The title of this blog post is also the title of, in my opinion, the masterpiece work of Michael Yanonelli. The youth ministry guru wrote this book about the messiness of humans, and the messiness of Christians in our pursuit of Christ. I am currently reading this masterpiece front to back, which I have never had the opportunity to do. As I often try to do, I will post thoughts here that come up as I am reading.
Today, I would like to discuss pretending (If you want to know why this comes to mind, read page 37 of Yaconelli's book).
The truth is that Sunday morning church services are full of pretenders. If you were to ask people at a church on Sunday morning, the vast majority of people in America are "doing fine," and "excited to be in the house of the Lord." As people leave the church building, its amazing that nearly everyone "was encouraged by the singing," and "was really touched by that sermon the preacher gave."
Now, I hate to by cynical (that may be a stretch, I hate to be too cynical), but it seems to me that these same people that are on fire for the Lord once a week are the same people struggling with drinking too much, swearing too much, eating too much, lusting too much, etc. These are the same people with family problems, marital problems, health problems, etc. These people have somehow been programmed to recite lines about how good everything is on Sunday when their world is falling apart.
Jesus never asked for such false optimism. Jesus asked for honesty. Think about the woman at the well. She tried to make a simple statement about having no husband, but Jesus called her to be honest, that she was living in a pattern of sexual sin and broken relationships. Jesus invited himself into her mess.
I believe that one crucial reason the church in America is fading today is that we are a church that stays away from the messes inside our peoples lives. You cannot clean a bedroom without going into the bedroom and getting the garbage out, and likewise you cannot help someone clean up their messiness if you never step into that messiness to help them see what they need to do. If you ask people to pretend to be holy, that is exactly what you will get; pretend holiness. But imagine if you stepped into their world, stepped into their mess, and loved them, and slowly helped them take out the trash.
One of the hardest parts of cleaning out a room is that you have to choose to get rid of things that you have had for a long time. Those things, as old and nasty as they might be, have in some way become precious to us. If you ask a person to clean out their lives, but don't step in to help them, they may not be able to part with some of their messiness. Alcohol may be tearing their life apart, but it won't be easy for them to part with it. They may realize that pornography is sin, and is a disgusting degredation of women, but they will still have a hard time parting with it. They may realize that cursing doesn't line up with Ephesians 4:29, but knowing that Scripture won't make it any easier to quit cursing. What people need is help. What people need are "little Christs" (that's what being a Christian is) who will meet them in the mess of their lives, show themt the way out, stick with them when they resist getting rid of the mess, love them when they hate you for calling them to change, and celebrate them when they are victorious along the way.
May we be those "little Christs"
15 March 2010
10 February 2010
A DAY FOR LIST MAKING!
I'm in a mood to make some lists. So here we go:
Top Ten Books I currently have on my reading list (I own these books already and will hopefully finish all of them in the next 2 months)
1. Ruth by Edward F. Campbell
2. Beyond Opinion by Ravi Zacharias
3. Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Counterpoints series
4. Already Gone by Ham and Beemer
5. The Cross Examination of Jesus Christ by Singer
6. The Gospels for all Christians by Richard Bauckham
7. How to Read Genesis by Temper Longman III
8. Psalms 1-71 by Kidner
9.The Dangerous Act of Worship (can't think of author)
10. The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling
Five Questions that I Would Like Answered
1. Should we consider the story of Ruth more similar in style and purpose to the Joseph narrative of Genesis, the book of Esther, or the narrative sections of Job?
2. What is what I see as blue, you see as brown, even though we both call it blue? What if our eyes do not show us the same shade even though we interpret it the same color?
3. How do dogs wake up at exactly the same time every single day?
4. How do we create true Christian community in a "christian" town that is entrenched in its own culture?
5. What makes it so hard for us to keep our mouth shut when we should?
Ten things I am currently looking forward to...
1. 30 Hour Famine at Inner-City Mission
2. Next football season (I will pick the Colts as the SB champs!)
3. March Madness
4. The high schoolers college road trip over Spring Break
5. Spending some time playing video games tonight.
6. Planning the purity retreat
7. The Elders Study that I am currently participating in with our elders at the church.
8. The Men's Retreat at the church
9. Summer--or even spring--anytime when the weather is warmer and the ground isn't covered in a foot of snow.
10. Did I mention next football season?
Top Ten Books I currently have on my reading list (I own these books already and will hopefully finish all of them in the next 2 months)
1. Ruth by Edward F. Campbell
2. Beyond Opinion by Ravi Zacharias
3. Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Counterpoints series
4. Already Gone by Ham and Beemer
5. The Cross Examination of Jesus Christ by Singer
6. The Gospels for all Christians by Richard Bauckham
7. How to Read Genesis by Temper Longman III
8. Psalms 1-71 by Kidner
9.The Dangerous Act of Worship (can't think of author)
10. The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling
Five Questions that I Would Like Answered
1. Should we consider the story of Ruth more similar in style and purpose to the Joseph narrative of Genesis, the book of Esther, or the narrative sections of Job?
2. What is what I see as blue, you see as brown, even though we both call it blue? What if our eyes do not show us the same shade even though we interpret it the same color?
3. How do dogs wake up at exactly the same time every single day?
4. How do we create true Christian community in a "christian" town that is entrenched in its own culture?
5. What makes it so hard for us to keep our mouth shut when we should?
Ten things I am currently looking forward to...
1. 30 Hour Famine at Inner-City Mission
2. Next football season (I will pick the Colts as the SB champs!)
3. March Madness
4. The high schoolers college road trip over Spring Break
5. Spending some time playing video games tonight.
6. Planning the purity retreat
7. The Elders Study that I am currently participating in with our elders at the church.
8. The Men's Retreat at the church
9. Summer--or even spring--anytime when the weather is warmer and the ground isn't covered in a foot of snow.
10. Did I mention next football season?
04 February 2010
Dan Marino: The Best Ever
Instead of the typical discussions of books and faith that tend to overwhelm this website. Today I would like to spend a little bit of time to discuss the grand topic of football. It is, after all, Super Bowl week. I spend quite a bit of time perusing articles about my favorite team, the Indianapolis Colts.
The bulk of articles this week have focused on Peyton Manning, and whether this win will solidify his place as the best quarterback ever. Now I must start by saying that I am not questioning the greatness of Manning, he is my second favorite player of all time (behind Terrell Davis). However, I would like to make the case that this win will in no way solidify him as the best QB ever. In fact, he still needs a lot of work to earn the title "best ever" from me.
So let's begin by rehashing some of the typical arguments made in favor of Peyton Manning:
1. He is on pace to break every major record for his craft. This is absolutely true.
2. He controls the game better than anyone. Again, this appears to be true.
3. He has become the king of the comeback. I have trouble not giving John Elway that title, but Peyton has proven himself to be able to come back from apparently insurmountable odds.
4. If Peyton wins this game, he will launch himself into the elite company of quarterbacks that have multiple rings. He will have multiple rings, but I will question how pertinent this is a little later.
So those are the arguments for him. Some people will argue other QB's as the best ever based on an emphasis on one aspect or another (Tom Brady has more rings, Johnny Unitas controlled the game even better, etc.). However, there is little doubt in my mind that when the dust settles Peyton will be the best QB of this generation, and could be in the mix as the best QB of all time. However, there is one QB that right now is head and shoulders above all the rest, including Manning. Dan Marino.
Yes, Really. Before you go thinking I am crazy, you need to look at the body of work that Dan put forth in his career. Here is my list of reasons for him as the best ever:
1. The statistics tell a story. Marino's 420 career TD passes and 61000 passing yards are the best ever. Yes, the indestructable Favre has broken the records, but not because he was statistically better, but because he has longevity that has never been matched. Marino's single season yardage total has still not been topped. Here is the amazing thing about his statistics: He did it in an era that was less inclined to pass. The experts always give Montana an edge because he had to earn his stats more than the new guys, but Montana and Marino played in the same league at the same time. Marino's play made Montana look silly. Marino put up huge numbers against defenses that were allowed to rough up Wide Receivers, hit the quarterback, and cause more overall disruption. Manning statistically is great, but he plays in an era that he is pretty much protected. He needs to do more than beat Marino statistically to be in the discussion, he needs to destroy the numbers.
2. Marino had the least talented roster of any of the "greats." Think about this: Montana had perhaps the greatest offensive coach of all time, and he was able to throw the ball to Jerry Rice, possibly the best football player of any position ever. Manning has spent his career throwing to three future HOF members (Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark). Aikman threw to Irvin and had Emmitt Smith taking the attention away from him. In Brady's only truly impressive offensive season he was throwing to the best WR combo ever in Moss and Welker (maybe second best to Tim Brown and Jerry Rice in Oakland). Elway had Sharpe, Smith, and Terrell Davis around him. Terry Bradshaw had Lynn Swann and one of the greatest defenses ever assembled.
Who did Marino have playing with him? His best WR ever was Mark Clayton, a solid reciever that I would say is comparable to an Anquan Boldin or Calvin Johnson--a good WR for his day, but not the best. He also threw to Mark Duper, O. J. McDuffie, Nat Moore, and Jim Jenson. Not too many of those guys strike fear into opponents. The Dolphins also failed to take attention away from Marino with solid running. During Marino's career, the Dolphins used a collection of running backs that include: Andra Franlin, Tony Nathan, Lorenzo Hampton, Sammie Smith, and Mark Higgs. In other words, the team that the Dolphins placed around Marino was terrible. Marino was putting up numbers by throwing to nobodies.
3. Against all these odds, Marino was still a winner. When Marino started in a football game, the Dolphins were 147-93, winning 61% of their games. The Dolphins average record for his career was 10-6. He took ragtag teams to the playoffs 10 different seasons. It wasn't as if this guy was a loser. He just didn't have the overall talent around him to beat teams that were truly great (Think San Fran in the 1980's, The Buffalo Bills in the early 90's). These other teams had rosters full of talent. Marino found a way to compete, and was still 8-10 in the playoffs. That isn't a great record, but with the talent around him, it isn't his fault.
4. Championships are an overrated aspect of deciding the "best ever." Championships are won by a team, not a quarterback. You think Bradshaw wins any championships without that defense? You think Elway wins without Terrell Davis? You think Brady wins any without Bill's defense? There is no way Big Ben wins very many games without the Steelers great defense. Quarterbacks can win games, but championships are won by teams that are complete from top to bottom. This is not to say that multiple championships can't give a guy a little boost, but they certaintly can't be the primary evidence. This is why I hate putting Tom Brady in the discussion. Until he was surrounded by the super receivers, he hadn't posted 30 TD's in a season. He has only had 3 4,000 yard seasons. His numbers are good, but they aren't "best ever" quality.
So there it is. Marino was the best ever. Manning could still take the place at the top, but in my book, he still has a long way to go.
The bulk of articles this week have focused on Peyton Manning, and whether this win will solidify his place as the best quarterback ever. Now I must start by saying that I am not questioning the greatness of Manning, he is my second favorite player of all time (behind Terrell Davis). However, I would like to make the case that this win will in no way solidify him as the best QB ever. In fact, he still needs a lot of work to earn the title "best ever" from me.
So let's begin by rehashing some of the typical arguments made in favor of Peyton Manning:
1. He is on pace to break every major record for his craft. This is absolutely true.
2. He controls the game better than anyone. Again, this appears to be true.
3. He has become the king of the comeback. I have trouble not giving John Elway that title, but Peyton has proven himself to be able to come back from apparently insurmountable odds.
4. If Peyton wins this game, he will launch himself into the elite company of quarterbacks that have multiple rings. He will have multiple rings, but I will question how pertinent this is a little later.
So those are the arguments for him. Some people will argue other QB's as the best ever based on an emphasis on one aspect or another (Tom Brady has more rings, Johnny Unitas controlled the game even better, etc.). However, there is little doubt in my mind that when the dust settles Peyton will be the best QB of this generation, and could be in the mix as the best QB of all time. However, there is one QB that right now is head and shoulders above all the rest, including Manning. Dan Marino.
Yes, Really. Before you go thinking I am crazy, you need to look at the body of work that Dan put forth in his career. Here is my list of reasons for him as the best ever:
1. The statistics tell a story. Marino's 420 career TD passes and 61000 passing yards are the best ever. Yes, the indestructable Favre has broken the records, but not because he was statistically better, but because he has longevity that has never been matched. Marino's single season yardage total has still not been topped. Here is the amazing thing about his statistics: He did it in an era that was less inclined to pass. The experts always give Montana an edge because he had to earn his stats more than the new guys, but Montana and Marino played in the same league at the same time. Marino's play made Montana look silly. Marino put up huge numbers against defenses that were allowed to rough up Wide Receivers, hit the quarterback, and cause more overall disruption. Manning statistically is great, but he plays in an era that he is pretty much protected. He needs to do more than beat Marino statistically to be in the discussion, he needs to destroy the numbers.
2. Marino had the least talented roster of any of the "greats." Think about this: Montana had perhaps the greatest offensive coach of all time, and he was able to throw the ball to Jerry Rice, possibly the best football player of any position ever. Manning has spent his career throwing to three future HOF members (Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark). Aikman threw to Irvin and had Emmitt Smith taking the attention away from him. In Brady's only truly impressive offensive season he was throwing to the best WR combo ever in Moss and Welker (maybe second best to Tim Brown and Jerry Rice in Oakland). Elway had Sharpe, Smith, and Terrell Davis around him. Terry Bradshaw had Lynn Swann and one of the greatest defenses ever assembled.
Who did Marino have playing with him? His best WR ever was Mark Clayton, a solid reciever that I would say is comparable to an Anquan Boldin or Calvin Johnson--a good WR for his day, but not the best. He also threw to Mark Duper, O. J. McDuffie, Nat Moore, and Jim Jenson. Not too many of those guys strike fear into opponents. The Dolphins also failed to take attention away from Marino with solid running. During Marino's career, the Dolphins used a collection of running backs that include: Andra Franlin, Tony Nathan, Lorenzo Hampton, Sammie Smith, and Mark Higgs. In other words, the team that the Dolphins placed around Marino was terrible. Marino was putting up numbers by throwing to nobodies.
3. Against all these odds, Marino was still a winner. When Marino started in a football game, the Dolphins were 147-93, winning 61% of their games. The Dolphins average record for his career was 10-6. He took ragtag teams to the playoffs 10 different seasons. It wasn't as if this guy was a loser. He just didn't have the overall talent around him to beat teams that were truly great (Think San Fran in the 1980's, The Buffalo Bills in the early 90's). These other teams had rosters full of talent. Marino found a way to compete, and was still 8-10 in the playoffs. That isn't a great record, but with the talent around him, it isn't his fault.
4. Championships are an overrated aspect of deciding the "best ever." Championships are won by a team, not a quarterback. You think Bradshaw wins any championships without that defense? You think Elway wins without Terrell Davis? You think Brady wins any without Bill's defense? There is no way Big Ben wins very many games without the Steelers great defense. Quarterbacks can win games, but championships are won by teams that are complete from top to bottom. This is not to say that multiple championships can't give a guy a little boost, but they certaintly can't be the primary evidence. This is why I hate putting Tom Brady in the discussion. Until he was surrounded by the super receivers, he hadn't posted 30 TD's in a season. He has only had 3 4,000 yard seasons. His numbers are good, but they aren't "best ever" quality.
So there it is. Marino was the best ever. Manning could still take the place at the top, but in my book, he still has a long way to go.
25 January 2010
A little Scripture to start the week
Some of the most difficult parts of Scripture are the most obvious parts. I find it extremely easy, in many ways, to parse Scripture; to search for the meaning in those passages that have caused disunity in the body of Christ. I enjoy those passages. I enjoy the challenge of reading the text, studying the words, reading the historical arguments, looking at the context, reading commentaries, looking at parrallel passages, and coming to a conclusion. These are my puzzles, and I excel at solving them.
The text of Scripture, however, oftentimes comes with no puzzle. It comes instead with a very straightforward picture of how we are to live, and who we are to be as believers of Jesus the Messiah. These texts, though easy to study, can oftentimes give me great difficulty because I find them difficult to apply to my life.
The passage that has been giving me fits recently is found in Ecclesiastes 10:12-14. The passage reads (from the NASB) as follows:
"Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly, and the end of it is wicked madness. Yet the fool multiplies words..."
So this passage has some obvious truths in it. It speaks to the wise, the follower of God, as someone who speaks with grace. This means giving people kind words when even when they don't deserve them. It speaks to the ability of a fool to use his lips to destroy himself (what we might call "digging ourselves a hole.") It also speaks of the pathway a fool typically takes toward evil speech. He doesn't begin by speaking sinfully, but by speaking with folly, silliness, or stupidity. This mediocre base for speech lends itself to a downward spiral that ends in evil speech. If you start your conversations, arguments, etc. with folly, it is very easy for you to go downhill and start speaking sinfully to whomever speaks with you. The last phrase is what I call the "shut up verse." It simply means what it says, that a fool doesn't know how to stop talking.
We can easily preach on the application of this passage. You can come up with several points of practical application for a sermon or lesson:
1. Sometimes it's best to shut up and say nothing, rather than say something that could lead you to sin.
2. We must learn to show people grace, even in the way we speak to them.
3. Acting argumentatively typically will lead to evil speech patterns.
4. If you start your speech in a gray area, it is easy to go downhill from there.
This stuff is easy to teach, it is very hard to apply to my own life. I taught this to a member of the congregation last week. Since then I had a conversation with my wife in which she told me that I was the most argumentative person she knows (argumentative people tend to multiply their words). Do you know how I responded? I argued that I wasn't argumentative.
I really struggle with wanting the last word. The last word in any arguement, especially if the topic is sports, politics, or religion. So today I am going to try to practice what I preach. I shall no longer:
1. Respond to political comments on facebook or other social networks.
2. Every "in the moment" argument I have with someone will be punished by 1 day without accessing internet except for church email.
I hope I can still talk to everyone, because I hope these measures will help me conquer my tongue.
May the peace of Christ dwell in you richly
M
The text of Scripture, however, oftentimes comes with no puzzle. It comes instead with a very straightforward picture of how we are to live, and who we are to be as believers of Jesus the Messiah. These texts, though easy to study, can oftentimes give me great difficulty because I find them difficult to apply to my life.
The passage that has been giving me fits recently is found in Ecclesiastes 10:12-14. The passage reads (from the NASB) as follows:
"Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly, and the end of it is wicked madness. Yet the fool multiplies words..."
So this passage has some obvious truths in it. It speaks to the wise, the follower of God, as someone who speaks with grace. This means giving people kind words when even when they don't deserve them. It speaks to the ability of a fool to use his lips to destroy himself (what we might call "digging ourselves a hole.") It also speaks of the pathway a fool typically takes toward evil speech. He doesn't begin by speaking sinfully, but by speaking with folly, silliness, or stupidity. This mediocre base for speech lends itself to a downward spiral that ends in evil speech. If you start your conversations, arguments, etc. with folly, it is very easy for you to go downhill and start speaking sinfully to whomever speaks with you. The last phrase is what I call the "shut up verse." It simply means what it says, that a fool doesn't know how to stop talking.
We can easily preach on the application of this passage. You can come up with several points of practical application for a sermon or lesson:
1. Sometimes it's best to shut up and say nothing, rather than say something that could lead you to sin.
2. We must learn to show people grace, even in the way we speak to them.
3. Acting argumentatively typically will lead to evil speech patterns.
4. If you start your speech in a gray area, it is easy to go downhill from there.
This stuff is easy to teach, it is very hard to apply to my own life. I taught this to a member of the congregation last week. Since then I had a conversation with my wife in which she told me that I was the most argumentative person she knows (argumentative people tend to multiply their words). Do you know how I responded? I argued that I wasn't argumentative.
I really struggle with wanting the last word. The last word in any arguement, especially if the topic is sports, politics, or religion. So today I am going to try to practice what I preach. I shall no longer:
1. Respond to political comments on facebook or other social networks.
2. Every "in the moment" argument I have with someone will be punished by 1 day without accessing internet except for church email.
I hope I can still talk to everyone, because I hope these measures will help me conquer my tongue.
May the peace of Christ dwell in you richly
M
05 January 2010
Let Youth Be Bored, For the Gospel Sake!
I am currently reading a book entitled Family-Based Youth Ministry by Mark Devries. I want to share a quote with you:
"Jim Rayburn, the founder of Young Life, is frequently quoted as saying,
"It's a sin to bore a kid with the gospel." Being, in many ways, a product
of Young Life myself, I have a deep appreciation for waht Rayburn was getting
at; namely, that the traditional structures of the church are often obstacles
rather than windows through which we see Christ.But keeping teenagers from ever being bored in their faith deprives
them of the opportunity to develop the discipline and perseverance they need to
live the Christian life...Christian faith may begin on the mountaintop,
but Christian character is formed int he crucible of pain."
This statement has really been brewing in my mind. How many times do we
see young people who were extremely involved in youth activities fall away from
institutional church, and blame the church for being too boring! They get bored with the congregational singing, the time of communion, the message that is actually preached straight out of Scripture. They feel out of place spending time with elderly and children, and they end up leaving the church because they didn't have a place that could be called their own.'
Perhaps the job of youth ministry is not to get youth excited about playing
games, because adults do not play games at church. Perhaps the job of
youth ministry is not to take students to rock concerts and exciting conferences, for often times they make the journey with Christ seem like the life of a rock star, which it most certainly is not. Perhaps we need to spend more time sending our youth to work on the house of a shut-in within the church community. Perhaps we should spend more of our time teaching students to appreciate the words used in worship, and focus less on trying to find the newest "in" worship song. Perhaps we need to teach our kids to give to the church, to interact with adults, to get involved in church ministries, rather than having mission trips of our own, big events of our own, and special sections of the building that are our own!
Maybe the problem with youth ministry isn't that youth leave the church when they reach adulthood, but that the youth were never part of the church at all.
"Jim Rayburn, the founder of Young Life, is frequently quoted as saying,
"It's a sin to bore a kid with the gospel." Being, in many ways, a product
of Young Life myself, I have a deep appreciation for waht Rayburn was getting
at; namely, that the traditional structures of the church are often obstacles
rather than windows through which we see Christ.But keeping teenagers from ever being bored in their faith deprives
them of the opportunity to develop the discipline and perseverance they need to
live the Christian life...Christian faith may begin on the mountaintop,
but Christian character is formed int he crucible of pain."
This statement has really been brewing in my mind. How many times do we
see young people who were extremely involved in youth activities fall away from
institutional church, and blame the church for being too boring! They get bored with the congregational singing, the time of communion, the message that is actually preached straight out of Scripture. They feel out of place spending time with elderly and children, and they end up leaving the church because they didn't have a place that could be called their own.'
Perhaps the job of youth ministry is not to get youth excited about playing
games, because adults do not play games at church. Perhaps the job of
youth ministry is not to take students to rock concerts and exciting conferences, for often times they make the journey with Christ seem like the life of a rock star, which it most certainly is not. Perhaps we need to spend more time sending our youth to work on the house of a shut-in within the church community. Perhaps we should spend more of our time teaching students to appreciate the words used in worship, and focus less on trying to find the newest "in" worship song. Perhaps we need to teach our kids to give to the church, to interact with adults, to get involved in church ministries, rather than having mission trips of our own, big events of our own, and special sections of the building that are our own!
Maybe the problem with youth ministry isn't that youth leave the church when they reach adulthood, but that the youth were never part of the church at all.
04 January 2010
The New Year, The New Goals
Here are a list of the goals I have for this year.
1. I want to do a in-depth study of the gospel of Mark and the Psalms. Last year I spent the year studying Lamentations, Hosea, and Ephesians.
2. I want to spend some serious time reading some apologetics. I have never been a big fan of reading apologetics, but its time.
3. Stop drinking soda--so many useless calories, and I'm tired of being dependant on the caffiene.
I just took a sip of soda by the way
4. Develop a quality curriculum for the jr. high Sunday School class. It has been one study time that I have not regulated at all, and its time that we have a consistent learning process.
5. Learn to embrace the what I'm doing at the moment--stop looking forward every few seconds.
I hope that you find your life full of grace and peace through Jesus Christ
-M
1. I want to do a in-depth study of the gospel of Mark and the Psalms. Last year I spent the year studying Lamentations, Hosea, and Ephesians.
2. I want to spend some serious time reading some apologetics. I have never been a big fan of reading apologetics, but its time.
3. Stop drinking soda--so many useless calories, and I'm tired of being dependant on the caffiene.
I just took a sip of soda by the way
4. Develop a quality curriculum for the jr. high Sunday School class. It has been one study time that I have not regulated at all, and its time that we have a consistent learning process.
5. Learn to embrace the what I'm doing at the moment--stop looking forward every few seconds.
I hope that you find your life full of grace and peace through Jesus Christ
-M
19 November 2009
Peter: Restored or Authorized?
As much as I would love to let you all know what is happening in my life, instead I am going to post this little Bible lesson from John 21, because I know this is what Nate wants to read, and he is the one who reads this most often. Nate, you still haven't read/commented on my discussion of Genesis, which I have eagerly awaited.
Now to the good stuff...
At the end of John's gospel, in 21:12-19, we see Jesus and Peter in one of their longest conversations found in the gospel account. Here is the text in it's entirety so you can read it yourself.
"Jesus said to them, "come and have breakfast." None of the disciples ventured to question Him, "Who are You?" knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread, and gave them, and the fish likewise. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. So, when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" he said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You. He said to him, "Tend My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Then My sheep. Truly truly I say to you, when you were younger you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someont else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had speken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!""
As we begin to think about this passage, it sounds as if Jesus is giving Peter some new task, some new role that he places him in a prominant role of leadership. This has traditionally been a passage that is used to help support papal authority. However, I am convinced that this passage, when looked at in the overall context of the gospel narrative, points to something different entirely. I believe that in this text, Jesus restores Peter to his previous role of disciple and apostle alongside the other ten who remained.
Let's start with a list of things to consider from the gospel account:
1. Peter was a very small character before the passion week. In fact, he was really mentioned in two instances. First, he was mentioned in John 1 during the calling of the first disciples. The second passage is John 6, and here he has one key line. Peter was just one of the disciples in John's gospel. The synoptic gospels place him in a much more prominant role than John. In fact, until the passion week, Thomas plays a more significant role than Peter in John's gospel.
2. The passage of John 6 is interesting to look at. In verses 66-71 is the Johannine rendition of Peter's confession. Immediately following this statement, Jesus replies, "Did I Myself not choose you, THE TWELVE..." Jesus makes clear in this passage that the twelve were his vessal.
3. Jesus prayer in John 17 is that he would not lose any of his initial followers, the twelve, except the son of perdition. This points out that Jesus needs to make sure that the other 11 are ready and equipped to do the task.
4. In John 20, Jesus restores faith to Thomas. Thomas appeared to be on the verge of leaving the faith, and Jesus already prayed that it was necessary for the eleven to remain intact. He therefore restored the first one that needed it, Thomas.
5. Peter became a major character in the passion narrative to highlight his misunderstandings. He didn't want Jesus to wash his feet (John 13), he tries to start a political revolt in the garden by slicing of the ear of Malchus (John 18) and he denies knowing Jesus three times during the trials (John 18). In other words, Peter made a mess of his position. He failed to follow Jesus. He needed restoration too. He needed to be encouraged that he could handle the role of apostle.
So, we come to this text. Let's see what we notice:
1. The context of the conversation between Peter and Jesus is after breakfast. We have no indication that the other disciples weren't listening. In fact, John's writing this makes me assume that he did hear this conversation. If this was a higher role for Peter, I would surely expect some backlash from other disciples.
2. We know the conversation about the "do you love me" phrase. It has been well discussed by every preacher since the beginning of preaching.
3. Perhaps the most crucial phrase is the command following the question of Peter's love. The command is to Tend/Shepherd the sheep. Shepherd was not a role of authority, but a role of service. This was the basic task of the apostles. Jesus is simply telling him that he still can guide the followers of Jesus if he truly does love Jesus. The primary requirement for his role of leadership is devoted love.
4. Jesus again predicts the future of Peter's life. He predicts the death that he will die "to glorify God." It is interesting that the same basic concept of death as glorifying is present for Peter like it was for Jesus. It appears to point to self-sacrifice as a form of worship and glorification.
5. The last phrase to look at is the simple "Follow Me." It is one of the first phrases the disciples heard during his earthly ministry, and now they hear it again. It is time for them to continue following Jesus even though he won't be there to physically lead them.
I love this passage, and I think it is obvious that Peter was not authorized above the other disciples, but restored into their midst. Jesus didn't want to lose any of this followers, and because of this conversation, he didn't lose Peter.
Grace and Peace
Matt
Now to the good stuff...
At the end of John's gospel, in 21:12-19, we see Jesus and Peter in one of their longest conversations found in the gospel account. Here is the text in it's entirety so you can read it yourself.
"Jesus said to them, "come and have breakfast." None of the disciples ventured to question Him, "Who are You?" knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread, and gave them, and the fish likewise. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. So, when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" he said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You. He said to him, "Tend My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Then My sheep. Truly truly I say to you, when you were younger you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someont else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had speken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!""
As we begin to think about this passage, it sounds as if Jesus is giving Peter some new task, some new role that he places him in a prominant role of leadership. This has traditionally been a passage that is used to help support papal authority. However, I am convinced that this passage, when looked at in the overall context of the gospel narrative, points to something different entirely. I believe that in this text, Jesus restores Peter to his previous role of disciple and apostle alongside the other ten who remained.
Let's start with a list of things to consider from the gospel account:
1. Peter was a very small character before the passion week. In fact, he was really mentioned in two instances. First, he was mentioned in John 1 during the calling of the first disciples. The second passage is John 6, and here he has one key line. Peter was just one of the disciples in John's gospel. The synoptic gospels place him in a much more prominant role than John. In fact, until the passion week, Thomas plays a more significant role than Peter in John's gospel.
2. The passage of John 6 is interesting to look at. In verses 66-71 is the Johannine rendition of Peter's confession. Immediately following this statement, Jesus replies, "Did I Myself not choose you, THE TWELVE..." Jesus makes clear in this passage that the twelve were his vessal.
3. Jesus prayer in John 17 is that he would not lose any of his initial followers, the twelve, except the son of perdition. This points out that Jesus needs to make sure that the other 11 are ready and equipped to do the task.
4. In John 20, Jesus restores faith to Thomas. Thomas appeared to be on the verge of leaving the faith, and Jesus already prayed that it was necessary for the eleven to remain intact. He therefore restored the first one that needed it, Thomas.
5. Peter became a major character in the passion narrative to highlight his misunderstandings. He didn't want Jesus to wash his feet (John 13), he tries to start a political revolt in the garden by slicing of the ear of Malchus (John 18) and he denies knowing Jesus three times during the trials (John 18). In other words, Peter made a mess of his position. He failed to follow Jesus. He needed restoration too. He needed to be encouraged that he could handle the role of apostle.
So, we come to this text. Let's see what we notice:
1. The context of the conversation between Peter and Jesus is after breakfast. We have no indication that the other disciples weren't listening. In fact, John's writing this makes me assume that he did hear this conversation. If this was a higher role for Peter, I would surely expect some backlash from other disciples.
2. We know the conversation about the "do you love me" phrase. It has been well discussed by every preacher since the beginning of preaching.
3. Perhaps the most crucial phrase is the command following the question of Peter's love. The command is to Tend/Shepherd the sheep. Shepherd was not a role of authority, but a role of service. This was the basic task of the apostles. Jesus is simply telling him that he still can guide the followers of Jesus if he truly does love Jesus. The primary requirement for his role of leadership is devoted love.
4. Jesus again predicts the future of Peter's life. He predicts the death that he will die "to glorify God." It is interesting that the same basic concept of death as glorifying is present for Peter like it was for Jesus. It appears to point to self-sacrifice as a form of worship and glorification.
5. The last phrase to look at is the simple "Follow Me." It is one of the first phrases the disciples heard during his earthly ministry, and now they hear it again. It is time for them to continue following Jesus even though he won't be there to physically lead them.
I love this passage, and I think it is obvious that Peter was not authorized above the other disciples, but restored into their midst. Jesus didn't want to lose any of this followers, and because of this conversation, he didn't lose Peter.
Grace and Peace
Matt
05 November 2009
My Life, Recently
Five things that haven't changed:
1. I am still enjoying my wonderful marriage to my wonderful wife. She brings great joy to me, and a sense of accomplishement that I lack otherwise.
2. I am still a youth minister, and I still love it.
3. I still start reading books, then get bored about halfway through, start reading another book, get halfway through, and then go back to the first book and try to finish it.
4. I still play video games. They relax me when I'm stressed, and they give me a few minutes a day that I don't have to think, which is refreshing.
5. I still spend way too much time day dreaming. I haven't completely figured out the command to only worry about today.
Five things that have changed:
1. My schedule. I used to spend hours every night finishing up lessons and staying up late watching television. We seldom watch TV at night now, and I have found a routine during the day that helps me get my lessons done.
2. My interests within Scripture. Two years ago, I would have cared more about how the 3rd person imperative was used in Scripture, and whether or not John was written in the midst of a Johannine community. Those topics are still important, partially because of poor teaching by many scholars, but I have more interest now in the Bible's discussion of certain topics (such as community, second-coming, and grace). These topics are needs at the local church level, and they are key in Scripture.
3. My attitude about youth ministry. I have decided to focus completely on those who are in my care; to make them disciples. If they become disciples, then evangelism will happen without me coming up with crazy contests and challenges to "bring a friend."
4. My priorities have changed slightly. I no longer think of my schedule as priority, but making sure that I am surrounded by people that can minister to me and I can minister to them.
5. Light bulbs. I changed several off them in the house yesterday. Go me!
Something Goofy I want to tell you about:
This picture
We were taking pictures with the Jr. High for a prayer book we are putting together. Well, when a camera comes out around my young friends, interesting things happen, as you can see.
One Thought That May Be Profound:
The martyrs; own blood, shed in faithfulness to the Lord, turns out to be the blood of the Lamb. When their blood flowed, behold it was the blood of the Lamb. Their sacrifice was united with his--not as though theirs were independently redemptive or added anything to his, but in the sense that, being united, believer and Lord are, in that sense, one: his blood their blood, their blood his. The blood which is the sacrament of obedience is the lord's blood: the wine which is the sacrament of obedience is, in that sense, the Lord's blood." from Charles Francis Digby Moule
Vote For My Next Blog Post:
1. I could blog about the conclusion of John's gospel. The emphasis that John places on the crucifixion, the resurrection, and some other interesting things in the text.
2. I could blog about a song that has prompted a renewed sense of mission in my life. The song, performed by 1000 generations, is called "How Big Small Can Be."
3. I could write an essay type blog about tradition and scholarship in the church, the similarities of mindset, the need for both, and the dangers of over-emphasizing either.
So that's it, until I talk to whoever might possibly read this again, I pray that your life would follow the way of Christ!
15 October 2009
Thoughts in a fairly random mode
So, here are some things that are on my mind:
1. The phrase "the last days." This phrase can cause a lot of trouble for interpreters. I am becoming more convinced as a think about it, that this phrase cannot be interpreted in the same way from book to book in the Bible. Look at these passages and tell me that they all refer to the same thing when discussing "last days." (Micah 4:1-5; Isaiah 2:1-5; Hosea 3; Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 1:1-2)
2. I hate when my computer has installed updates and wants to restart while I'm working on things. It just messes with my thought process.
3. I am excited about the books that I'm hoping to read in the next year. They should provide insight into a couple topics that I'm really wanting the study: pneumatology and eschatology.
4. John 11-12 is the definite turning point of John's gospel, but the most challenging passage for me is still chapter 13. The footwashing and the teaching is a challenge to apply. Especially this line, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."
5. I predict the Colts first loss will be @ Baltimore in week 11. They are really capable of winning all of their games, but they have to lose somewhere I think.
6. For anyone interested, here is the list of topics and books that we wills study in Sunday School in 2010: Salvation, 1 Thessalonians, Marriage and Purity, 1 Peter, Ezekiel, Judges, and Mark.
7. The Office is on tonight--and that is good stuff!
1. The phrase "the last days." This phrase can cause a lot of trouble for interpreters. I am becoming more convinced as a think about it, that this phrase cannot be interpreted in the same way from book to book in the Bible. Look at these passages and tell me that they all refer to the same thing when discussing "last days." (Micah 4:1-5; Isaiah 2:1-5; Hosea 3; Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 1:1-2)
2. I hate when my computer has installed updates and wants to restart while I'm working on things. It just messes with my thought process.
3. I am excited about the books that I'm hoping to read in the next year. They should provide insight into a couple topics that I'm really wanting the study: pneumatology and eschatology.
4. John 11-12 is the definite turning point of John's gospel, but the most challenging passage for me is still chapter 13. The footwashing and the teaching is a challenge to apply. Especially this line, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."
5. I predict the Colts first loss will be @ Baltimore in week 11. They are really capable of winning all of their games, but they have to lose somewhere I think.
6. For anyone interested, here is the list of topics and books that we wills study in Sunday School in 2010: Salvation, 1 Thessalonians, Marriage and Purity, 1 Peter, Ezekiel, Judges, and Mark.
7. The Office is on tonight--and that is good stuff!
07 October 2009
Science and Creation: Is Genesis 1-6 written scientifically?
A couple prerequisites
1. I am not trying to convince anyone that Genesis was written with the attempt of being scientific. Modern science is a modern invention. It is a way to look at the world. However, just because something is not written using the scientific method does not necessitate that it lacks scientific accuracy. Whether we use the scientific method or not, the world functions and actually exists in a particular way. I want to argue that the way the world came into existence according to Genesis 1-6 matches the scientific facts about the world, even if scientists come to different beliefs based upon those facts.
2. I am not claiming that my study of this is nearly detailed enough to be the final word on this issue. I do, however, know that several credible sources would support views similar to my own.
Argument #1: The Order of Creation agrees with the order of theoretical evolution.
My scientific study, though not extensive, focused on biology, and especially on botany. Botanists agree on a certain evolutionary pattern for plants. The first plants to be created were moss and ferns--plants without seeds of any kind and a simple root system. Next came cone bearing plants. These plants developed a more complex root system, as well as a way to create seeds inside their cones. The final plant development according to science is fruit bearing plants. These plants place their seeds inside a fruit--providing a source of protection and food for the seed to better survive.
Look at the wording and order of the plants created in Genesis 1:11
"Then God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth, and it was so."
The categories of plants were accurate, and in the same order that scientists place them in the evolutionary cycle. Scientists would claim these evolutionary changes took millions of years, which is frankly speaking impossible to prove. What we find is scientific accuracy in God's word, even if the human author didn't understand it scientifically.
The same is found for creatures. Scientific order places water-based animals first, birds slightly later, with land-locked animals (not reptiles) to be the last phase of evolution (humanity being the absolute latest).
If you read verses 20-27, you find God creating fish first, then birds, followed the next day by animals who live on land, and finally humanity.
I doubt this is a fluke. Science is looking at the evidence, but they are looking at it through the wrong lens. There is no reason to suggest these evolutions took millions of years, except the refusal to trust the accuracy of the Bible.
Argument #2: The flood of Noah makes accurate dating impossible.
This is a pretty simple part of the argument. Scientists agree that if there was a massive worldwide flood like the one accounted for in Genesis 6, it would make it impossible to date fossil records from before said flood.
Why?
First, most scientists are currently doubting the long-term accuracy of the carbon-dating method. The method is agreed upon for dating objects that are less than 3000 years old, and many scientists still find it accurate up to about 10,000 years old.
There is a wonderful article written about carbon dating and the Flood at the link below, but here is a brief summary of what it says:
1. Carbon dating works only if we had a way of knowing the level of carbon in the atmosphere at the time of the plant/animal died. Carbon-14 is constantly at changing levels based on things such as volcanic activity, carbon-12 emissions, thickness of ozone layer, etc.
2. Every type of plant and animal accepts different levels of carbon into its system, meaning that each plant and animal species need to have separate formulas for measuring their dating: this does not exist. It cannot ever exist for an animal or plant that is extinct, because we have no control group to measure the level of carbon in such live animal.
3. A massive flood would cause normal carbon 12 to be placed in the air in massive amounts, radically changing the amount of carbon 12 compared to carbon 14. Without any definitively dated objects from before the flood, it is impossible to date anything pre-flood with accuracy using C-14 testing.
Without going any further, this points out that this type of testing is pretty much useless.
The flood also ruins the ability of archaeologists to accurately use sedimentary levels to give estimated dates to objects. Why? The Bible says in Genesis 6:11 that "all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened."
Water moves dirt. Massive amounts of water move massive amounts of dirt. These levels that scientists try to use are very accurate going back to the flood, because there has not been a disaster of massive portions since then that we are not aware of. We can take into account that a volcano erupted 1000 years ago, and that level is going to be covered with volcanic ash.
The waters of the flood however, would move levels of dirt. Some areas would lose layers, others would gain layers. Trees that stood above the ground one day would be entirely covered in dirt the next. Fossils would be uncovered that were previously covered. The flood caused changes that we cannot even begin to fathom, and it creates many question marks that cannot be answered about the time before it.
(If anyone would want to argue the existence of a world-wide flood, remember that every ancient culture has a flood account, including ancient American cultures.)
My Conclusions
1. I find the biblical text hard to argue with. The bible says we were created in days, and I have no scientific reason to believe otherwise. (Note: The Sun was not created until day four, which means there is a question of how these seven days were measured, but I still think they were literal because the Sun was created to be a time marker for us--which means this time system was already established and the sun was created to help us keep track of it).
2. Stating that the Genesis account is not an accurate account of how the world was created is a step toward believing that Scripture is not inspired by God, and therefore everything that is said is subject to debate and opinion. To argue that the days were not literal days because the Sun was not yet created is a little different, because that is trying to take the text seriously, not trying to judge the text by modern scientific beliefs (which change every 5-10 years by the way).
3. Though the people who wrote the Old Testament were not scientifically minded, God knew how he created the world, and the accuracy of the text is based on God's wisdom, not humanities. If there is something that doesn't seem accurate, which should we conclude: That the God who created the heavens is wrong, or we are?
Here is the link to a great article: http://http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
I chose this article because it is written from a Christian perspective, so it does mention information about the flood that is not mentioned elsewhere. The basic information, though, is information that I have read in scientific journals and textbooks during my time at Milligan.
Hope this is encouraging and thought provoking.
Grace and Peace
1. I am not trying to convince anyone that Genesis was written with the attempt of being scientific. Modern science is a modern invention. It is a way to look at the world. However, just because something is not written using the scientific method does not necessitate that it lacks scientific accuracy. Whether we use the scientific method or not, the world functions and actually exists in a particular way. I want to argue that the way the world came into existence according to Genesis 1-6 matches the scientific facts about the world, even if scientists come to different beliefs based upon those facts.
2. I am not claiming that my study of this is nearly detailed enough to be the final word on this issue. I do, however, know that several credible sources would support views similar to my own.
Argument #1: The Order of Creation agrees with the order of theoretical evolution.
My scientific study, though not extensive, focused on biology, and especially on botany. Botanists agree on a certain evolutionary pattern for plants. The first plants to be created were moss and ferns--plants without seeds of any kind and a simple root system. Next came cone bearing plants. These plants developed a more complex root system, as well as a way to create seeds inside their cones. The final plant development according to science is fruit bearing plants. These plants place their seeds inside a fruit--providing a source of protection and food for the seed to better survive.
Look at the wording and order of the plants created in Genesis 1:11
"Then God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth, and it was so."
The categories of plants were accurate, and in the same order that scientists place them in the evolutionary cycle. Scientists would claim these evolutionary changes took millions of years, which is frankly speaking impossible to prove. What we find is scientific accuracy in God's word, even if the human author didn't understand it scientifically.
The same is found for creatures. Scientific order places water-based animals first, birds slightly later, with land-locked animals (not reptiles) to be the last phase of evolution (humanity being the absolute latest).
If you read verses 20-27, you find God creating fish first, then birds, followed the next day by animals who live on land, and finally humanity.
I doubt this is a fluke. Science is looking at the evidence, but they are looking at it through the wrong lens. There is no reason to suggest these evolutions took millions of years, except the refusal to trust the accuracy of the Bible.
Argument #2: The flood of Noah makes accurate dating impossible.
This is a pretty simple part of the argument. Scientists agree that if there was a massive worldwide flood like the one accounted for in Genesis 6, it would make it impossible to date fossil records from before said flood.
Why?
First, most scientists are currently doubting the long-term accuracy of the carbon-dating method. The method is agreed upon for dating objects that are less than 3000 years old, and many scientists still find it accurate up to about 10,000 years old.
There is a wonderful article written about carbon dating and the Flood at the link below, but here is a brief summary of what it says:
1. Carbon dating works only if we had a way of knowing the level of carbon in the atmosphere at the time of the plant/animal died. Carbon-14 is constantly at changing levels based on things such as volcanic activity, carbon-12 emissions, thickness of ozone layer, etc.
2. Every type of plant and animal accepts different levels of carbon into its system, meaning that each plant and animal species need to have separate formulas for measuring their dating: this does not exist. It cannot ever exist for an animal or plant that is extinct, because we have no control group to measure the level of carbon in such live animal.
3. A massive flood would cause normal carbon 12 to be placed in the air in massive amounts, radically changing the amount of carbon 12 compared to carbon 14. Without any definitively dated objects from before the flood, it is impossible to date anything pre-flood with accuracy using C-14 testing.
Without going any further, this points out that this type of testing is pretty much useless.
The flood also ruins the ability of archaeologists to accurately use sedimentary levels to give estimated dates to objects. Why? The Bible says in Genesis 6:11 that "all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened."
Water moves dirt. Massive amounts of water move massive amounts of dirt. These levels that scientists try to use are very accurate going back to the flood, because there has not been a disaster of massive portions since then that we are not aware of. We can take into account that a volcano erupted 1000 years ago, and that level is going to be covered with volcanic ash.
The waters of the flood however, would move levels of dirt. Some areas would lose layers, others would gain layers. Trees that stood above the ground one day would be entirely covered in dirt the next. Fossils would be uncovered that were previously covered. The flood caused changes that we cannot even begin to fathom, and it creates many question marks that cannot be answered about the time before it.
(If anyone would want to argue the existence of a world-wide flood, remember that every ancient culture has a flood account, including ancient American cultures.)
My Conclusions
1. I find the biblical text hard to argue with. The bible says we were created in days, and I have no scientific reason to believe otherwise. (Note: The Sun was not created until day four, which means there is a question of how these seven days were measured, but I still think they were literal because the Sun was created to be a time marker for us--which means this time system was already established and the sun was created to help us keep track of it).
2. Stating that the Genesis account is not an accurate account of how the world was created is a step toward believing that Scripture is not inspired by God, and therefore everything that is said is subject to debate and opinion. To argue that the days were not literal days because the Sun was not yet created is a little different, because that is trying to take the text seriously, not trying to judge the text by modern scientific beliefs (which change every 5-10 years by the way).
3. Though the people who wrote the Old Testament were not scientifically minded, God knew how he created the world, and the accuracy of the text is based on God's wisdom, not humanities. If there is something that doesn't seem accurate, which should we conclude: That the God who created the heavens is wrong, or we are?
Here is the link to a great article: http://http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
I chose this article because it is written from a Christian perspective, so it does mention information about the flood that is not mentioned elsewhere. The basic information, though, is information that I have read in scientific journals and textbooks during my time at Milligan.
Hope this is encouraging and thought provoking.
Grace and Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)