traditional family and called for its weakening or elimination as a barrier to the state from the beginning, though the intellectual backing for this is largely unknown by the rank and file liberals.
    To them it is just about people (currently two) in love. But if this is the case, why has the traditional family been such a feature of every culture and every time period until now? The main reason has been the raising to children, who it was believed needed a good father and a good mother.
    Today we are told that this is no longer true. That the only thing needed is love. While love is certainly important, this is yet another example of ideology trumping reason and the facts. Its core foundational belief, while a mantra for the left from the late 1960s–1990s, is that men and women are the same. Most people have noticed the difference between the sexes from the beginning of humanity. But that did not keep the belief they are essentially the same from becoming an important tenant that lies behind much of modern leftism. It remains a key underpinning, even today and long after science confirmed common sense by refuting this idea.
    It is this false idea, that there is no difference between men and women that underpins the notion that the only thing you need is love which has governed so much of the left’s attack on traditional values. After all once you admit there is a difference, then it becomes clear that a mother and a father bring different things to the raising of children, and if you allow for this, then you have a reasonable basis for traditional marriage.
    Intellectually this is a death blow to the campaign for same-sex marriage. Its imposition by the courts was grounded on the false belief that the only possible opposition could be homophobia, and this could only be true if there was no basis for traditional marriage, that there fundamentally was no difference between men and women.
    The lasting effect of individual same-sex couples getting married will be nil simply because, other than qualifying for social security benefits, little has changed for them. The social effects, on the other hand, will be to both to hasten and lock in the destruction of the traditional family. The message society sends to the next generation will now be that traditional marriage, rather than being the preferred option, will be just one of many social groupings one can engage in. Again, this was already going on long before same-sex marriage became an issue, and the deleterious effects will only be hastened and magnified, though probably still ignored, as they consistently have been.
    In addition, there will be the further segmenting of society. Those who do not wish to jump on the bandwagon of the left, those who believe that men and women are different, and that marriage is between a man and a woman, will find it increasingly difficult to live in society. There will be a growing list of professions where those with traditional beliefs will be banned. We are already seeing it deepen the divide in churches and even splitting some churches. And undoubtedly this will hasten the exodus from public schools further segmenting society. In short, this will not unify the country, this will further split and alienate a very large and significant part of the population.
    When the court attempted to settle the abortion issue in 1973, they instead created a political cancer that has infected much of politics since that time. I fear that they have done the same thing here, but time will tell.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]  
     
     
     

  • Are we living within God’s will and laws?

    by Doris Horton Murdoch

     
    Murdoch picI recently traveled to the Holy Land. One of the sites I visited was Masada. To prepare myself for this excursion, I watched the mini-series entitled “Masada” produced back in 1981 with Peter O’Toole as Flavius Silva and Peter Strauss as the zealot Eleazar. Then I read Josephus’s eyewitness account of Masada found in The Wars of the Jews, Book 7, Chapters 8-9. I learned that the residents after King Herod were the Jewish zealots. In my limited knowledge, I had always thought of the zealots as members of an ancient Jewish sect that were zealous for God and His Son Jesus Christ and resisted the Roman authority. The word zealot comes from the Greek word “zelotes”, from “zeloun” meaning “to be jealous”. My overall impression of the zealots had always been very positive.
    When I returned home from the Holy Land, I reread the passages from The Complete Works of Josephus. Josephus [ene_ptp] called those at Masada as “Sicarii”. Sicarii is the Latin plural form of sicarius meaning “dagger man”. In Book VII of The Wars of the Jews, Josephus defines Sicarii as ruffians and in 7.8.1.270, the Sicarii are described as those that “imitated every wicked work.” Josephus considered the Sicarri to be barbaric and “wild and brutish” in disposition. These Sicarri killed, terrorized, and plundered fellow countrymen that were trying to live peacefully and cooperatively under Roman rule.
    I now interpret these zealots or Sicarii at Masada as “radical followers of God” just as we have “radical followers of God” and/or “radical Muslims” today. Then and now, some consider the radicals as “heroes of the faith” and others consider them as “radical terrorists.” I’m not sure what side I’m on in this argument, if any side! I know that all men need to live within the will and laws of God.
    The laws of God are found in Exodus 20:1-17 in the Ten Commandments. Commandment 1 is “You shall have no other gods before me.” At what point do extremism and terrorism become our gods? When man fights in the Name of God, at what point in the battle is he taking the Lord’s name in vain? Can warfare misuse the name of God? God commands, “Thou shall not kill”; when does killing another man become acceptable? God says, “Thou shall not steal.” When does it become satisfactory to plunder the defeated? God says, “Thou shall not covet.” Covet means “to be jealous or desirous for” what another has. Zealot comes from the word jealous. When is it appropriate to be zealous to the point of being radical or a sicarii?
    Yes, throughout the Bible, God has allowed these things to happen within God’s will. Knowing God’s will is personal and can only be found in a close relationship with God. Even today, the only way any of us can be zealous about God and political positions is through our relationship with God. As Christians, are we spending enough time alone with God to truly know His will for our lives? Are we spending enough time in spiritual community to know that we are working within God’s will?
    In the sight of defeat, the Sicarii of Masada, led by Eleazar, began to question whether their efforts were within the will or favor of God. In Eleazar’s final speech, he discusses how the group chose to never become servants of the Romans; victory at Masada was not defeating the Romans. Victory would be to die bravely and to not be overpowered by the Romans. Eleazar called this as a favor from God. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, we see a repentant heart in Solomon; he found zeal for worldly (under the sun) victories was only chasing after the wind. In Eleazar’s speech to his most courageous men in the Wars of the Jews, I also see a repentant heart:

    “To be sure we weakly hoped to have preserved ourselves, and ourselves alone, still in a state of freedom, as if we had been guilty of no sins ourselves against God, nor been partners with those of others; we also taught other men to preserve their liberty. Wherefore, consider how God hath convinced us that our hopes were in vain, by bringing such distress upon us in the desperate state we are now in, and which is beyond all our expectations; for the nature of this fortress which was in itself unconquerable, hath not proved a means of our deliverance; and even while we have still great abundance of food, and a great quantity of arms, and other necessaries more than we want, we are openly deprived by God himself of all hope of deliverance; for that fire which was driven upon our enemies did not of its own accord turn back upon the wall which we had built; this was the effect of God’s anger against us for our manifold sins, which we have been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner with regard to our own countrymen; the punishments of which let us not receive from the Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands; for these will be more moderate than the other.” 7.8.6.329-333

    Eleazar later states that true freedom is allowing the soul to be released from its earthly constraints and that is found only when God calls us home to His eternal kingdom.
    Man can become zealous about the wrong things. Our humanity calls us to earthly efforts, but God calls us to things that are above. Galatians 4:26 says, But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. Colossians 3:1-2 confirms where our thoughts and actions should be, Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. While on earth, man needs to: follow God’s laws and strive for that personal relationship with God that guides him to better understand God’s will and plan.
    Thomas Merton expresses well the journey of that personal relationship:

    “My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following Your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please You does in fact please You. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this, You will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for You are ever with me, and You will never leave me to face my perils alone.”

    While on earth, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 concludes what man should be zealous for: Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.  
     
     

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.