I think I need to separate myself, once and for all, from the term Evangelical. Not because it is so bad, but because it mis- communicates as much as it communicates. Anyone from Tony Campolo to Jerry Falwell could be called an Evangelical. It is too broad.
To be honest, it has also become too negative. Evangelicals are often associated with being obnoxious and unkind. As I look at the attitudes and rhetoric of many Evangelicals, I am struck by how much they resemble the Pharisees of the Gospels.
For example, Tony Campolo recently had kind and hopeful things to say regarding prostitutes and homosexuals. This made a lot of Evangelicals uncomfortable. Here is a response from one of the naysayers:
"What does [Campolo] mean by referring to prostitutes and homosexuals as "precious children of God"? The bible calls people who love worldliness and reject Him his enemies (John 3:18, James 4:4), they are children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Also it says in Psalm 7:11 that God is angry with the wicked everyday. The bible also says that those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Eph. 5:3-6). These are hard truths found in scripture. I find no pleasure in this. I guess I just do not understand what Campolo means here."
The thing is, technically, the Pharisees were not wrong; but they had a horrible attitude about people. Jesus was willing to put the rules on hold for the sake of people. The gentleman I quoted above would have been the first to pick up a stone and throw it at the prostitute. Did Jesus consider prostitutes his enemy? Did prostitutes consider Jesus an enemy?
I have been following the reactions of Evangelicals about Bart Campolo's article "The Limits of God's Grace". I loved the article, but there are MANY who hate it. They call Bart a heretic, an idolater... and then they get nasty. Personally, Bart has become my spiritual hero. (Click here for a great message by him)
The reaction of much of the Evangelical community toward Bart and his father Tony, is similar to how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. The Campolos befriend the untouchables and sinners... just like Jesus. They put people over dogma... just like Jesus. They irritate the religious community... just like Jesus!
Heh! Keep it up boys! You Rock!
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
I don't like the new Blogger
I don't like the new Blogger layout. They do not list previous titles on the side like they used to(except for this month). Therefore, readers don't get a listing of previous titles that might catch their eye. So here are the titles and links to everything from 2006.
- Saturday, January 14, 2006 Ring Tones Suck
- Friday, January 20, 2006 His Value System
- Thursday, February 01, 2006 Train Them!
- Thursday, February 02, 2006 Love God, Love his Children
- Friday, February 03, 2006 Hell No!
- Friday, February 10, 2006 More than Passions
- Monday, February 13, 2006 Engaging Education
- Monday, March 13, 2006 Greater Things Than These
- Wednesday, April 12, 2006 Labels
- Friday, April 28, 2006 Inerrancy... you have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares.
- Tuesday, June 13, 2006 What must I do to be saved?
- Sunday, July 09, 2006 Goodbye Santa Claus
- Monday, July 24, 2006 isms
- Wednesday, August 02, 2006 That's my girl!
- Monday, October 30, 2006 God is not enough for me....
- Saturday, November 04, 2006 I was hoping it was a false accusation..
- Saturday, November 11, 2006 To expand on my previous blog...
- Saturday, November 20, 2006 When will Utah repent?
- Wednesday, November 22, 2006 I think I am a Universalist...
- Saturday, December 02, 2006 Thanks to the bands of my youth
- Friday, December 15, 2006 Apocalypto - move along folks, there is nothing to see here.
- Monday, December 18, 2006 I do note vote in favor of election....
Monday, December 18, 2006
I do note vote in favor of election....
There was a time in my Christianity when I was right. I was Charasmantic... Full Gospel... how much more right could you be than that?
Then life happens.
At this point you can do one of three things:
Then life happens.
At this point you can do one of three things:
- Hunker down and refuse to hear anything but the thoughts within your own group (you may listen to other arguments, but you know from the beginning you are right. So you, at most, only tolerate the deluded around you).
- Abandon your faith. Having found a chink in your armor, you throw away everything in a resentful rage.
- Eat some humble pie. Discover you are not half as smart as you think you are and learn to hold ideas with open hands.
Having grown up being right, I learned little about other people's ideas of God. So, in my latter years, I am having to play catch-up.
I have discovered that my thoughts this past decade line-up with a lot of things within something called "The Emergent Church" movement. Since I visit the blogs of a lot of these folks, I also come into contact with the blogs of many of their detractors. It seems (and here I say "seems" with heavy emphasis) that a lot of folks who cling to Calvanism take issue with the Emergent Church.
I always knew Calvanists were into predestination/election (the idea that God chose who would go to Heaven and who would go to Hell before anyone did anything), but I never really gave it much thought. However, I got into a discussion with a gentleman on his blog recently and it clarified for me how troubled I am with that idea. I commented on a post where he was stating his belief in predestination. I will post my comment and our brief conversation, then comment some more.
_____________
Andrew 7:56 PM
I could never put full stock in to election... This post confirmed that opinion. I grant that there is scripture that could lead one to that conclusion, but only if you ignore a heckalot of other scripture. I am not sure how it will pan out, but I am pretty confident God was not saying... "and you will be saved, and you too, but not you, hmmm how bout' you, you, and you, mmm not you, and not that one either..." If true, we are ruled by a psycho!
SB 9:01 PM
I'd like to see you defend that biblicaly. God elects people alright. It's all over the bible.
Andrew 10:28 PM
Is there a single scripture I could produce that you would not refute? You obviously believe wholeheartedly in election. The most you and I could do is play biblical ping-pong for the observers and each side would go away with the same view they previously held. Been in those conversations before?
Let me rather ask a question. Though my description of the thought line of a God of election above was absurd, is your view much different? Is that how you see God?
I have committed about 10 books of scripture to memory. I say this not as a boast, but to make a point. One of the unforeseen outcomes is that I started to see scripture by themes rather than statements. For example… I could remove all the scripture where God states that he loves man, yet, when I read the rest of scripture I would still come to that conclusion…. God loves us.
I don’t get that when it comes to election. Remove those verses and there would be nothing about the rest of scripture that would point in that direction. So for me, it leaves it suspect. There is scripture to defend and refute election. There is scripture to defend and refute grace vs. works. Pre, post, mid-trib? Whom shall I believe? The theologian who argues his point better? The one who produces the longest list of verses?
I honestly don’t have a big opinion about election. It is one of those scriptural oddities that seems to run contrary to other scripture ... yet there it is. To me, it is what happens when the eternal is explained in temporal language… it doesn’t quite fit. It can’t. In the same way a three dimensional being could never accurately describe himself in words to a world of two dimensions. I honestly think when people asked Jesus, “What is the Kingdom of God like?”, he had to think for a second. He must have thought, how do I put this, when they have absolutely NO frame of reference? Well, guys… ya see….. it's kind of like….. a mustard seed….
What concerns me is why people so doggedly want to defend election? Why? What is the motivation? To have a point of argument? To be more right than someone else? If one wants to lean toward election, I can’t totally dismiss them because it is a scriptural point… but why can there be no allowance for another view?
God chose the metaphor of a Father. He thought that was one of the best ways to describe himself to us. To buy into election, as people tend to interpret it, I would need to be comfortable with a God who is pro-choice – one who can toss his child in the trash can on a whim.
SB 9:47 PM
God would never toss his child....for someone to be his child he has to recieve Christ. The one's who get "tossed" aren't his kids. Other than that, I'd just say to you to use scripture as your standard, not make up your own ideas...
_____________
It bothers me when people respond, but don't really address my points. To me, it shows they don't know how to listen; they only know how to monologue. Being right requires monologue, not dialogue. To the absolutist, dialogue is tantamount to compromise.
Part of me wanted to respond back, but I am trying not to fall into the trap of needing to be right. Anyone who knows me knows I luuuv to be right, so it is something God is chipping away at. But if one needs a scriptural reference for my belief I will give one... well, two... and we could go on.
First, God is no respecter of persons. When I get to something in scripture I don't understand, I cling to the character of God. Does predestination sync with how God presents himself?
He desires all men to be saved. God would have to be a complete bi-polar or schizophrenic if he both desired a person's salvation, offered a way of salvation, but then put that person outside salvation's reach.
Again, if the concept of election/predestination mattered at all Jesus would have taught it, Paul would have taught it, Peter would have taught it..... not cryptically mention it, TAUGHT it.
I know scripture mentions it, I don't deny it. It is the conclusion of Calvinists I find unsupportable. If their view is accurate, then I will pass on Heaven. Their view makes God into as big a jerk as any I have met on this planet; as big a jerk as me....
.... and I need to worship someone greater than myself.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Apocalypto - move along folks, there is nothing to see here.
Violence doesn’t bother me, so my objection to this film doesn’t stem from that (though that is the core of many critical reviews I read). I am bothered that Gibson portrays it as being meaningful, when it bordered on pointless. Beyond that, Apocalypto was a used storyline.
I went in knowing a smattering of pre-Columbian history, so I was looking forward to a bit of insight into Mayan culture. Instead, very little is displayed of Mayan culture – except the human sacrifice part… we stayed there for a bit. In fact, we were treated to the view of a head bouncing down the stairs of the pyramid, from the head’s perspective (there’s a new ride idea for Universal Studios).
Used storyline? Yep. This movie was Rambo/Predator B.C. Our hero is pursued into his jungle by 7 Mayans, whom he proceeds to pick off one by one. It was such a used premise, it almost started to seem like a “Scary Movie” parody. At one point, the hero catches his main enemy in a pig trap… three spikes through the torso. He walks up to look at him in his eye. I found myself clutching my popcorn. “Say it! Say it,” I cried. I just so wanted him to snarl and say in a perfect Arnold accent - “Stick around!”
I wouldn’t want to spoil the ending, but I couldn’t cause you know where it will end by the first hour. Gibson obviously wanted one of those M. Night Shyamalan endings. It looked like one, but it didn’t feel like it. There was such a big build up to it; the natives looking stunned, out at the ocean. The moment kept hanging til I think half the audience was thinking “Just show the damn Europeans!” When the moment came, it was so cliché I was more in danger of barfing at that moment then when the heads were bouncing.
To me, this movie failed the way Lucas’s last three Star Wars movies failed. Lucas became absorbed in neato special effects, and forgot to infuse the movies with story. Gibson is falling into the same trap with graphic gore. The violence in Braveheart had a point, and it sat amidst a good story.
Apocalypto doesn’t offer anything that Predator and Rambo didn’t; and those two were more fun to watch.
I went in knowing a smattering of pre-Columbian history, so I was looking forward to a bit of insight into Mayan culture. Instead, very little is displayed of Mayan culture – except the human sacrifice part… we stayed there for a bit. In fact, we were treated to the view of a head bouncing down the stairs of the pyramid, from the head’s perspective (there’s a new ride idea for Universal Studios).
Used storyline? Yep. This movie was Rambo/Predator B.C. Our hero is pursued into his jungle by 7 Mayans, whom he proceeds to pick off one by one. It was such a used premise, it almost started to seem like a “Scary Movie” parody. At one point, the hero catches his main enemy in a pig trap… three spikes through the torso. He walks up to look at him in his eye. I found myself clutching my popcorn. “Say it! Say it,” I cried. I just so wanted him to snarl and say in a perfect Arnold accent - “Stick around!”
I wouldn’t want to spoil the ending, but I couldn’t cause you know where it will end by the first hour. Gibson obviously wanted one of those M. Night Shyamalan endings. It looked like one, but it didn’t feel like it. There was such a big build up to it; the natives looking stunned, out at the ocean. The moment kept hanging til I think half the audience was thinking “Just show the damn Europeans!” When the moment came, it was so cliché I was more in danger of barfing at that moment then when the heads were bouncing.
To me, this movie failed the way Lucas’s last three Star Wars movies failed. Lucas became absorbed in neato special effects, and forgot to infuse the movies with story. Gibson is falling into the same trap with graphic gore. The violence in Braveheart had a point, and it sat amidst a good story.
Apocalypto doesn’t offer anything that Predator and Rambo didn’t; and those two were more fun to watch.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Thanks to the bands of my youth
My friend Brook wrote on this topic recently in his blog, so pop over there and give his a read. We were in sync that day, he just wrote his first. :) He gave some of the same critiques I would, so I am just gonna share my thank you's.
I was appreciating my Ipod's ability to stitch live tracks together while I was working out the other day. I was listening to Fireworks Live, the first album I ever owned. Later in my workout, I clicked over to Petra's Captured in Time and Space and rolled to the Praise session. Ahhh the good old days!
As I listened, I was thinking about how much my faith and theology was shaped by so many of those bands. I will probably miss some (I'll add later) and this thank you will probably never be seen by any of the bands, but some of you reading may share many of these thoughts and memories.
Daniel Amos - What can I say? You were my first love. You were the first one to put in my head that maybe Christianity did not have to be lived the way I was taught. Even prior to my conversion, you were already stirring rebellious thoughts. Thanks!
Keith Green - You left us too soon. You showed me what it was to throw off everything and follow Christ. The sheep and the goats still reminds me about how petty perhaps all of our doctrines truly are.
Randy Stonehill - "You are the light" on Equator was probably one of the first songs that really drew me into worship. Sunday morning choruses never did much for me, but when I listened to that song I worshiped.
Steve Taylor - You always felt like the older brother who would give me good advice. I felt that so long as Steve wouldn't have cause to write a funny song about what I am doing, I must be ok.
Undercover - "Branded" affects me to this day. Hard to pick out which song affected me most. There was a verse in Darkest Hour which was the single strand my Christianity hung on for a long time. In many ways, it still does. When I lay me down to sleep/Is there a soul for you to keep?/I fall down to my knees/and all I know is Jesus Please!
Jerusalem- I met you guys at my first Ichthus back in 84. I loved how you guys loved people. I taped your show and in the foolishness of youth, I lost it. I would give anything to have the rendition of "Loves you more" that you did that day.
Mylon Lefevere - I loved to hear you preach. That was half the fun of going to your concerts. The way you could talk about Jesus was no less than amazing. I wore a tape out rewinding "Crack the Sky" to listen to again and again.
Rez Band - Glen was another one you loved to hear preach. The man lives his faith. I still listen to "The Struggle" with some awe.
The Imperials - Yes, my tastes are eclectic. The Russ Taff albums were amazing.
Sweet Comfort Band - "Perfect Timing" was the definitive album that year.
White Heart - "Over Me" was my anthem for years. I still hum it everytime I am walking in the rain.
Stryper - Some darn fun, big hair, christianized metal. I still jam to this stuff! Nuthin gets me air guitarin faster.
I realize as I write this, that if I continue this list, I enter into bands that were with me during a different stage of my Christianity. So I am going to stop here with the bands of my innocence. Though some of these (like Undercover) stayed with and affected me over time, these are the bands who helped me through my teen years - back when Christianity was just about accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, being righteous, and enjoying youth group activities.
Those of you who knew me at the time, let me know who I am missing. Share some Ichthus memories.... (Matt applying generous amounts of baby oil one sunny day comes to mind).
I was appreciating my Ipod's ability to stitch live tracks together while I was working out the other day. I was listening to Fireworks Live, the first album I ever owned. Later in my workout, I clicked over to Petra's Captured in Time and Space and rolled to the Praise session. Ahhh the good old days!
As I listened, I was thinking about how much my faith and theology was shaped by so many of those bands. I will probably miss some (I'll add later) and this thank you will probably never be seen by any of the bands, but some of you reading may share many of these thoughts and memories.
Daniel Amos - What can I say? You were my first love. You were the first one to put in my head that maybe Christianity did not have to be lived the way I was taught. Even prior to my conversion, you were already stirring rebellious thoughts. Thanks!
Keith Green - You left us too soon. You showed me what it was to throw off everything and follow Christ. The sheep and the goats still reminds me about how petty perhaps all of our doctrines truly are.
Randy Stonehill - "You are the light" on Equator was probably one of the first songs that really drew me into worship. Sunday morning choruses never did much for me, but when I listened to that song I worshiped.
Steve Taylor - You always felt like the older brother who would give me good advice. I felt that so long as Steve wouldn't have cause to write a funny song about what I am doing, I must be ok.
Undercover - "Branded" affects me to this day. Hard to pick out which song affected me most. There was a verse in Darkest Hour which was the single strand my Christianity hung on for a long time. In many ways, it still does. When I lay me down to sleep/Is there a soul for you to keep?/I fall down to my knees/and all I know is Jesus Please!
Jerusalem- I met you guys at my first Ichthus back in 84. I loved how you guys loved people. I taped your show and in the foolishness of youth, I lost it. I would give anything to have the rendition of "Loves you more" that you did that day.
Mylon Lefevere - I loved to hear you preach. That was half the fun of going to your concerts. The way you could talk about Jesus was no less than amazing. I wore a tape out rewinding "Crack the Sky" to listen to again and again.
Rez Band - Glen was another one you loved to hear preach. The man lives his faith. I still listen to "The Struggle" with some awe.
The Imperials - Yes, my tastes are eclectic. The Russ Taff albums were amazing.
Sweet Comfort Band - "Perfect Timing" was the definitive album that year.
White Heart - "Over Me" was my anthem for years. I still hum it everytime I am walking in the rain.
Stryper - Some darn fun, big hair, christianized metal. I still jam to this stuff! Nuthin gets me air guitarin faster.
I realize as I write this, that if I continue this list, I enter into bands that were with me during a different stage of my Christianity. So I am going to stop here with the bands of my innocence. Though some of these (like Undercover) stayed with and affected me over time, these are the bands who helped me through my teen years - back when Christianity was just about accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, being righteous, and enjoying youth group activities.
Those of you who knew me at the time, let me know who I am missing. Share some Ichthus memories.... (Matt applying generous amounts of baby oil one sunny day comes to mind).
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I think I am a Universalist...
For me, when I poke around, I find a very unorthodox theologian. It makes me nervous to see that staring back at me, but it sure explains a lot.
I suppose this unorthodoxy started only a few years after my conversion. I was 18 and working/schooling at a ministry down in Texas. Some friends and I went to hear a preacher who was known for his hard/no compromise message. He was a talanted speaker, and he had the audience mesmerized. He just didn't seem happy. In fact, I was quite sure he was angry. He went on and on about luke-warm christians and counterfiet conversions.
Then suddenly, he got happy. He started to talk about judgement day. He described in detail the suffering that would be waiting in Hell for those who mocked God and his children. I am not sure, but I think he started salivating at this point. He couldn't wait for sinners to get their portion of this.
I left that night perplexed. I believed in eternal damnation, but I never hoped it on anyone. Is God angry? Does he get as excited as this preacher did about sending people to Hell?
After this, I started to notice how much time my brothers in Christ spent on who was going to Hell. They often said they were burdened over the souls "pouring into the Pit". They would say, "It breaks my heart that my neighbor is going to Hell", but then through conversation I would realize that they did not even like that neighbor. Was it really breaking their heart?
It seemed Hell was just one more item to show others that, "My God is better than your God, my faith is better than your faith".
I started to question Hell. In a previous post, I pasted a letter that I had written years ago to a number of my friends in which I shared my wrestlings.
In addition to the items I put in that letter, becoming a Father has really made me question Hell. What could Kathryn or Jacob do? What could they possibly do that would make me inflict such violence on them?
Brian McLaren's son said, "Dad... either Christianity is true and almost everyone I love is going to burn in Hell forever, or it's not true and life is meaningless."
This is the set of options Christianity presents the world with, but is that the God of Hope?
McLaren says that he struggles with being a pacifist. He says that, more accurately, he is a pacifist sympathiser.
I think that is how I feel about Universalism. I cannot, theologically, completely commit to it - but I sure want to. This quote from Bart Campolo summarizes how I feel lately..
"If indeed faith is being sure of what we hope for, then truly I am a man of faith, for I absolutely know what I hope to be true: That God is completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving, that God is doing all that He can to overcome evil (which is evidently a long and difficult task), and that God will utterly triumph in the end, despite any and all indications to the contrary.
This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.
This first article of faith was the starting point of my journey back to Jesus, and it remains the foundation of my faith. I came to trust the Bible again, of course, but only because it so clearly bears witness to the God of love I had already chosen to believe in. I especially follow the teachings of Jesus because those teachings—and his life, death, and resurrection—seem to me the best expression of the ultimate truth of God, which we Christians call grace. Indeed, these days I trust Jesus even when I don’t understand him, because I have become so convinced that He knows what He is talking about, that He is who he is talking about, and that He alone fully grasps that which I can only hope is true.
Unfortunately for me, God may be very different than I hope, in which case I may be in big trouble come Judgment Day. Perhaps, as many believe, the truth is that God created and predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, according to His will. Perhaps such caprice only seems unloving to us because we don’t understand. Perhaps, as many believe, everyone who dies without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior goes to Hell to suffer forever. Most important of all, perhaps God’s sovereignty is such that although He could indeed prevent little girls from being raped, He is no less just or merciful when He doesn’t, and both those children and we who love them should uncritically give Him our thanks and praise in any case.
My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that. For me to do otherwise would be to despair.
Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff, remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, God can give my place in Heaven to someone else, and go ahead and send me to Hell. For better or worse, I am simply not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking Him, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility, because, quite frankly, anything less is not enough to give me hope, to keep me alive, to be worth the trouble of believing."
Amen.....
When will Utah repent?
Utah's latest headlines focus on Mr. Warren Jeffs, president and prophet of the FLDS church. The locals are going to have to be patient while I provide some background for the rest of the 5.99 billion people on the planet who have no idea what is happening in Utah.
To understand Warren, you have to go back to Joseph Smith, the founder of all Mormon groups. Here is the Reader's Digest version.
In the early 1800s, Joseph Smith received visions and wrote, plagiarized, or translated (depending on who you ask) an account of Jews coming to America in the BC and their history up until and shortly after the time of Christ. This is called The Book of Mormon.
The book of Mormon reads much like the Bible and is similar to the core doctrines of Christianity. People started to follow Joseph and a movement was born.
Joseph added teachings, outside of the Bible and the book of Mormon, which came off a bit strange to some. Some groups left (or were forced to leave), but still believed the Book of Mormon to be true even though they felt Joseph Smith had strayed. Polygamy, plurality of gods, jealousy of Mormon prosperity, and Joseph's unilateral power caused all kinds of civil problems. Joseph was assassinated and the core group splintered.
Different groups settled in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc... almost all of these groups abandoned polygamy (some deny it ever happened during the time of Smith) and the teaching of plurality of gods, and settled into a more traditional Christianity that included the book of Mormon.
Meanwhile, a group of Mormons followed Brigham Young (called Brighamites) out West. The migration West was severe and difficult, which built a unique sense of purpose to this splinter. The Brighamites officially took on the name - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This name is actually shared with a number of other groups who have no affiliation with the Utah church.
The Utah LDS church practiced polygamy unabashed. The most unique teachings of Joseph Smith were clung to, and the territory grew. Utah grew to statehood size, but the rest of country was nervous about giving statehood to a mini-theocracy awash in polygamy.
Prior to gaining statehood for Utah, the LDS church officially denounced polygamy. This caused a number of LDS church members to break away from the Utah LDS church, feeling that they gave up "the principle (polygamy)" due to political pressure. The Utah church said politics had nothing to do with it.
One of the largest polygamist splinter groups is the FLDS church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Warren Jeffs is the president of this group presently. He is the stereotype of every religious leader who leads a group of nearly unquestioning followers. To be on his badside is to put you out of the graces of god... so the thousands in his church pretty much do whatever he says, even to reassigning of wives to different families and forcing underage girls to marry old men. Warren Jeffs wives number in the forties. There are all kinds of predictions as to what will happen to the FLDS church now that Jeffs will be spending a good long while in prison.
I think the hardest thing for the Salt Lake LDS group to come to terms with is how to juggle the polygamy question. They want to condemn the FLDS group while maintaining the legitimacy of the practice when their founders partook in it. In fact, in theory, they still support it. They believe God the Father is a polygamist with multiple wives (this point is contested, see comments below) who would like to see his children participating in this, just not right now. So it is a complicated dance on a tightrope to distance yourself from the practicers and practice of polygamy while not disavowing it. Tricky.
Unfortunately, America goes to the Middle East to liberate women and children of oppressive regimes, but we allow tens of thousands to remain captive and oppressed within our own land. Check out the trailer for the movie Banking on Heaven to get a glimpse of what life is like for people in these communities. Entire cities exist, where polygamists reign and women and children are seen as chattel.
I have heard the testimonies of women who have escaped from these oppressive communities and have struggled to rebuild their shattered selves. Boys are rejected within homes because they are a threat to older males who seek to acquire more wives. Prophets assign wives to men based on loyalty or reassign their wives as a punishment. Girls are forced into marriages, even young teenagers. As an example, a 19 year old girl was forced to marry Warren Jeff's father, who was 83.
I believe that the sin of Polygamy has never been truly repented of in Utah. Utah looks the other way, weakly justifies it, and quietly props it up; instead of calling it out and rejecting it as the sick and depraved sin that it is. Therefore, polygamy has remained a thorn in the Southwest to this day.
I see Utah as a land of beauty with a gaping wound. This wound will continue to fester until the day it's people become of one heart and reject this sin for time and eternity.
This article actually has sat unpublished for months; I wrote it when Jeff's was first arrested. I was concerned about possibly offending some with this article. However, while reading more news stories lately about Jeff's, I felt compelled to post this. What he has done and what he stands for is no small part of Utah. The circumstance of his community does not sit in a bubble; it has connection and history in the establishment of Utah.
Part of the reason I decided to post was a conversation I had with some friends visiting from Michigan recently. I started talking about Jeffs. They were stunned and one said to me, "You mean polygamy really does happen here?"
The truth is, most of the country has no idea the practice of polygamy goes on here nor how rampet it is. To me, this shows how effective Utah has been in quieting this indiscretion. When the faithful tell the stories of Joseph Smith, polygamy is carefully stepped around. But if there is a need to edit polygamy out of the movies about Smith, if the Utah LDS church does not want polygamy connected with them when Warren Jeffs is in the news, then isn't polygamy something that should be called what it is (sin) and not merely ignored?
I do not write this article to offend; I am not sure that it would cause offense. But if it does, I would be interested to know which part was offensive.
To understand Warren, you have to go back to Joseph Smith, the founder of all Mormon groups. Here is the Reader's Digest version.
In the early 1800s, Joseph Smith received visions and wrote, plagiarized, or translated (depending on who you ask) an account of Jews coming to America in the BC and their history up until and shortly after the time of Christ. This is called The Book of Mormon.
The book of Mormon reads much like the Bible and is similar to the core doctrines of Christianity. People started to follow Joseph and a movement was born.
Joseph added teachings, outside of the Bible and the book of Mormon, which came off a bit strange to some. Some groups left (or were forced to leave), but still believed the Book of Mormon to be true even though they felt Joseph Smith had strayed. Polygamy, plurality of gods, jealousy of Mormon prosperity, and Joseph's unilateral power caused all kinds of civil problems. Joseph was assassinated and the core group splintered.
Different groups settled in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc... almost all of these groups abandoned polygamy (some deny it ever happened during the time of Smith) and the teaching of plurality of gods, and settled into a more traditional Christianity that included the book of Mormon.
Meanwhile, a group of Mormons followed Brigham Young (called Brighamites) out West. The migration West was severe and difficult, which built a unique sense of purpose to this splinter. The Brighamites officially took on the name - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This name is actually shared with a number of other groups who have no affiliation with the Utah church.
The Utah LDS church practiced polygamy unabashed. The most unique teachings of Joseph Smith were clung to, and the territory grew. Utah grew to statehood size, but the rest of country was nervous about giving statehood to a mini-theocracy awash in polygamy.
Prior to gaining statehood for Utah, the LDS church officially denounced polygamy. This caused a number of LDS church members to break away from the Utah LDS church, feeling that they gave up "the principle (polygamy)" due to political pressure. The Utah church said politics had nothing to do with it.
One of the largest polygamist splinter groups is the FLDS church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Warren Jeffs is the president of this group presently. He is the stereotype of every religious leader who leads a group of nearly unquestioning followers. To be on his badside is to put you out of the graces of god... so the thousands in his church pretty much do whatever he says, even to reassigning of wives to different families and forcing underage girls to marry old men. Warren Jeffs wives number in the forties. There are all kinds of predictions as to what will happen to the FLDS church now that Jeffs will be spending a good long while in prison.
I think the hardest thing for the Salt Lake LDS group to come to terms with is how to juggle the polygamy question. They want to condemn the FLDS group while maintaining the legitimacy of the practice when their founders partook in it. In fact, in theory, they still support it. They believe God the Father is a polygamist with multiple wives (this point is contested, see comments below) who would like to see his children participating in this, just not right now. So it is a complicated dance on a tightrope to distance yourself from the practicers and practice of polygamy while not disavowing it. Tricky.
Unfortunately, America goes to the Middle East to liberate women and children of oppressive regimes, but we allow tens of thousands to remain captive and oppressed within our own land. Check out the trailer for the movie Banking on Heaven to get a glimpse of what life is like for people in these communities. Entire cities exist, where polygamists reign and women and children are seen as chattel.
I have heard the testimonies of women who have escaped from these oppressive communities and have struggled to rebuild their shattered selves. Boys are rejected within homes because they are a threat to older males who seek to acquire more wives. Prophets assign wives to men based on loyalty or reassign their wives as a punishment. Girls are forced into marriages, even young teenagers. As an example, a 19 year old girl was forced to marry Warren Jeff's father, who was 83.
I believe that the sin of Polygamy has never been truly repented of in Utah. Utah looks the other way, weakly justifies it, and quietly props it up; instead of calling it out and rejecting it as the sick and depraved sin that it is. Therefore, polygamy has remained a thorn in the Southwest to this day.
I see Utah as a land of beauty with a gaping wound. This wound will continue to fester until the day it's people become of one heart and reject this sin for time and eternity.
This article actually has sat unpublished for months; I wrote it when Jeff's was first arrested. I was concerned about possibly offending some with this article. However, while reading more news stories lately about Jeff's, I felt compelled to post this. What he has done and what he stands for is no small part of Utah. The circumstance of his community does not sit in a bubble; it has connection and history in the establishment of Utah.
Part of the reason I decided to post was a conversation I had with some friends visiting from Michigan recently. I started talking about Jeffs. They were stunned and one said to me, "You mean polygamy really does happen here?"
The truth is, most of the country has no idea the practice of polygamy goes on here nor how rampet it is. To me, this shows how effective Utah has been in quieting this indiscretion. When the faithful tell the stories of Joseph Smith, polygamy is carefully stepped around. But if there is a need to edit polygamy out of the movies about Smith, if the Utah LDS church does not want polygamy connected with them when Warren Jeffs is in the news, then isn't polygamy something that should be called what it is (sin) and not merely ignored?
I do not write this article to offend; I am not sure that it would cause offense. But if it does, I would be interested to know which part was offensive.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
To expand on my previous blog...
This comment is not about Ted Haggard per Se', but about the responses I have heard from the Christian community. The most common one I hear is "This is a good reminder that we should not be placing our hopes or faith in any person, but in God".
I don't disagree with that, but what I am not hearing is the suggestion that perhaps we should be saying that a little louder before the fall rather than sighing about it after.
We want celebrities and heroes to worship. The same drive that pushes people to read People magazine exists within the people of God. We have the same drives, but I think God expects us to resist rather than go with the flow.
Ministries love to have a celebrity figure. Do you believe some of the national ministries would fare as well as they do financially if they did not have that core personality at the head? Many of these ministries structure their entire foundation on getting people to put their hope and faith in that person.... oh, and on God too, of course.
The simple truth is, it would not benefit most ministries to downplay their core personalities (even if that were to mean elevating Christ). Western Capitalism and Darwinism have permeated our ministries. Encouraging people to follow a personality increases the ministry wealth and power base. Ministries rise and fall based on how well they are marketed. John the Baptist said, "He must increase, and I must decrease." I believe the unsaid maxim in many ministries has become, "He will increase as I increase!"
I think we need to go back to the scriptures. Paul repeatedly warned against this kind of behavior. He even got a little sarcastic about it and chastised the Corinthian church for getting all excited about those "Super-Apostles". He admonished them "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." He later in the letter told them not to elevate him either and concluded "So then, no more boasting about men!"
One last reason I think we build up men goes back to the Old Testament. God wanted to talk to the Israelites, but they wanted Moses to go talk in their place. It is in our history to want someone else to take the lead, the responsibility, the risk. God so wants us. He wants us to want him. But we always want to settle for a simulacrum or proxy.
We can have so much more! Hebrews 10 says "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith".
God wants you! You can go directly before him! No prophet, pastor, priest... or celebrity... required!
I don't disagree with that, but what I am not hearing is the suggestion that perhaps we should be saying that a little louder before the fall rather than sighing about it after.
We want celebrities and heroes to worship. The same drive that pushes people to read People magazine exists within the people of God. We have the same drives, but I think God expects us to resist rather than go with the flow.
Ministries love to have a celebrity figure. Do you believe some of the national ministries would fare as well as they do financially if they did not have that core personality at the head? Many of these ministries structure their entire foundation on getting people to put their hope and faith in that person.... oh, and on God too, of course.
The simple truth is, it would not benefit most ministries to downplay their core personalities (even if that were to mean elevating Christ). Western Capitalism and Darwinism have permeated our ministries. Encouraging people to follow a personality increases the ministry wealth and power base. Ministries rise and fall based on how well they are marketed. John the Baptist said, "He must increase, and I must decrease." I believe the unsaid maxim in many ministries has become, "He will increase as I increase!"
I think we need to go back to the scriptures. Paul repeatedly warned against this kind of behavior. He even got a little sarcastic about it and chastised the Corinthian church for getting all excited about those "Super-Apostles". He admonished them "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." He later in the letter told them not to elevate him either and concluded "So then, no more boasting about men!"
One last reason I think we build up men goes back to the Old Testament. God wanted to talk to the Israelites, but they wanted Moses to go talk in their place. It is in our history to want someone else to take the lead, the responsibility, the risk. God so wants us. He wants us to want him. But we always want to settle for a simulacrum or proxy.
We can have so much more! Hebrews 10 says "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith".
God wants you! You can go directly before him! No prophet, pastor, priest... or celebrity... required!
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Christianity and Homosexuality
If you haven't been watching the news lately, one of the prominent members of the Christian Right has had to step down from his ministry. I didn't know much about Ted Haggard, which shows how little I know about the world of the Christian Right nowadays.
The most blaring issue that faces him at the moment is that, while opposing gay marriage on the one hand, he was soliciting gay sex with the other.
Maybe this should be a call for the Christian Right to get off the gay issue... Is this really what Christ wants his church to be about? Our biggest rep is that we are anti-gay?
I remember the first time I realized that the Christian Right had the wrong motivation on the issue of gays.
Bill Clinton was either running for office or had just become president. I was watching Chuck Colson address a group of pastors on C-Span. He was speaking to a group of about two thousand. Colson was talking about the amazing success they were having in prison ministry and about the number of changed lives that he had personally seen. The crowd nodded and listened politely. Colson was very into what he was talking about, but his audience did not seem to share his enthusiasm. At the close of his speech, he made a few political comments. At the time, gays in the military were a big anchor around Bill Clinton's neck, and Mr. Colson made reference that gays had no place in the military.
I was flabbergasted by what I saw next. All two thousand men stood up simultaneously and began to applaud and cheer. This issue got the crowd fired up. I knew then that I would probably never understand or share the views of most folks I share my religion with. The Lord of Glory changing the life of a prisoner gets tepid responses while any issue with gay attached to it brings out the saints and their checkbooks in record numbers.
The Christian Right's overall reaction to the gay community brings to light what I have suspected for a long time. We don't want homosexuals to come to Christ for their benefit, we want them to come to Christ for ours. Our lives would be so much more pleasant if gays came to Christ. Then we wouldn't be bothered by gays! In fact, we don't really care if they come to Christ at all. We just want them to stop acting gay!
I know taking this view will probably get me a rep of being soft on sin... but I really don't think I care anymore. All we see again and again are that those who squawk loudest about the sins of others end up laying a big egg themselves.
I always get little, pithy, forwarded emails that circulate among Christians decrying the state of America. These usually tie our ungodliness with gays and liberals. It ends with some comment that if you are a true Christian and an American, you will forward this email. I have yet to see any of those emails talk about the fact that America's problems are driven by churches caught up in personal wealth building, with divorce rates as high as the community at large, and that our houses of worship tend to be houses of gossip and back-biting. Anybody seen those emails yet?
We are not known by our love. Ask the man on the street for a description of a Christian and you will hear: judgmental, harsh, prideful, hypocrite. I think Jesus wanted a response more like: Well, I am not sure I believe in God, and I am not sure about Jesus; but I have to admit - those Christians sure do love and serve people in kindness.
I think some of this will come about when we quit hero-worshipping the leaders of our churches. One of the most telling things about Haggard was a picture I saw inside his church. One of the walls had a 15 Ft framed photo of his face along with one of his quotes. Who authorized this? Does his congregation really find this self- aggrandizement acceptable?
It is of no benefit to Christian leaders when their community puts them on such a pedestal. Men who preach the Word are meant to be servants, not idols. We magnify their falls when we allow them to be put in such high towers.
The most blaring issue that faces him at the moment is that, while opposing gay marriage on the one hand, he was soliciting gay sex with the other.
Maybe this should be a call for the Christian Right to get off the gay issue... Is this really what Christ wants his church to be about? Our biggest rep is that we are anti-gay?
I remember the first time I realized that the Christian Right had the wrong motivation on the issue of gays.
Bill Clinton was either running for office or had just become president. I was watching Chuck Colson address a group of pastors on C-Span. He was speaking to a group of about two thousand. Colson was talking about the amazing success they were having in prison ministry and about the number of changed lives that he had personally seen. The crowd nodded and listened politely. Colson was very into what he was talking about, but his audience did not seem to share his enthusiasm. At the close of his speech, he made a few political comments. At the time, gays in the military were a big anchor around Bill Clinton's neck, and Mr. Colson made reference that gays had no place in the military.
I was flabbergasted by what I saw next. All two thousand men stood up simultaneously and began to applaud and cheer. This issue got the crowd fired up. I knew then that I would probably never understand or share the views of most folks I share my religion with. The Lord of Glory changing the life of a prisoner gets tepid responses while any issue with gay attached to it brings out the saints and their checkbooks in record numbers.
The Christian Right's overall reaction to the gay community brings to light what I have suspected for a long time. We don't want homosexuals to come to Christ for their benefit, we want them to come to Christ for ours. Our lives would be so much more pleasant if gays came to Christ. Then we wouldn't be bothered by gays! In fact, we don't really care if they come to Christ at all. We just want them to stop acting gay!
I know taking this view will probably get me a rep of being soft on sin... but I really don't think I care anymore. All we see again and again are that those who squawk loudest about the sins of others end up laying a big egg themselves.
I always get little, pithy, forwarded emails that circulate among Christians decrying the state of America. These usually tie our ungodliness with gays and liberals. It ends with some comment that if you are a true Christian and an American, you will forward this email. I have yet to see any of those emails talk about the fact that America's problems are driven by churches caught up in personal wealth building, with divorce rates as high as the community at large, and that our houses of worship tend to be houses of gossip and back-biting. Anybody seen those emails yet?
We are not known by our love. Ask the man on the street for a description of a Christian and you will hear: judgmental, harsh, prideful, hypocrite. I think Jesus wanted a response more like: Well, I am not sure I believe in God, and I am not sure about Jesus; but I have to admit - those Christians sure do love and serve people in kindness.
I think some of this will come about when we quit hero-worshipping the leaders of our churches. One of the most telling things about Haggard was a picture I saw inside his church. One of the walls had a 15 Ft framed photo of his face along with one of his quotes. Who authorized this? Does his congregation really find this self- aggrandizement acceptable?
It is of no benefit to Christian leaders when their community puts them on such a pedestal. Men who preach the Word are meant to be servants, not idols. We magnify their falls when we allow them to be put in such high towers.
Monday, October 30, 2006
God is not enough for me....
That is one eye catcher of a title, eh? But do I mean it? I think so. In fact, I think Jesus would concur.
I have been a Christian for 23 years. I have heard numerous sermons and teachings where the challenge is put forth -“Is God enough for you?”
In the past I tried to accept that challenge; digging deep inside to cut away anything that hindered so I could run the race set before me. I fought to become an untouchable tower where God was my rock… just me and Him against the universe. I remember, particularly in my twenties, working to make sure nothing had a hold on me, regardless of what anyone else thought of me; I could stand tall because I needed nothing and nobody but God.
Seasons change. Theology changes. I haven’t worked this all out yet, but I am thinking that "is God enough?" is not the question put to us in the New Testament. In fact, I am beginning to think the New Testament teaches the direct opposite.
Before I get into the NT, let’s go back to the beginning in the OT. In Genesis 2:18 God states that it is not good for man to be alone. What is he talking about? Was HE not there? How can God, for whom we are made, not be enough? C.S. Lewis said that God is the fuel by which we were meant to run. How could the company of God not be enough?
I think God was completely aware and comfortable with his other-ness. He looked at himself and said, “I AM”. He looked at man and said, “He is not”. God knew man needed someone else. Deep inside we KNOW that.
On a simpler level, I am aware that I cannot meet all the needs of my wife. The fact that I am male prohibits this. I am-in this sense- other. She needs female friends that can feel what she feels and know what she knows in ways that are closed to me.
Now let’s swing back to the New Testament. Someone asked Jesus, “What is the greatest commandment?” In other words, what is the core? What is the single thing I need to be doing? What piece can I not miss? Jesus was not able to answer this question. He was not able to break it down to one thing. He said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Jesus either could not, or would not, separate loving God from loving your neighbor.
I believe there is a two fold reason for God giving us each other. The first is, like I said, because God knew that we need others of our own kind to relate to. I think we can relate to God better because we have each other.
The second reason is to put a stopper to our potentially endless narcissism. We tend to be rather “I” focused. Can you imagine how insufferable we would be if there really were no one else?
In the West, we are individualists and this individualism has permeated our theology. We have accepted Jesus as our PERSONAL savior. God is our heavenly grandfather and we love loving him. He gives us stuff and makes our lives happy and will give us heaven one day. We have made the God of the universe all about us.
We ignore the “second” commandment because – what part of loving others does anything for me? If you have seen the Matrix movies, there is a scene where Smith is changing others into himself. Copies of him are everywhere. His touch overrides the other’s self and causes the other to become Smith. While changing another into a replica of himself he sighs and utters, “Me, me, me!” The ultimate narcissist.
I recently heard a Utah politician run an ad in which he stated that communism was evil. Hmmm. The definition of Communism – Everyone gives according to his ability, everyone takes according to his need. Now let’s look at how the economy worked in the early church – Acts 2 All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
The way of God is the exact opposite of how we have been brought up. Under capitalism, we are taught to think about our personal accumulations and everything is based on scarcity (not having enough). In the economy of God, everything is based on the group, and we are encouraged to think of abundance (being content with what we have).
I am the worst of this. My back up plans have to have back up plans. I always make sure my a$$ is covered. I can be generous, but only once my needs have been taken care of.
Aside from the great blessing my wife and children are to me (I love them so much), they have also been my greatest teachers. Nothing and no one, as of yet, has been able to pull me out of my narcissism like they have. They have taught me that life is not about me. The more I grow in that simple truth, the better life gets.
It is not good for this man to be alone. My family and fellow men allow me to have relationships with others like me. They allow me to reflect on my Father in heaven in ways that I could not if I were alone. My relationship with my Father is magnified because of my relationships with my brothers. Having a family of humanity causes me to look beyond myself to the needs of others. Only with God and man am I made whole.
Is God enough for me? …… I don’t think so…. I don’t think he ever wanted it that way.
I have been a Christian for 23 years. I have heard numerous sermons and teachings where the challenge is put forth -“Is God enough for you?”
In the past I tried to accept that challenge; digging deep inside to cut away anything that hindered so I could run the race set before me. I fought to become an untouchable tower where God was my rock… just me and Him against the universe. I remember, particularly in my twenties, working to make sure nothing had a hold on me, regardless of what anyone else thought of me; I could stand tall because I needed nothing and nobody but God.
Seasons change. Theology changes. I haven’t worked this all out yet, but I am thinking that "is God enough?" is not the question put to us in the New Testament. In fact, I am beginning to think the New Testament teaches the direct opposite.
Before I get into the NT, let’s go back to the beginning in the OT. In Genesis 2:18 God states that it is not good for man to be alone. What is he talking about? Was HE not there? How can God, for whom we are made, not be enough? C.S. Lewis said that God is the fuel by which we were meant to run. How could the company of God not be enough?
I think God was completely aware and comfortable with his other-ness. He looked at himself and said, “I AM”. He looked at man and said, “He is not”. God knew man needed someone else. Deep inside we KNOW that.
On a simpler level, I am aware that I cannot meet all the needs of my wife. The fact that I am male prohibits this. I am-in this sense- other. She needs female friends that can feel what she feels and know what she knows in ways that are closed to me.
Now let’s swing back to the New Testament. Someone asked Jesus, “What is the greatest commandment?” In other words, what is the core? What is the single thing I need to be doing? What piece can I not miss? Jesus was not able to answer this question. He was not able to break it down to one thing. He said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Jesus either could not, or would not, separate loving God from loving your neighbor.
I believe there is a two fold reason for God giving us each other. The first is, like I said, because God knew that we need others of our own kind to relate to. I think we can relate to God better because we have each other.
The second reason is to put a stopper to our potentially endless narcissism. We tend to be rather “I” focused. Can you imagine how insufferable we would be if there really were no one else?
In the West, we are individualists and this individualism has permeated our theology. We have accepted Jesus as our PERSONAL savior. God is our heavenly grandfather and we love loving him. He gives us stuff and makes our lives happy and will give us heaven one day. We have made the God of the universe all about us.
We ignore the “second” commandment because – what part of loving others does anything for me? If you have seen the Matrix movies, there is a scene where Smith is changing others into himself. Copies of him are everywhere. His touch overrides the other’s self and causes the other to become Smith. While changing another into a replica of himself he sighs and utters, “Me, me, me!” The ultimate narcissist.
I recently heard a Utah politician run an ad in which he stated that communism was evil. Hmmm. The definition of Communism – Everyone gives according to his ability, everyone takes according to his need. Now let’s look at how the economy worked in the early church – Acts 2 All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
The way of God is the exact opposite of how we have been brought up. Under capitalism, we are taught to think about our personal accumulations and everything is based on scarcity (not having enough). In the economy of God, everything is based on the group, and we are encouraged to think of abundance (being content with what we have).
I am the worst of this. My back up plans have to have back up plans. I always make sure my a$$ is covered. I can be generous, but only once my needs have been taken care of.
Aside from the great blessing my wife and children are to me (I love them so much), they have also been my greatest teachers. Nothing and no one, as of yet, has been able to pull me out of my narcissism like they have. They have taught me that life is not about me. The more I grow in that simple truth, the better life gets.
It is not good for this man to be alone. My family and fellow men allow me to have relationships with others like me. They allow me to reflect on my Father in heaven in ways that I could not if I were alone. My relationship with my Father is magnified because of my relationships with my brothers. Having a family of humanity causes me to look beyond myself to the needs of others. Only with God and man am I made whole.
Is God enough for me? …… I don’t think so…. I don’t think he ever wanted it that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
