tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-161379392024-02-20T05:12:14.009-07:00Getting Up To SpeedThoughts on the facts of the faith to run a good race.Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-34312251049419683442014-09-21T19:48:00.001-06:002014-09-21T19:48:30.415-06:00Another August "Unplugged"This year I continued my tradition of 'unplugging' for the month of August. This year I went about two months with no Facebook and just a little bit of email access. It never fails that each year as I take the time away from those things, I notice other things. Here are a few of my realizations from this year's hiatus from Facebook.<br />
<br />
1. Reintroducing listening to music on vinyl has become one of my favorite things to do in a very long time.<br />
<br />
2. Reconnecting with long-distance loved ones is never a bad idea. In fact it's always a good idea.<br />
<br />
3. Disappointments will occur in life. It's not the 'bad' that happens that's the most important thing. It's how well you handle it that is the most important.<br />
<br />
4. As I read the Bible, God is usually building something good, and if something happens that ends up tearing down that good thing, for whatever reason, it's not surprising at some point that he starts rebuilding it again.<br />
<br />
5. My wife makes the best apple pies, strawberry rhubarb pies and apple crisps.<br />
<br />
6. My son is a great little hockey player.<br />
<br />
7. My daughter has a fantastic singing voice.<br />
<br />
8. Gene Simmons' attempt at a bass solo (as seen on YouTube) can't be unheard and doesn't qualify remotely as music.<br />
<br />
(on a more serious note...)<br />
<br />
9. The world's problems that we see in the Middle East aren't political problems and they won't be solved with political solutions. My Christian brothers and sisters being beheaded along with others cannot be ended at a UN summit.<br />
<br />
10. The nation's problems that we see on the news aren't political problems and they won't be solved with political solutions. No government can sign a bill into law and put an end to injustice, poverty and hatred.<br />
<br />
11. It's been refreshing to not read people's words of name calling and vicious criticisms of their least favorite politician online. <br />
<br />
12. It's been discouraging to get back online and read people's words of name calling and vicious criticisms of their least favorite politician. Obviously the vicious name calling hasn't helped anything but the felt need to do so persists.<br />
<br />
13. My desires and inclinations will not always yield the positive result I'm looking for. When they do, great. Take it as an open door. When they don't, great. Take it as a closed door.<br />
<br />
14. All things in this life, whether good or bad, are temporary. <br />
<br />
So there you have it. Some serious and some not so serious observations. I encourage you to take the time to unplug and separate yourself from the distractions of life and breathe in some uncluttered silence.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-66178547075430485932014-03-27T23:22:00.002-06:002014-03-27T23:22:35.452-06:00The Gospel of Jesus Christ in Paul's WorldIn the last installment of this blog, I delved into what the gospel is in terms of the origins of the word "gospel" in the Greek language during Roman times. In light of what the gospel is and the intense meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I thought it was interesting to take a look at the first letter that Paul wrote that comprises part of what is now the New Testament. The book of Galatians.<br />
<br />
As we know, the Romans used the term "gospel" to signify the ascension of a new emperor to the throne or even the birth of an emperor to be. The religious cult of emperor worship was alive and well and this earthly gospel of man was in direct contrast to the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. With this as the historical backdrop, it is interesting to note what the Galatian readers of Paul's letter would have understood when he wrote the letter to them. <br />
<br />
The letter to the Galatians is dated somewhere between 48 and 55 AD. History tells us that between 14 and 68 AD, there were four emperors. They were Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. The living adults present at the time of Paul's letter to the Galatians literally could have heard "the gospel of man", the herald announcement of four different emperors assuming the throne in their lifetime, perhaps even more. At least four times they heard that a king would bring peace. At least four times they heard that their king would stay their enemies. At least four times they were beckoned to worship the new king.<br />
<br />
Enter the Apostle Paul as he writes to the Galatians in chapter 1, verse 1:<br />
<br />
"Paul, an apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead - and all the brothers who are with me,. To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age..."<br />
<br />
In this one short excerpt, Paul delivers a death blow to anything else that detracts from Jesus Christ being the centerpiece of the gospel. There is nothing man-made about the gospel. There is nothing that finds its beginning or end from the earth about the gospel. The glorious gospel of Jesus Christ has him as its originator, deliverer and sustainer. Reread Paul's opening line again and you'll find it all there. It's not from man. It is through Jesus Christ. He was raised from the dead. He delivers us. He brings peace.<br />
<br />
Enter the Judaizers. Paul writes to the Galatians in astonishment that they have turned to what he refers to as 'another gospel'. We may look at the Galatians with a critical eye but we should reserve our judgment. They have been bombarded with man's gospel. They have been immersed in a culture of man's gospel for years and Paul even voices his concern in chapter 4 when he talks of their former enslavement to those that by nature were not gods and how they returned to observing days, months, seasons and years (all part of Roman pagan culture). Paul does the work of converting pagans to Christ and within a few short years, people come behind him preaching another gospel, one that added to the simplistic "justified by faith" message of Paul and adding a "and by works" clause. This news triggered a passionate, frank and in-your-face response from Paul and understandably so.<br />
<br />
Why is this important for us today? Like many of you who may read this, I have been a follower of Christ for several decades of my life. During these years I've noticed that there is always something disguising itself as 'new'. We live in a world that demands our worship. We live in a culture that is constantly enticing us. Not only that but there are religious enticements. There are those that teach that faith is a force for us to control. There are those that would have us believe that God isn't answering our prayers but he will if we write a check to their ministry. There are those that teach that God is for us and because of that, well, if bad things happen we need to simply confess otherwise and turn the situation around. There are those that preach that our faith is to be the object of our faith and this faith can manipulate God to change our circumstances and hosts of others that have their list of do's and don'ts in order to be a Christian. <br />
<br />
None of this is new. All of this is, what Paul would say is, another gospel. To Paul, the gospel was a PERSON....it was Jesus Christ. So if anything takes away from the person of Jesus Christ, it is another gospel. If anything is attempted to add to the work of Jesus Christ, it is another gospel. If anyone asks of you or me anything more than, like what Abraham had, faith alone in Jesus Christ, it is just that...another gospel.<br />
<br />
So in the walking out of your faith according to the gospel, may the words of Paul to the Galatians ring in your heart. "For neither (outward works of flesh) count for anything, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them..."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-29934939766959231502014-03-26T19:53:00.001-06:002014-03-26T19:53:49.852-06:00Why We May Not In Fact Really Heard the GospelChristianity. The answering of the call of Jesus to, "Follow me". The turning away from the old and living the new. The changing of allegiance to the kingdom of this world to the kingdom of God. The no longer living by one's own expectations in life, but the living by the indwelling life of Christ. These statements embody, in our lived out lives, the essence of being a Christian.<br />
<br />
In the times of Christ, during the reign of the Roman Empire, to be affiliated with Christ and his followers was dangerous. To be baptized and be a follower of Christ meant to take your life into your own hands for to do so was not just a statement about your religious affiliation, but a proclamation that the government, the system, the ruling authorities and even the emperor himself and all that came with them, were no longer what you were loyal to. You were dead to all of it.<br />
<br />
So what's the big deal?<br />
<br />
Rome was huge. During the time of Christ she was drunk with her own power and wealth. Her emperors were considered gods. Julius Cesar was the first to be deified as 'god' and then along comes Augustus. Julius was deified <em>after </em>his death. Augustus was deified while he was still alive. One was god and the other referred to as the son of god. The succession of Roman emperors as gods was a continued tradition as New Testament scholar N.T. Wright concludes in "Paul: In Fresh Perspective".<br />
<br />
To add to all of this earthly claims to divinity, the very proclamation that was used for the emperor righting all the wrongs, bringing the peace to the empire and providing for its subjects was heralded throughout the land. As Kurt Willems writes in his Pangea Blog, "Whenever the great deeds of Augustus were proclaimed, they were presented with the Greek term <em>euangelion, </em>which is translated, “good news” or, “gospel”. " Now add to that what Frank Viola said in an interview with Jamal Jivanjee, "In the first-century Roman world, “gospel” was used to describe the announcement that a new emperor had taken the throne. “Heralds” would be “sent” throughout the Roman Empire to announce this “good news.” Interestingly, the Roman emperor was also called “Savior” and “Lord” and was regarded as the one who would establish “peace” in the Empire." (jamaljivanjee.com)<br />
<br />
Fast forward a few years and you have John the Baptist, the disciples and the apostle Paul with countless others, in the face of the Roman Empire with the <u>same message</u>.....<u>but about another king</u>. The herald announcement that there was a new king rang throughout the empire. There was a new king, with new authority. He brought a new peace and this good news was not referring to Caesar, but to Jesus Christ. When a person was baptized in public as a follower of Jesus Christ, he was saying to everyone, I died to the old empire - I rise into a new kingdom. I died to the old emperor - I rise to follow a new Lord. I died to the old system of false peace and earthly prosperity - I rise to follow the Prince of Peace. Political allegiances are dead. Imperial ties are broken. Kingdom loyalties are reassigned to a new one.<br />
<br />
This, to the Roman Empire, was a declaration of war. This was an affront to Roman rule.<br />
<br />
There is a price tag associated with the gospel. It's more than Four Spiritual Laws. It's more than The Romans Road. It's far more than saying a prayer in Sunday School. It's more than being on the correct side of the political aisle. It's more than your patriotism. It's more than being a member of the right church in the right denomination. The gospel of Jesus Christ demands, by its very nature, that all socio-political and national allegiances die at the feet of Jesus Christ. There is no other allegiance to be had.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>The gospel of Jesus Christ demands, by it's very nature, that all socio-political and national allegiances die at the feet of Jesus Christ.</em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
We are part of a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy <em>nation</em>. To cloud the gospel with celebrations of our own earthly kingdoms does injustice to the cross of Christ. To proclaim an incomplete gospel does a disservice to those that hear it and may want to respond to it. To associate our national interests on days of celebration with the gospel of Christ is to taint the message of its purity. To relegate the gospel to a preacher's plea to "just pray these words" in the closing seconds of a broadcast isn't the gospel. To preach a topical sermon on a Sunday morning and close with a 'sinners prayer' is not the gospel.<br />
<br />
The centerpiece and implications of the gospel have not changed. We would all be wise to examine what they are and ask ourselves, have we really heard the gospel?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-79293572604189471742013-08-25T22:15:00.000-06:002013-08-25T22:15:00.052-06:00The Religion of Being Non-ReligiousRecently I was dialoguing online with an old friend. The conversation took on a context of speaking about 'the religious' people and how they are sometimes offended by the 'non-traditional' people. There were a couple of things written that made me think. One comment was about a 'religious spirit'. Another comment was 'being religious about not being religious'. What needs to be addressed is what religion is thought to be, what religion really is in God's perspective and what we as believers really need to be concerned with regarding religion. <br />
<br />
The fact is that there are many religions in the world. So really, what is religion? A definition of 'religion' is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. <br />
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.' The second part of the definition of 'religion' is critical as it contains the phrase <em>'as agreed upon by a number of persons or sects</em>...". In reality, when the 'non-traditional' people all get together and agree to either practice or not practice certain 'traditional religious' activities, then they, in essence are being just as religious as the 'religious' people. Get it? While the religious and non-traditionals fight over what their preferences are in style, they forget how much they have in common in their devotion to the God they love. Westernized Christianity has not helped this schism as it has caused 'brands' of Christianity that taste good to some and not so good to others. This leads to what one of my former college mates feciciously reffered to as the church 'franchise'. <br />
<br />
So what does God think about religion? Surely he has weighed in on the subject. <br />
<br />
<em><strong>Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.</strong></em> <br />
<br />
<em><strong>James 1:27</strong></em> <br />
<br />
There are really two types of religion or religious activity. Religion is either pure and undefiled before God and religion that is impure and defiled before God. James explicitly and simply explains it. The kind of religious activity that is pure and undefiled before God involves caring for those who cannot necessarily care for themselves <em>and</em> to keep oneself unstained from the world. This religion that pleases God isn't simply a liberal theological position that teaches us to tolerate, reach out and care for all, nor is a religion of spiritual segregation. It's a 'salt and light' religion. It's a religion of touching human needs with our hands while God touches our impure hearts with his grace. It's a religion where we don't help people in need to feel good, rather we help them because our hearts have been made right by God. <br />
<br />
So whether you brand yourself as 'religious' or 'non-traditional' be aware of one thing for sure...God doesn't give a rip about what you do in the name of (insert your church name here). He cares that you care about what he cares about.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-42474122241010787592013-06-23T20:13:00.000-06:002013-06-23T20:13:06.645-06:00Strength for Today and Bright Hope for TomorrowWithin a matter of hours I watched a creek turn into a river and cause millions of dollars of damage to homes and infrastructure. Even worse is the suffering of the displaced families. People I know, business owners I patronized, families we've fellowshipped with, my own brother, sister-in-law and neices; locked down, unable to leave their own neighborhood. My children's school friends are living in a shelter the last couple of days. This is only <em>one town</em> affected by the Alberta flood of 2013.<br />
<br />
I write this post from a time of crisis. Currently the city I live in for the last two months is under water. Almost 100,000 people have been displaced. The town I left to move here is completely under water with major damage to infrastructure. I'm very blessed because for some reason the home I reside in in the city is high, dry and life is as normal. The property we own in the flooded mountain town is also high, dry and unaffected. The feeling of blessed assurance however, is clashing with the feeling of frustration as I am personally unable to rush to anyone's aid, unable to give tangible help with my own two hands. I pray. I will give. I will help somehow.<br />
<br />
It would be easy to assume a patronizing air and begin to tell everyone that God is at work in people's hearts through suffering. I mean, this is the time right? Right smack in the middle of someone watching their $800,000 house flow down a creek with their wife and kids likely homeless, now's the time I tell them that God uses suffering to speak to people. I could get myself to the middle of the most affected and damaged areas and declare at the top of my lungs that God is using this for his glory.<br />
<br />
I think I will refrain.<br />
<br />
This morning in church we sang a hymn. "Great is Thy Faithfulness" seemed so appropriate. One verse in particular struck a chord in my heart, and one part of it in particular:<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow.....</em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
This is what I want to leave with people. <br />
<br />
Do I believe that God allows and uses suffering? I do (Read Ravi Zacharias' "Jesus Among Other Gods" for a great explanation of suffering). Do I believe it can and is redemptive? Most certainly. But is this the message for right here, right now? I'm not sure. I think it's supposed to be 'strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow'. Why? Because this is what people need, right here and right now.<br />
<br />
In the coming days we will see people coming to grips with their losses. Those that have lost loved ones will be left asking 'why'. Those that have lost all of their earthly possesions will be trying to figure out where to go from here. In the middle of all of this there will be people, just like them, giving and offering the only thing left....love. And from this come the seeds that will grow into strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow.<br />
<br />
The very last words of the hymn 'Great is Thy Faithfulness' are found when the chorus is sung. It's not a song about God using suffering to teach us a lesson. It's a song about the reminder of the fact that no matter what happens, God is faithful to bring us through.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Great is thy faithfulness, great is thy faithfulness</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Morning by morning new mercies I see</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>All I have needed thy hand hath provided</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Great is thy faithfulness Lord unto me.</em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-13856520301133457932013-06-14T00:38:00.000-06:002013-06-14T00:38:04.952-06:00How You Should Speak to a King<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is the expectation that Jesus has of his followers when it comes to a person's response to undesireable political circumstances and leaders? Rebellion? Sarcasm? Hatred? Love? Tollerance? How are we to speak of and to political leaders? We should all know how to speak to a king.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">By reading Facebook feeds or watching national news, it is evident that not everyone is in agreement as to what is acceptable. The Bible instructs us to 'Let no corrupt communication come from our mouths.' What is corrupt communication? It's not merely profanity nor simply coarse speech. It goes to what comes from the heart. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Perhaps you've heard or read Facebook quotes concerning a certain prominent U.S. politician. If your experience has been like mine, you may have noticed something. I noticed that the hateful, malicious words of Christians sound just like some of the hateful, malicious words of unbelievers. Where is the difference? Where is the divine life of Christ displayed? Can Christians oppose values and differing political ideologies and remain Christ-like while doing so? The answer should be 'yes'. But sometimes I wonder.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<strong><em><span style="font-size: large;">We cannot model unkindness. We cannot be consumed with disgust and hatred toward a person we don't agree with. We cannot separate our political rhetoric from our Christian conversation.</span></em></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">What is the biblical basis? The Old Testament has great examples of how people spoke to kings. Read Daniel 6 and listen to Daniel's response to Darius whom, after being deceived, had Daniel thrown into the lions den to face certain death. When Darius checked to see the fate of Daniel, he was greeted with <strong>"Oh King live forever!"</strong> The result was Darius decreeing the power and grace of the Hebrews God to his kingdom.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Earlier in Daniel's account we learn of the three Hebrew 'children'. As the story goes, they refuse to worship Nebuchadnezzar at the appointed time and they now face the fiery furnace. When brought before the king and questioned, their response wasn't to denigrate the political establishment. They said, <strong>' we don't need to defend ourselves before you in this matter...even if God doesn't deliver us, we refuse to worship (you).'</strong> Of course the refuse, God delivers them and Nebuchadnezzar declared the majesty of their God throughout his kingdom and even promoted the three young men.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The account of Esther has the Jews oppressed under Xerxes. Esther, taking her life into her own hands attempts to save the Jews, her countrymen, by seeking an audience with the king. As she opens her dialogue with the man that, while deceived, authorized the destruction of the Jews, she begins with, <strong>"If it pleases the king..."</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested, a disciple takes a sword and goes for the head of one of the guards, missing and taking his ear off. Jesus' response was to chastise the assailing disciple and heal the man's ear.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">John the Baptist was opposed to King Herod for his immorality. He preached the good news and rebuked evil. In doing so he never stooped to name-calling and insults. he stuck to the gospel and represented Christ. John the Baptist was put to death. He was not delivered like our previous examples.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So while living under undesirable political circumstances, facing and dealing with political entities with unacceptable policies, how is a Christian to respond if and when they have to? Look at Daniel. Remember the three Hebrew young men and above all remember Jesus. To them the political opponent wasn't the enemy. To them it was always about their God to love, and when the goal is to love and please God in everything, the biblical testimony is that God gets far more accomplished for his purposes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Peace</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="woj"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-1477709702217470032013-05-22T21:20:00.000-06:002013-05-22T21:20:04.451-06:00The Search for the BodyLast June I was personally informed by the company president that the branch where I had made my current career and earthly living was closing...for good...in 30 days. In that same meeting I was offered a position at the main branch in another city, an hour and fifteen minutes away. To make a long story short, I accepted the offer, packed up my family and moved from the middle of the Canadian Rocky Mountains to a city of over a million people. Big change. I'm sure there are many out there that can identify with job loss, job change, moving etc. It can be a trying yet exhilarating time. We trusted God's leading and away we went.
<br />
<br />
One of the first things we had to do after being settled was to begin our search for a gathering of the Body of Christ where we could fellowship. That search is all but complete but to be honest, it was a bit pain staking. So the 'search for the body' was on. What local church fellowship would we associate ourselves with? For fifteen years when I was the pastor, I didn't have to ask that question. I never had to look for a 'new church'. I was never faced with the decision of where to go. By going online and weeding out several choices and attending others, I found out that finding 'a church' to go to isn't as easy a task as I thought it might be.
I found that several churches out there focus on a doctrine or a teaching. It was evident in their online presence as they listed what they believed in, sought after in their gatherings and expected from their adherents. Without actually saying it, my impression was that if you didn't agree, well, don't bother.
Some churches were very traditional 'high church' experiences.
Some churches were of the smaller, home group type of experience.
Some churches were of the emergent bent where, after listening to an online sermon, I found it to be intentionally making things 'grey' instead of what I firmly believe to be more 'black and white' when it came to some things.
Some churches, after listening to online sermons as well as attending one Sunday morning service, were very seeker-focussed. This was disheartening to me as the gospel of Jesus Christ wasn't even mentioned. These were the churches where, in the delivery of the message, the scripture wasn't cracked open and expounded upon, but rather, used as backdrop stories to make a topical point.
<br />
<br />
But there's one church we've frequented on a number of occasions. It's different. The Bible is opened, taught, explained and delivered to people. Christ and his gospel are the core, the center, the main thing. The people go out of their way and lend a hand, help and assist with needs if they know of any. There's something that feels <i>familiar <i></i></i>about that. The word "familiar" means "acquainted with". But it can also mean "closely intimate or personal". How could I be a stranger somewhere among people I do not know yet feel acquainted?
The answer to that is simple. We are all part of the Body of Christ. It is his divine life that runs through all of us. When we run into a group of people that share the same DNA, the same life, the same Father, well, we all know what that is. It's called "family".
<br />
<br />
Peace.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-41587501707634525112012-09-01T11:08:00.000-06:002012-09-01T11:08:14.616-06:00Things I Learned in my Month Being “Unplugged” This YearEvery August I’ve repeated the practice of ‘unplugging’ from television and electronic media. This year I indulged in a little bit of the Olympic games coverage, but other than that, no TV, very ,very little personal email and absolutely no Facebook.<br />
<br />
I’ve enjoyed my time not doing those things and spending some extra time doing other things. Below are what I’ve gleaned from it.<br />
<br />
1600 emails still in my inbox are too many.<br />
<br />
My kids still want me to jump on the trampoline with them sometimes.<br />
<br />
There is an epidemic of people in the Church that suffer from what one called “Jesus Deficit Disorder”<br />
<br />
In Genesis there was a river with a tree by it that marked the beginning of the downfall.<br />
<br />
In Revelation there was a river with a tree by it that marked the end of the downfall.<br />
<br />
In the book of Genesis there is a couple that, when they ate, they knew they sinned.<br />
<br />
In the book of Luke there is a couple that when they ate, they knew the sin issue was taken care of.<br />
<br />
Life throws you curve balls but home runs are still hit off curve balls.<br />
<br />
Reading the letters of Paul in the order they were written changes everything.<br />
<br />
Smart phones really do alienate people when not used at appropriate times. Really.<br />
<br />
The real drought in the Church today is not leaders but rather, followers.<br />
<br />
In Genesis at the first creation, the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the earth looking for a place to dwell. Later in Genesis at the re-creation, Noah released a dove and it hovered over the earth looking for a place to dwell. In John, when Jesus was baptized and made a new creation, the Spirit of the Lord descended upon Christ in the form of a dove. Bottom line, God is looking for a place to dwell. It’s in us!<br />
<br />
Singed hair on a forearm eventually grows back.<br />
<br />
Even after a couple of decades, there is still water to draw in the well of a friendship.<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-27389396112870316092012-08-21T23:11:00.000-06:002012-08-21T23:11:34.356-06:00Slow, Yield, MergeHave you ever driven in a city and found yourself going through a construction zone? I can hear the collective 'yes'. There have been times when navigating these roads in such conditions that I've found myself forced to slow down, change lanes and drive on a completely different road for a period of time. On some occasions I've experienced a bit of stress thinking that the road I was on was going to take me somewhere I didn't intend to go. But then something assuring happens. The road I was on, by carefully planned detours by the engineers, takes me back on to the 'right path' that I intended to embark on. After a little <b>slowing</b>, a little <b>yielding</b> and a <b>merge</b>, I'm back on track and I reach my destination.<br />
<br />
I have to say that this is the place where I'm at in my walk on the Way right now. For 26 years I've been a disciple of Christ, trying to grow in the Way, a pastor and teacher, trying to show others the Way but for the last six of those years I've been in the market place. What I thought could have been a wrong turn has been one of those roads that the Engineer has re-routed me through. I looked over the barricade (figuratively speaking) and saw the road I used to be on, the road I thought I had to be on, and got a bit stressed that I wasn't on it. I questioned why I had to make the turn in the first place but, by the Grand Design, I followed the detour and continued my journey. This has caused me to slow down, yield and I'm seeing a merging, a connection happening. It's the right path.<br />
<br />
You see, the safest route to take in a construction zone is the detour. Every detour has lots of signs. If you ignore the signs, you take the wrong turn. If you don't obey the signs, you make a mess.<br />
<br />
<b>Every detour has lots of signs.<i></i></b><br />
<br />
Signs are the messages that we absolutely have to understand on the road we're on. We don't put the signs there, the engineer does that. We don't dictate the path they direct us to. The engineer does that as well. Our only requirement is to simply obey the signs. <br />
<br />
You see, Christ is the Way. As we walk with him, it is inevitable that we will be presented with changes of direction, detours and roads to go down that we never thought we'd ever have to go down. Whatever 'detour' you are going through or, at some point may go through, listen to the messages that the Engineer is telling you and, most importantly, don't forget to slow, yield and merge. Remember, ultimately the detour isn't there to stop you from getting to where you're supposed to go. The detour is there to get you safely back on the right path.<br />
<br />
Peace.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-11313325783921803032011-04-28T23:00:00.001-06:002011-04-28T23:07:23.992-06:00Love Wins...Everyone Take a Deep BreathAfter having read Rob Bell's "Love Wins", I have come to some conclusions. One of those conclusions is that there are probably many people that owe Rob Bell an apology for their scathing, derogatory and unecessary comments. Being critical is one thing, and it can be good. But some have simply gone overboard. Some have read the book and wrongly dismissed it as a benign distraction, while others have railed against it with venomous tirades. We should pause, chew on it in our generation, seek to understand and then opine if we desire, regardless of our denomination biases (yes, I use the word 'bias' on purpose).<br />
<br />
It's crucial to understand some of the elements of the book in light of orthodox Christianity as well as, and most importantly, the Bible itself. Concerning orthodoxy, we HAVE to look at reality and know that this debate is not new. One of the early church fathers named Origen is a favorite of pastors and authors to quote. Origen was a believer and teacher of the concpet that all would be saved. His contemporary Clement of Alexandria was as well. Really, they were. Not only that but none of his contemporaries ever labeled them as heretics or sought to excommunicate them. They were not alone in their persuasion either. On top of that, there were several church councils that were held to uphold and establish for the Church right doctrine, truthful teachings and eliminate heresy. While Origen and others were quite outspoken of their beliefs in this matter, not one church council ever condemned their beliefs. I find that absolutely fascinating.<br />
<br />
On the orthodox note, I bring up Martin Luther. He's the 'father of the Protestant Reformation'. If anyone's orthodox, it's Martin. But do we all understand what he really believed and accept it? Did you know that Martin Luther was very elitist in his approach to ecclisiastical authority? Did you know that he continued to believe in transubstantiation (the belief that communion bread and wine literally turned into the actual body and blood of Christ)? Martin Luther, in a letter to Hans Von Rechenberg in 1522 wrote concerning the possibility that people could turn to God after death, "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?" Origen, Luther, both men lived in times where they came to conclusions that, to them, what they were taught to believe was not necessarily entirely rooted in truth. Both men read the same Bible and came to understandings that shaped them and, consequently others. Both men are held by many to be heroes of the faith.<br />
<br />
Orthodox preachers the world over hold to a 'literal interpretation' of the Bible and yet when Rob Bell disects the literal meaning of words in the Bible and comes to a conclusion that is not necessarily 'mainstream' he's verbally crucified. Here's one of America's younger and very educated contemporary pastors who has paid his dues with his nose in the books to find understanding being, what I think, totally mischaracterized. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he is misinformed, hasn't done his homework, not prayed or sought God and has not been led by the Spirit on this one.<br />
<br />
Case in point, the Holy Spirit saw fit to use the Greek word 'Hades' in Luke 2:27,31 (the first time it's used in the New Testament). This first time it's used is THE time to clarify what it means in context and how the Holy Spirit wanted us to understand it. It is used in quoting Psalm 16:10. It reads "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your holy One see corruption." The word used in Psalm 16:10 is 'Sheol'. Both 'Sheol' and 'Hades' literally mean "grave". By that I mean, hole in the ground, covered in dirt - grave.<br />
<br />
I, like millions of others were taught that it means 'hell' and by that referring to fiery torment. Rob Bell is simply initially asking, 'does it really mean that?' By the study of the words used, we have to conclude that it does not in this context (Don't get upset with me yet I'm establishing things based on the meaning of words and not jumping to my own conclusions). Then in the other times the word occurs, it seems to be, time and time again a similar meaning. Could it be that we're not entirely right in how we think about things? Is it no coincidence that none of the apostles ever preached to unbelievers the notion of fiery torture? I'm just asking because Rob Bell is asking. Instead of brushing things off as illegitimate, I think it wise for us to examine, re-examine and refine what we believe in light of new information.<br />
<br />
So now, the book. As there are several things that seem to upset many, there are also some very crucial things that I think give it merit and these things should be examined.<br />
<br />
First of all, when speaking of believing in a fiery, tormenting hell, Rob Bell writes on page 110, <b>"Not all Christians have believed this, and you don't have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives." </b><br />
<br />
Concerning Christ and his work on the cross on page 129 <b>"the point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He's where the life is."</b><br />
<br />
Concerning the nervous assumptions that he is telling us that Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, he says on page 155, <b>"Not true. Absolutely, unequivocally, unilaterally not true. What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." <br />
<br />
</b>At the end of chapter seven, Bell reiterates the the only thing that saves us is the atoning work of Christ on the cross, not because of anything we've done, but because of his mercy. It's the gospel.<br />
<br />
In the end, Bell champions the work of Christ on the cross as the source of our salvation and nothing else. We cannot ignore God's statement of judgement upon those that reject his ways. But, as I think all would agree and Rob Bell concludes, God's judgements are redemptive in nature. The Old Testament is replete with examples of this. He subscribes to the train of thought that the Bible says that all will be saved (eventually) based upon people's eventual response to the immeasurable mercy and love of God which he bases upon numerous scriptures. It's a conclusion that he and other learned believers in the faith before him have come to.<br />
<br />
<b>If people are going to take a stand against Rob Bell for his beliefs, then in the same breath they should denounce Origen, Clement and Martin Luther for the very same reasons. We have to be fair afer all.<br />
</b><br />
You or I may have not come to the same conclusions as Rob Bell. Does that make one right and him wrong? Does it make one more right? Does it allow one to be just right enough because people happen to agree?<br />
<br />
'Love Wins' at the very least should remind us of just how merciful and gracious our God is through Christ and urge us on to hope for that very thing that Rob Bell seems to be hoping for with everything that is in him that "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy chapter 2). It seems he's really hoping God gets his way. If that's what God's love does in the end, well, that would be a win for everybody now wouldn't it?<br />
<br />
Peace.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-48969632469987568232011-04-10T21:02:00.000-06:002011-04-10T21:02:03.251-06:00The Debate Over Love WinsI have heard much of the fuss over the book "Love Wins", most of it coming out against the content of the book. What is surprising to me is that in almost every case, the book has not been read by its detractors. That is a sad commentary in itself.<br />
<br />
Now that the book is out, there is opportunity to actually buy it, read it, understand it and come to grips with the message that it is presenting. I plan on doing that very thing. I had the book in my hand, paroused it a bit today and placed it back on the shelf. The reason being is that I'm reading some more Bible and doing more research on some of the questions that have been raised before I ingest its contents.<br />
<br />
I plan on reading the book and giving my own 'two cents worth' for a variety of reasons. <br />
<br />
First of all, I believe that many, perhaps thousands of clergy members HAVE to come against the contents of the book based solely on the fact they would lose their ordinations and perhaps their jobs if they didn't.<br />
<br />
Second, a very respected, and one of my favorite authors/bloggers failed (in my opinion) after I suggested, to deal with the topic in a manner worthy of scripturally addressing it at all. He continues to be a favorite of mine, however if there are serious questions raised, why not tackle them and deal with them?<br />
<br />
Third, and finally, we have a responsibility to read, know and understand the Bible and its teachings, and are not free to interpret for ourselves. If "Love Wins" is a catalyst for people to open up the pages of holy writ for themselves instead of being spoon-fed a Sunday morning sermon, then I'm in! That's where I'm at.<br />
<br />
So, I'm engaged in this. I'll get back to you on this one.<br />
<br />
Peace.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-70341412973813104512011-01-17T22:56:00.000-07:002011-01-17T22:56:51.341-07:00Touch Not My Anointed Ones and Do My Prophets No HarmWhen reading this <i>section</i> of a verse from Psalm 105 (verse 15) it seems to stand out. It has an authoritative ring to it. That is because it really is authoratative. The tragedy is that the real authority of this section of a verse is often misunderstood and applied in abusive manners.<br />
<br />
Several times I have heard of pastors and/or leaders being questioned or opposed in something and what has become a default answer to disagreement or opposition from someone in the body is <b>"touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm." <i></i></b> If you have heard of this response, or have had it used to you, it's high time we look into the Word and understand it and expose this for what it really is...a scramble to hold power or authority in an unduly manner over members of the Body of Christ.<br />
<br />
To misuse the section of Ps. 105:15 in this manner does several things. Allow me to outline them.<br />
<br />
<b>1. It takes the Bible out of context.</b> <br />
<br />
The verse is in the middle of Psalm 105. When studying it for what it is, it is a declaration of God's greatness and goodness to Isreal. It outlines God's protective plan to raise up a nation from the promise of Abraham, preserve it through the life of Isaac, plant it in Egypt through Joseph and liberate it to it's full promise by Moses. God's protective declaration to those nations around Israel when she was young, small and vulnerable was, "touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm." The anointed ones and prophets were Israel and the individuals God used along the plan to nationhood.<br />
<br />
<b>2. It mistakenly elevates 'leaders/pastors' as God's anointed ones.</b><br />
<br />
God's anointed ones in Psalm 105 is Israel, not New Testament pastors and/or leaders. It is incorrect to assume otherwise based on the text. We cannot allow ourselves to put our own meaning into the biblical text. Where does it stop? The text is clear and understandable. The anointed ones and the prophets were Israel. Nowhere in the New Testament writings or the gospels do we see the elevation of church leaders to a class of special anointed ones. It just isn't there. The apostles lived and worked among their brothers/sisters in planting churches. They labored hard to teach them, love them, all the while being one of them. While establishing deacons and elders, not once were they encouraged to rule over anyone. Conversely, there is a whole lot of 'one another' in Paul's writings. The 'one another's' are all of God's anointed ones.<br />
<br />
<b>3. It mistakenly belittles the members of the Body of Christ.</b> <br />
<br />
For a leader/pastor to actually utter the words 'touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm' as a defense mechanism from a member of the Body of Christ is to assume that <i>they</i> (leader/pastor) are the real anointed ones and the other <i>they</i> (follower/church member) are not. This separation of clergy/laity (and I hate the use of the word 'laity') is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and not the model of Paul, any of the apostles or Jesus himself (Matthew 23:8-12). <br />
<br />
I John 2 tells us that all believers have been anointed by the Holy One and because of that we all have knowledge. There is no separation or classes or echelons of Christians. What this means is that the person that is involved in leadership among a group of believers as well as the one that is being led are all on the same level...that of the cross. It means that when there is disagreement, love is displayed and unity is to be sought. It means when there is opposition, humility is displayed. <br />
<br />
"Leaders" can forget that the same word of God they read can be used to rebuke, reprove and correct them as well. That correction will ultimately come from the Word of God through someone else in the Body of Christ. The end result? A better believer more equipped for every good work. Now how can that be a bad thing?<br />
<br />
Peace<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-55890610603492548852010-09-04T20:36:00.019-06:002010-09-04T21:53:58.809-06:00Centrality of the Sermon Equals Safety in the SeatsThe book of Acts is a great read. In its pages are the beginnings of God's greatest thing on planet Earth since Jesus Christ...his Church! As I read the book of Acts, a few things are strikingly clear, however, they seem not to be so clear today.
<br />
<br />In the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit is given to believers, apostles are imprisoned, miracles happened, Stephen is stoned to death, Saul ravages the Church with persecution, Saul confesses Christ and is now called `Paul` and many local `churches`are established in cities everywhere. How this was accomplished is of vital importance because it was due to one thing and one thing only. It's this one thing that I believe we fail to grasp. I think Acts 6:7 puts it well,
<br />
<br /><em><strong>'And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.'</strong></em>
<br />
<br />The word of God increasing is what brought people to the point of believing in Christ. As the believers were persecuted in Acts 8, the word says `now those who were scattered went about <strong>preaching</strong> the word.' When Philip came into contact with Simon the sorcerer, Philip <strong>preached the good news </strong>about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, he believed. When Philip met the Ethiopian Eunuch, he <strong>told him the good news </strong>about Jesus. In A cts 9 after Saul was converted, he <strong>proclaimed Jesus </strong>in the synagogues and confounded the Jews in Damascus. In Acts 10 Peter told Cornelius and company 'And he <strong>commanded us to preach to the people </strong>and to testify that he (Christ) is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.` In Acts 11 those who were persecuted fled <strong>preaching</strong> the Lord Jesus. In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas were going to Cyprus where on the way they <strong>proclaimed the word of God</strong>. In Acts 14 in Iconium, Paul and Barnabas were '<strong>speaking boldly </strong>for the Lord'and 'there continued to <strong>preach the gospel</strong>.'
<br />
<br />I give all these examples so as to be thorough in my explanation I am about to give. In all of the instances of 'preaching' taking place in the book of Acts, it is always done to an audience of unbelievers.
<br />
<br /><strong><em>Biblical preaching is always done to an audience of unbelievers.</E<>
<br />
<br /></em></strong>I am persuaded that we have quite possibly confused biblical preaching with a religious monologue. Ouch! But let's look at reality here.
<br />
<br /><strong><em>1. Preaching was done to unbelievers, always.
<br />2. Preaching was done by believers everywhere that were part of the Church.
<br />3. Preaching was done in the public market place where hearers of every stripe could hear.
<br />4. Preaching was done by simply proclaiming the good news of what Christ had done.
<br />5. Preaching was done in a dialogue, a two-way conversation of questions, refutations and proclamations.
<br />
<br /></em></strong>Contrast the biblical example of preaching the gospel with today's preaching.
<br />
<br /><strong><em>1. Preaching is mainly done to believers.
<br />2. Preaching is done by one appointed person, usually the same one each week.
<br />3. Preaching is done in the privacy of church buildings to the same audience.
<br />4. Preaching is done by crafting monologues based on proof texts (although there are some instances where pastors study, prepare and deliver godly teaching).
<br />5. Preaching is done in a monologue, a one-way conversation that would be considered out of order or rude to interrupt.
<br />
<br /></em></strong>Remember, I'm talking about preaching, not teaching here and there is a difference. Preaching proclaims the gospel of the good news of Christ to the lost while teaching instructs us how to live according to God`s word. <u>There is a difference</u>. There has to be for both have differing and unique purposes.
<br />
<br /><strong><em>The centrality of the sermon keeps us safe in our seats.</em></strong>
<br />
<br />Today's preaching is in the form of the sermon and it`s the centrality of the sermon and the confusion of what its for that is quite possibly one of the reasons why Western Christianity seems impotent to convert unbelievers. If the fields are white and the harvest is great, why aren't the proverbial barns full? I would contend that the centrality of the sermon keeps us safe in our seats. Should believers preach in a book of Acts-like fashion (see list above), and not simply leave it to paid pastors, we just may see some of the promises in God`s word come to pass. What are those promises? Suffering persecution is one of those promises. Getting rebuffed and resisted is a promise. Seeing people believe and be baptized is a promise.
<br />
<br />So I write this not to cause problems, but rather to have people join in the questioning process. Is what we do now how it was done in the Bible? If we are doing it different, why are we doing it different? Is our answer to why we are doing it different found in the pages of the Bible? If those answers are not based on a biblical foundation, how do we justify them?
<br />
<br />I urge all believers who may have a chance to grace this page by reading it to determine to do what all believers in the book of Acts did...take the risk, lay it on the line, tell the world around you the good news and preach the gospel!
<br />
<br />Peace.
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-69969972027666646512010-08-10T22:14:00.015-06:002010-08-10T23:40:36.999-06:00Sincere SubjectivityLately I have been privy to conversations with people, discussions about God and what the Bible means. Some of these discussions have been with people who are believers. Some of these conversations have been with non-believers. It has been astounding to me how both believers and non-believers begin their statements of what they believe bout God.<br /><br />"I believe...I think...in my opinion...what it means to me is..."<br /><br />These have been commony used phrases to introduce people's opinions as to what the Word of God means in their given situations. What they were talking about is irrelevant. For me, you or anyone else to hinge the will of God upon the subjectivity of our own opinion is simply unwise. For this reason Western Christianity is run amok with false doctrines and errant teachings. Why? Because all of these false doctrines and teachings are substantiated with what "I believe...I think and what it means to me is..." Think about it, no matter how sincere one may be, to relegate the meaning of God's word based upon how one feels, thinks or on their opinion is asking for disaster. It poses the danger of not simply ignoring God's word, but rebelling against it.<br /><br />In Genesis Chapter 3 mankind's very first act of rebellion against the word of God is written. When the serpent tempted Eve, he brought up what God said and twisted it. While God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden, he said they could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When he brought it up to Eve, she added her opinion, what she thought, what she believed. She said, "you shall not eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, <em></em><em><strong>neither shall you touch it<em></em> lest you die</strong></em>." She was passionate and sincere in making her case but she was sincerely wrong for God simply didn't say that.<br /><br />There are many things that people are experiencing in Christianity today that, although are believed to be right, simply should not be accepted without scrutiny and judgement. Be it a manifestation of some sort, someone's experience in a 'move of God', someone's spoken word of prophecy or their behavior, it is all, I repeat, all subject to the boundaries of the word of God. There is no room for personal subjectivity on what Jesus commanded. There is no place for blatant disregard for the teaching of Paul on church order. There should be no tolerance for blatant rebellion of the Ten Commandments even.<br /><br />Why is it that we accept the sincere even when it deviates from Scripture? I like to say what Phil McCutchen shared once as he quoted someone when he said, 'people have raised emotion to a level of irresistable force.' We give permission for disobedience when we embrace emotion over obedience. We tolerate error because we desire personal satisfaction over personal sacrifice. This mentality produces a spiritual kind of 'do what feels good' lifestyle.<br /><br />In the book of James, chapter 1, James is writing to the Church. He is encouraging steadfastness during times of trial. He encourages them to put away filthiness and wickedness and receive the implanted word. In verse 22 he goes on to say, 'be doers of the word, and not hearers only....' It was the word of God that was to dictate the believer's interaction with the world he lived in.<br /><br />In II Timothy chapter 3, Paul was explaining that eventually there would come a time when people would be corrupt. As a matter of fact, he described them as 'lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness, but denying its power...' Paul went on to urgently tell Timothy to continue with what he had learned form the sacred writings (word of God). Then he wrote this in verse 16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."<br /><br /><em><strong>We have forgotten what the Word of God is actually for.</strong></em><br /><br />God's word isn't given to us to be subjetively interpreted so we can live out experiences to make us feel good. It was given to us to tell us how to live. Perhaps that's why people have a problem with it. When something seems whacky, it's OK to judge it based upon the Word. When people openly err from the truth a rebuke is in order. When people are wrong, as we all sometimes can be, correction is acceptable. While people are sincere in their beliefs they can be sincerley wrong.<br /><br />God's word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths. It is there to guide us and is THE standard to which we conform to so to be fashioned into the image of Christ. It teaches how to live and tells us how to love. It absolutely has our best interests in mind. So I encourage everyone to let obedience to the Word of God be your source of joy, fulfillment and satisfaction instead of a sense of clinging to a right to a subjective, experience-based faith. Read it, know it, speak it and live it!<br /><br />You, and those on your journey with you, will be better for it.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-18267856709121913562010-04-13T19:58:00.011-06:002010-04-13T22:31:36.323-06:00Trying to Pull It OffRick Warren is a mega church pastor in California that has reached a level of acclaim and notoriety almost unrivalled in contemporary history. He has done so using the momentum of his New York Times best seller's list work known as "The Purpose Driven Life".<br /><br />Notoriety, popularity or whatever you want to call it, can be accompanied by many things; wealth, fame, favor, sometimes even scorn and criticism. Be that as it may, it at the least calls attention to one's self, desired or not. One of the interesting things about notoriety, escpecially in Christian circles as I observe, is that it gives the notion that the popular person is a source of knowledge that is to be sought out, listened to and followed. This is a common North American attribute of the famous. <br /><br />In one of Rick Warren's latest emails to subscribers he communicated some things that at first glance are timely, practical and current. After some not so deeper examination, call it a second read, I find his comments empty, lacking and void of God's wisdom. I think he misses the point of Christianity and the Body of Christ and indicates erroneous thinking. After reading the quote I'll explain.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>"It takes enormous amounts of energy, creativity, commitment, time, money, and preparation to pull off a worship service that will attract visitors and focus them on Jesus. Why go to all this trouble trying to bridge the cultural gap between the church and the unchurched? We do it in service to Jesus and we do it because we care about the lost people Jesus cares about." </strong></em> <br /><br /> Rick Warren<br /><br /><br />1. Like many North American pastors, the 'worship service' has been relegated to an event. No longer a corporate expression of the Body of Christ together, no longer an experience by all who gather to be edified together, the worship service is a show that is put on by the professionals or the ones who have auditioned and been deemed 'competent enough' to lead worship.<br /><br />This thinking flies in the face of scripture and the writings of the apostle Paul when he wrote 'offer yourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, this is your spiritual worship." (paraphrased). He encouraged the believers when they came together to speak to one another with spiritual psalms, making melody in their hearts. Worship was not reduced to a few pros on a platform, it was how you lived your life. Based on the teachings of scripture, a worship service isn't just something you 'pull off'.<br /><br /><br /><em><strong>Based on the teachings of scripture, a worship service isn't just something you 'pull off'</strong></em><br /><br /><br />2. Attracting visitors. This is where I believe most people simply just get it wrong. It's not even their fault. We have inherited a Christianity that doesn't look like early Christianity and do the things we do without even knowing why.<br /><br />The purpose of a worship 'service' is not, nor should it ever be, to attract visitors. A look at the New Testament writings of Paul would explain this fully. Ephesians 5:19 states, "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord," The gathering of believers for corporate worship was <em>for them</em> and not to attract and impress unbelievers. The expression of worship to God in both Old and New Testament contexts was to always be from a place of holiness and concecration. Even in the Old Testament Tabernacle time, unbelievers could be permitted in the outer court, but, for worship and sacrifice they could not enter the inner court.<br /><br />Philippians 3:3 explains it this way, "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh..." Worship was for the believers, those of what Paul called 'the circumcision' referring to the covenant relationship between God and his people.<br /><br />All of this added to Rick's comments on how it takes a lot of time, creativity, commitment, money etc. etc. all point to even more things wrong with this philosophy. A worship service of showmanship will always be meant for impressing/attracting unbelievers. True worship will cost you nothing and you won't have to have a planning session or rehersal to 'pull it off'.<br /><br />Bridging a 'cultural gap'. Many North American churches believe, teach and pursue this thing called 'cultural relevance'. I need to be frank here. I don't see Jesus, the apostles or even the early church fathers concerned about this. Jesus' parting words were to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature and to make disciples. I would contend that being culturally relevant can be fun, creative, and attract attention to religious organizations and personalities, but it is not on Christ's top listing of priority. Why? I write this because when one examines what people do to be 'culturally relevant', we see nothing more than mimicking a worldly, earthly pattern of finding significance. Some try to have dramatic presentations, others focus on current music styles while others incorporate the arts. I do not forbid the use and enjoyment of any of these as I firmly believe that they are good and given to us to be enjoyed. But that's it. They are not given to make disciples because they cannot. That is what believers do in relationship with other human beings. In the end, vast amounts of budgeted monies are spent on religious entertainment to validate paid professional positions in churches and organizations.<br /><br />Final thoughts<br /><br />As I walk my journey of faith I am challenged to, instead of accept the inherited Christianity we've been handed, read the scriptures and find out what they mean and try to live it. Sometimes I don't like the answers to my questions. Sometimes I don't like the fact that I have to change what I used to believe. Sometimes I don't want to change how I live. Yet, in all of this, it's the living Word of God that transforms all of us. The Holy Spirit is our teacher to help bring understanding to it all.<br /><br />I have no personal vendetta against Rick Warren, nor do I write this as a personal attack. I do however have a personal passion for the correct and paramount regard for the teachings of scripture, not the mere interpretations of man. Counting myself among the company of imperfect, flawed humanity, I encourage you to re-examine what you do and why you do it and ask the hard questions. Re-read the scriptures and find their meaning and understanding. That's the one thing we all need to know how to pull off.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-4644815082868232422010-04-06T15:05:00.007-06:002010-04-06T15:34:57.535-06:00"Happy Easter""Happy Easter" the stranger said as he greeted dozens of families at a hockey tournament. Sounds so nice and polite, so sanitized. "Happy Easter" is what a couple of parents said to me as we all left our dinner party and headed to our hotel rooms. Happy Easter. "Easter" is the title of all kinds of photo albums on Facebook depicting little ones and their 'second Christmas' of the year. Happy Easter. "Got the kids a puppy for Easter" was another post I read online. Happy Easter. "What is your favorite part of Easter" I asked my own kids. "Candy" was their answer. My God where have I gone wrong? Where have we gone wrong? Happy Easter. <br /><br /><strong></strong><em></em><em><strong>For he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed.</strong></em><strong></strong><em></em><br /><br />Happy Easter. An innocent man was murdered. He claimed to be the Christ and after death, rose again. While we have claimed that Jesus is the only way, truth and life, we have mingled the common with the holy. We have done so as an attempt to make the taste of Christianity more palletable to non-believers. Have we really remembered the significance of what Christ did? Do we really commemorate it and if so, how? With eggs? Chocolate? Bunnies? Bonnets? Have believing parents discussed the scriptures with our children? Have we opened the pages of holy writ, read it to them, questioned them and reiterated the truth we hold dear or have we reliquished this holy time to the infiltration of counterfeits?<br /><br />The only way to commemorate 'Easter' is with the cross and I don't mean by displaying one. I mean, and spiritually, getting on one. This symbol of death does not look good or make us feel good. It should make us feel uncomfortable. It reminds us to put to death the deeds of the flesh, something we've forgotten in North American Christianity. It reminds us of the wages of sin. It reminds us of our human condition and the need for a savior. There no place for fun and games at the cross...it's all business; God's business. He's in the business of judging sin and giving grace and that's exactly what he did when Christ became sin and God's wrath was satisfied on that day.<br /><br />It's a solemn occasion when someone dies. It's a special occasion when someone gives you a gift. "<em><strong>The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life</strong></em>" are the very crux of what happened on that first 'Easter'. Do we understand the deep meaning behind all of this? <br /><br />May you experience the deep appreciation of knowing sins are forgiven and the liberty of God's grace while never forgetting what had to happen to make it all possible.<br /><br />Happy Easter.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-79548620451267349042010-03-25T23:22:00.008-06:002010-03-25T23:54:40.906-06:00Will the Real Christian Please Stand Up?Twice this week I have heard the quote 'we don't know what we don't know'. I have taken just a little bit of time to think about it and it is absolutely true. Those things that are outside of the scope of our current realm of personal knowledge really are unknown to us. It is from this thought that I bound into one of my points.<br /><br /><br /><br />Several weeks ago one of my co-workers shared with me how they had heard Billy Graham's daughter being interviewed on television. They shared that they were a bit uncomfortable with the fact that she was saying that Jesus Christ was the only way to have sins forgiven, that Jesus was the only savior and outside of him there was no other way to know, see or please God. I must admit, being on television being viewed by millions and saying that can come across as a bit arrogant to some. Maybe elitist to others. Make no mistake though, as she uttered those words she did so with a passionate clarity. She drew lines that made it very clear what she believed and intended to communicate to those listening.<br /><br /><br /><br />As my co-worker shared her discomfort with those statements with me, I shared with her about the interview I watched on Larry King Live with Joel Osteen. Osteen, who pastors the largest attended church in the United States was asked by King if Jesus is the only way to get to heaven or something to that effect. Mr. Osteen responded with some very uncomfortable utterances of things resembling, "I don't want to judge anybody. God knows a persons heart." etc. When Mr. King asked Osteen if Jews, who believe in God, were wrong and not going to heaven, Osteen back peddled and offered no definitive answers but only more words of things like, "Only God knows a person's heart etc. etc.".<br /><br /><br /><br />Compare the two responses and one will clearly see a difference. Billy Graham's daughter made no apology and said Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him. Mr. Osteen was simply bent on not offending anyone with what the Bible says and insisted, despite what the Bible says, that we really can't know who has been a recipient of God's saving grace, only God can know that.<br /><br /><br /><br />While Mr. Osteen is preaching the message that we don't know what we don't know, Miss Graham seemed more intent on focussing on what we do know. The difference in deciding on what to say to the people around us is found in the consequences stemming from what we have said. While it is more palatable to be the bearer of good news and supply all the warm fuzzies for people, one can find themselves being thrown under the proverbial bus for actually standing up and proclaiming Christ.<br /><br /><br /><br />As we read Philipians, specifically chapter 1, we notice Paul saying something quite interesting. Our pastor at church pointed this out and hovered on this one Sunday morning. Paul said that "it has been granted to us that we should not only believe, but also suffer for his sake..." (I paraphrase verse 29).<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><em>In this amazing little verse we see that it is possible, it is within the realm of acceptability for the Christian, yes, even perhaps to be expected, and then taken as no surprise, that suffering may be part of our journey with Christ</em></strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br />This isn't Sunday morning-bring-your-friend-to-church stuff. This is real life, at work, talking to someone about Christ and the Bible stuff. This is where the world meets Jesus in you and in me. What my co-workers don't need to hear is that I don't know what I don't know. What they need to understand is that God loves them, Christ died for them and that somehow, through an imperfect, awful person like myself, they can be introduced to the saving grace of God through Christ by getting the message that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.<br /><br /><br /><br />I finished my conversation with my co-worker defending Miss Graham for it is her that stood up for what was true with passion and conviction despite the barrage she may have taken. My co-worker said, "I'll give you that, that's a good point." While one Christian was proclaiming Christ, the other was hiding behind what he didn't know. Would the real Christian please stand up? Are you standing?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-25647802566493349342009-06-07T17:50:00.019-06:002009-07-14T21:25:58.020-06:00Response to "The God Delusion"Having recently finished reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, I put the book down having come to some immediate conclusions, some of which are apparent early into the book. In no way am I personally attacking Mr. Dawkins but I must say that it is evident that almost everything written in his book is an elitist, angry, condescending and sometimes sarcastic tirade against theists. For sure it makes for very interesting reading. Notwithstanding he's probably a nice fellow. He seems to be a man that couches his words from the view of science and Darwinism but ultimately proves nothing chapter after chapter. There are some things in principle that I do appreciate about the book that I have gleaned and find useful. There are other things that I do not. I will summarize some things that are addressed in his book and condense them here.<br /><br /><br /><br />One of the glaring things I find is that Mr. Dawkins basically 'cherry picks' his examples of why he believes there is no God, or as he puts it "why there <em>almost</em> certainly is not God" (emphasis mine). Several times he refers to theologians that refute the writings of scripture. Of course it fits right in with his view that there is no God because the theologians that he likes to refer to agree with him on some points. How convenient. He doesn't get detailed in referencing their bodies of work at all. He simply slips in their congruent views and we're supposed to simply believe it's true.<br /><br />On the same note, Mr. Dawkins writes that the Bible is inconsistent throughout and therefore it is an unreliable text. I would challenge any reader to re-examine that claim. The Bible was written over a period of fifteen hundred years by over 40 different authors. It is amazing how they all have the same story sewn into the fabric of each book. The documentation of the New Testament surpasses most of the writings of antiquity. To say that there isn't evidence of this is absurd. It is very clear, in my opinion, that Mr. Dawkins ignores the literary evidence of the continuity of the Bible, ignores the manuscript evidence that supports it and simply cozies up to liberal theologian opinion that bolsters his own views.<br /><br /><br /><br />Another thing that Mr. Dawkins does to prove that there almost certainly is no God, is to tell the reader that because the first cause of the existence of God causes a problem that he can't think of a solution to, then God really can't exist. I don't know how that is theological or scientific. Just because something seems out of the realm of discovery by a human being doesn't necessarily make it not possible or improbable. It simply makes it unknowable.<br /><br /><br /><br />Constantly Mr. Dawkins refers to Darwinian natural selection. This is a process that he says is scientific. I am not a scientist but, as far as I know, in order for something to be scientifically proven, it must be observable and repeatable, you know, like in an experiment. The Darwinain teaching of natural selection is neither. No one has seen natural selection actually take place (it is assumed like many things scientifc in the past). That would be the convenience of a theory that is based on changes over millions of years. Notwithstanding that, in all of nature as far as I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, genetic mutations of any kind are disastrous and detrimental to a species, they do not improve it. To base the improvement for survival of a species upon genetic mutations (in other words, messing with DNA) seems like a far stretch of the imagination knowing what is available to know and understand about genetic mutations. The record of genetic mutations is littered with 'train wrecks' and all sorts of problems. Simply put, genetic mutations are not good for a species.<br /><br /><br /><br />It is interesting to note that while Mr. Dawkins accuses theists of unfairly indoctrinating others with theistic teachings about God and the existence of a God, Mr. Dawkins seems impervious to the notion that perhaps he is the victim of the same thing. While he accuses believers of filling young impressionable minds with theistic teaching, he himself, once a young impressionable mind, has fallen victim to the same thing. He sat under the Darwinian teaching of professors not knowing for himself what it may have entailed. Having become enamoured and then convinced of Darwinism, he was indoctrinated by professors of the scientific merits of Darwinism. By the way, Darwinian evolution still has yet to be observed and even proven. To say that one has observed it would not be true as one would actually have to personally witness, record and communicate to the world the first-hand account of what happened. This has never come to pass. Again, it is assumed as fact.<br /><br />Ultimately, in the end, <em>The God Delusion</em> may attempt to explain the improbability of God and magnify any virtues of natural selection and Darwinian evolution all the way back to basic earth but there is one glaring question that is never addressed or even attempted to be answered in the entire book...<strong><em>where did matter come from in the first place? </em></strong>Yes, there it is. Evolution / natural selection need matter to start from. Never mind the origin of "life" itself. There is not one scientist that can explain how the matter that is present in all of the universe got here in the first place. It had to come from somewhere. Where? Matter didn't evolve from nothing. Can we even dare suggest that inanimate matter existed in infinity past on it's own accord?<br /><br /><strong>Don't Read This Part if You Don't Want the Truth.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Mr. Dawkins DID indeed make some good points. One of the points is that, particularly in American Christianity, Christians are biblically illiterate. They simply do not know why they believe what they believe. He is also correct that high profile Christian leaders in America have made some very bold, inflamatory statements that lack the very love that they say Jesus showed us with his lifestyle. I witnessed this (sadly) as I read Facebook news feeds from friends and aquaintances that are Christian. He cites examples of unorthodox views and teachings of different Christians that, I would say, are simply not biblical in there origins. He also points to the apparent intolerance by Christians when opposed by people with different views. He refers to a deep seated 'respect for religion' that is inherent in our culture and despises the fact that people can't step on other's 'religious toes'. That got me thinking.<br /><br />I could spend all day joining with people of like mind and faith criticizing and berating Mr. Dawkins for all of the areas in which we disagree. However, of even more concern to me is the fact that his book, <strong><em>The God Delusion</em></strong> even had to be written. Perhaps we could spend more time seeking to live the life of biblical Christianity instead of demanding that a non-religious world aquiesce to what we Christians demand from them.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-8773431368575237062009-04-13T10:28:00.011-06:002009-04-13T15:36:32.329-06:00Easter is Over...Are They Getting the Message?For the last several years I have notice a trend. Just because I noticed it over the last few years doesn't necessarily mean it's started this recently. Actually the trend has gone on for many years. The trend is disturbing and alarming for it poses some deep questions and the consequences are dire. I challenge the contemporary Christian to refute it after seeing the evidence. So what is this trend and more importantly, what are the consequences of it?<br /><br /><strong><em>The trend in North American Christianity is to lure non-believers into a church service and utilize presentation and mulit-media (none of which are evil or bad) in hopes to boost attendance and gain adherents. The mark of success of such an event is, of course, how many people showed up.</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />How do I know this? Look and listen to blogs, instant messages or facebook statuses and read what people are saying. It's things like, "God was good, we had a packed house this Easter weekend." Or, We had a great Easter, all three services were jammed!" etc. etc. As if God wasn't good if the house was empty or Easter wouldn't be great if only a few showed up. I am of the persuasion that words mean things and if we take what people are saying, we are seeing revealed what is really valued. Don't misunderstand me, I am delighted to know that people are assembling in great numbers at any given church. However, the FACT remains that these people, for the most part, do not come back. If they indeed stay and participate in such an assembly, they are often succeptible to an experience-driven spectacle which is focussed upon a once-a-week gathering. This gathering is a resource-rich endeavor which, many times is about the presentation and not the message of the gospel. Some may differ with my viewpoint, however, the FACT remains that the masses of North American church goers remain biblically illiterate.<br /><br />George Barna, a Christian pollster based in California has tracked Americans' beliefs of Christian faith and practice for decades. <strong>While showing great opportunities for evangelism among the population, his research has astoundingly shown a decline in the embracing of biblical Christianity. </strong> Churches are planted, outreaches are conducted, thousands of dollars are spent while Christmas and Easter productions abound but in the end do people really understand what biblical Christianity is all about? Sadly, if we look at the evidence, the answer is no!<br /><br /><em>(George Barna, the author of nearly four dozen books analyzing research concerning America’s faith, suggested that Americans are constantly trying to figure out how to make sense of biblical teachings in light of their daily experiences. </em>For a full article, go to the following link, <a href="http://www.barna.org/">www.barna.org</a>.)<br /><br />Why is it that North Americans are still trying to figure out how to make sense of biblical teachings? I have an opinion. As a sinner, saved by grace, in need of God's word alive in my life, I humbly offer what that opinion is.<br /><br /><strong>1. Our proof texting sermons do not work.</strong><br /><br />I implore preachers everywhere to stop taking one Bible verse and base-jumping off into what they want it to say. Not only is it risky doctrinally but it leaves the hearer misguided on what the Bible is really saying most of the time. There are too many examples of God's word being mishandled on a weekly basis to list. It's one thing to use creativity to illustrate what God's word is saying. It's entirely different, and I believe erroneous, to use one's creativity to bolster what one thinks God's word could be saying based on one verse.<br /><br />While some are obsessed with being creative, catchy and cute, congregations leave every Sunday morning malnourished spiritually. In some cases it's like going to the fair and having a good time and leaving with a mound of cotton candy on a stick. The experience is fast forgotten and nothing gained.<br /><br /><strong>2. Reading a book and getting a sermon from it is short-changing our congregations.</strong><br /><br />There I said it. Not only that, I have been guilty of it. Instead of doing the <strong><em>work</em></strong> of reading the Bible, poring over the contents of the text, studying the context and knowing what it all means, many, including myself, have taken the broad road, the easy route. We've busied ourselves with other things, deemed them more important than studying the word and then picked up a great book. This book provided an outline, an illustration, a pat anwer and a way to save time so we could conjure up something we call 'relevant' for our congregation on Sunday morning.<br /><br />Remember "The Prayer of Jabez"? There were books and devotionals and sermons and videos and on and on and on. All of the sudden God promised almost everything to everyone. People couldn't get enough of it. Was the prayer of Jabez really about God increasing our stuff? Who was Jabez? Does anyone know and does his prayer apply to everyone? We should find that out.<br /><br />What about "Wild at Heart"? Remember that book? Pastors preached sermons on that for weeks all over North America. Was that book even biblical in all points? If we look at it in totality we must admit that the book alludes to, to some degree, an impossible force of male human nature that is not subject to the obedience of scripture. Do we really want to buy into that?<br /><br />What about Jeremiah's "I know the plans I have for you..." That was God's answer to everyone who had a problem at one point. Was Jeremiah talking to all God-fearers of all time or was he talking to a select group of people? Do we forget that Jeremiah was the one who prophesied that God would bring Israel into captivity? Do we forget that God had plans to almost obliterate Israel in their rebellion?<br /><br />Read chapter 4 of Jeremiah's prophecy and you'll see in the language that God was angered and he was about to throw down some serious punishment for Isreal's rebellion. There was a lot of punishment and anger language LONG BEFORE there was any word of "plans for a future and a hope" from Jeremiah.<br /><br /><strong><em>It's sad to say but it looks like, in many cases, we want to offer people a real hope without the right heart.</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br /><strong>3. Realize that it's not about Sunday morning shows or even small groups. It's about the health of a community of believers with Jesus Christ as the common denominator.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />This is hard because, unfairly, many pastors are evaluated as successful or not based upon weekly attendance. They are judged on displays of creativity on Sunday mornings and marketing. Sadly, the job of the pastor has changed from spiritual shepherd of the flock of God to paid professional clergy. I know of one pastor in Illinois who got the word from his board that, because attendance hadn't grown as quickly as they would have liked by a certain time, he would have to resign as pastor of that church. How biblical. I might remind people that "church attendance" during certain times of the Roman Empire during persecution were quite low, but the numbers of the Church increased dramatically! Why? They were in desperate need of relationship with each other.<br /><br />In the book of John, Jesus prayed a prayer before he was taken to be crucified. It is absolutely amazing what he said because it really boiled down what it's all about. It's absolutely amazing what Jesus said to his father. Among the things he said were, a) I told them YOUR message, b) YOUR word is truth, c) I want all of them to be one with each other.<br /><br />The gospel is about people hearing the truth of God's word and becoming interconnected with the family of faith that has done the same. Why? Because we do not belong to this world. We are separate from it, hated by it and will experience pain and suffering while in it. Instead of focusing resources on presenting a media-rich message to experience one day a week, we should be promoting a connectedness among the community of faith throughout the week as well. We do this so that we are encouraged, that our needs are met and the gospel goes forward.<br /><br />So, pastors, teachers, evangelists, let's make sure that together, we are doing the hard work of teaching and promoting the kingdom of God as disciples of Christ, not just church attenders. Pews might not be packed like we would want them but we'd be wise to make sure people get the right message.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-5834956289095493292009-02-01T22:59:00.015-07:002009-02-04T23:01:26.161-07:00There's Probably No God Part 2...There, you should feel good now.<br /><br /><br /><br />After reading Part 1 of this blog, one would notice that the Canadian Free Thought Association urges the masses to believe "There's probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life." I contend that this isn't just about the debate of the existence of God or not. <strong><em>This is about feeling good.</em></strong><br /><br /><br /><br />Getting a free pass <em>for something</em> feels good. For instance, I was skiing with my kids and because of windy conditions on the mountain, several portions of the mountain were closed. The resort issued "snow checks" or "free passes" to come and ski again due to adverse conditions. <strong>It felt good.</strong><br /><br /><br /><br />Getting off the hook <em>from something</em> feels good to. Getting pulled over for speeding and the authority with the badge gives you just the warning, you breathe a sigh of relief. You were just let off the hook. <strong>You feel good</strong>.<br /><br /><br /><br />I contend that much of atheism proposes a 'no limits' lifestyle. There is no right or wrong or moral code, nor can there be for the essence of right or wrong or morality is up to the individual. There can also be no absolutes. Everything is contingent upon the will and whim of the individual.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Atheism says there are no absolutes...and says so with absolute surety! I'm not even sure how that can be possible.</strong><br /><br /><strong></strong><br /><p>The right to do what one wants, to pursue one's desires to produce maximum pleasure in life is at the heart of the "there is probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life" philosophy. Selfish ambition, decadence, narcisism and self-gratification are the driving forces of life. Where does this lead? What road does this take a person down?</p>For some reason, the atheist or agnostic thinks people feel bad about things because of a belief in God. Guilt. Regret. Whatever you may call it, they think it's devestating. I hold that while a belief in God may proudce those things, and even should do so, it's not all bad. For if guilt or regret can lead to change, and change leads to a new start and way of life for someone, how can that be bad?<br /><br /><br /><p>A person with a heart to be concerned about the needs of others, a willingness to help someone and a selfless appreciation of others can produce a lot of good in the world. What would happen if people, instead of living according to a self-centered/self-gratification lifestyle, lived according to the teachings of Jesus Christ on loving your neighbor, being concerned about other people and doing unto others as we would have them do unto us?</p>After Katrina hit New Orleans, it was the God-believers that were there first. The president asked the nation to pray. Church groups from all different denominations sent aid and even went and helped themselves, giving their own time and resources. I'm not saying atheists weren't there helping, I'm saying that there was and is something about a belief in God that is far more demonstrable than what atheism has ever produced. This is for a reason.<br /><br /><strong>The real heart of atheism is humanism.</strong><br /><br />Yes, man wants to be the boss. He wants to be master of his destiny. He wants to be accountable to no one. He wants to call the shots. We're pretty high and might for a species that, like all others, ends up in a hole in the ground. The human that is not beholden to the dictates of a God can do anything he wants with impunity.<br /><br /><strong>"If God is not, everything is permitted."</strong><br /><br /><strong>Fyodor Dostoyevsky</strong><br /><br /><br />Humanism/atheism produced communism (Stalin, Lenin).<br /><br />Humanism/atheism has, out of self-interest and exultation, anhiliated <em>millions</em> of innocent people (Hitler, Mao Zedong).<br /><br />Humanism/atheism has watch millions starve to death.<br /><br /><br />Conversely...<br /><br /><br />Belief in God produced Mother Teresa who served for decades in Calcutta helping the poor, the orphaned.<br /><br />Belief in God feeds, clothes and educates thousands of kids in Haiti through people like George DeTellis at New Missions (<a href="http://www.newmissions.org/">http://www.newmissions.org/</a>).<br /><br />Belief in God brings the prostitute and drug addict off the streets of Los Angeles, California through places like the LA Dream Center and introduces them to a brand new start in life.<br /><br /><br />Yes there are atheists that have not killed and yes there are believers in God that have done little for the cause of Christ. <strong>In the grand scheme of things however, one would have to admit that far more than atheism, a belief in God has the propensity to produce far more virtue in life.</strong><br /><br /><br />To summarize, the atheist/agnostic/humanist doesn't want to be held accountable from a God or a higher power for anything they do in this life. Doesn't make them a bad neighbor. Doesn't make them a mass murderer either. It does make them at odds with what many people hold as the truth, and that being that they believe that God does exist and does play an active role in our universe. Because that God exists, they, one day, will be accountable for what they did do with their lives.<br /><br />So you have a short version of what I think about atheism/agnosticism/humanism. Another question, however, comes to my mind. Does God believe in the atheist? What exactly does Christianity teach about the non-belief in the existence of God? What exactly does Christianity teach and compel it's followers to do?<br /><br /><br />Lots to discuss.<br />Worth a look.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-37889064508271333362009-01-31T13:05:00.019-07:002009-01-31T16:20:05.147-07:00There's Probably No God Part 1<strong><em>"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."</em></strong><br /><br />This is the add that will most likely be seen plastered to the sides of city buses in Calgary, Alberta. The same add is in Toronto, London and Madrid. This statement was met with criticism from the Calgary Catholic Bishop. He said that the best date to launch such a campaign would be April Fool's Day. Obviously, this is going to be a hot button. The Free Thought Association of Canada has opened a can of worms on this one. Christians oppose this idea. I won't get into whether they should or should not because we do, in fact, live in a free country with the freedom of speech. We usually don't like it when people aren't saying what we want them to say. That's natural. I do, however, want to look at the very words that the Free Thought Association of Canada actually do say.<br /><br />The statement, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." evokes a few sentiments that I think are worthwhile to look at.<br /><br />1. Probably.<br /><br />The word probably means "in all liklihood" or "presumabley". It is a word that definitely leaves room for error. It is based upon presumption and not evidence. Presume means "To take for granted that something is true or factual". This is in direct contrast with the word "true" which means, "factual". <strong><em>This idea of "there is probably no god is usually based upon no or a lack of evidence.</em></strong><br /><br />So you have a statement that is, in it's own beginning, saying it's not necessarily true, but should be believed as true, with no evidence to support it. The people who say "probably no god" should not be classified as atheists, as atheism proclaims that there is no god, while <strong><em>agnosticism</em></strong> proclaims that there is <strong><em>no knowledge</em></strong> of a god. The Free Thought Association of Canada can't even come out and say for sure that there is no god. Where's the guts?<br /><br /><strong><em>The Free Thought Association people are, as a co-worker of mine suggests, "chicken atheists" at best.</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />2. No God.<br /><br />This conversation can go on for infinity, that is if infinity exists since we humans are not infinite. So, for the purposes of our finite conversation on the topic of the existence of God, think about these things (and please take the time to research them if anyone lacks understanding)...<br /><br />- DNA and RNA. How do we get DNA? From RNA. Where does RNA come from? It is made by DNA!<br /><br />- Brownian movement. It's really cool.<br /><br />- Stars. Okay, so attempts to explain our earth as being formed by no god are accepted by many, but how do other things in the universe just get there?<br /><br />- Where did the substance to make Earth come from? Seriously, where did the first particles to make "stuff" come from? You just can't get something from nothing. It's a universal fact.<br /><br />- The <strong><em>Theory</em></strong> of Evolution. Where are the missing links of species? If evolution is still happening, there must be evidence of it taking place. There simply has to be. Whether global warming is happening or not, the theory of evolution should simply allow the strongest of the species to adapt and survive so what's the worry anyway right?<br /><br />3. Stop worrying.<br /><br /><br />The Free Thought people are really patronizing the population they speak to by saying this. They are minimizing people's real worries and elevating themselves as the authority by which their worries will be removed. <strong><em>They are saying in essence, "you are worrying about the possibility of God not being pleased with what you are doing. We're going to fix that by saying there is probably no god anyway."</em></strong> Linking worrying to the thought of the existence of a god does not seem rational. I know people that worry about money. They worry about their kids. They worry about whether or not their marriages will survive. They worry about keeping their house in this particularly declining economic environment. They worry about whether they'll have a job tomorrow. They worry if the chemo is going to work, and if it doesn't, who will take care of the kids? I have never met anyone who stays up all night worrying that God exists or not.<br /><br />4. Stop worrying.<br /><br />The proponents of the "no god" agenda use fear to manipulate their audience, yes, just like corrupt church leadership did in the Middle ages. Fear, guilt and superstition were used to make people fearful of doing or not doing certain things to propagate the church's agenda. That agenda, many times, was for the selfish ambition of the corrupt leadership. The atheist/agnostic position plays on the supposed or real fear of many and gives them a feel good pill that lets them off the proverbial providential hook. <strong><em>If it wasn't for the supposed fear of some people who believe in God, this particular position of "stop worrying about it" wouldn't be valid</em></strong>. The very act of using the "no god, stop worrying" is equal to the "God is watching, be afraid" mentality. Both are based upon perceptions that seem, to the adherent of those philosophies, to be true. But are they?<br /><br />5. Enjoy your life.<br /><br />It is very elitist, in my opinion, to simply say to someone, if you believe there is no god like "I" do, you will be free of worry and will enjoy your life. It is equally repulsive to me that someone can say that because a person believes in God, they will be full of worry and therefore not enjoy life. That is what they are saying when they write "there is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life. What else can it really mean? Empirically one would have to admit that because of their belief in God, millions of people enjoy their life. Likewise, there are <em>probably</em> (in other words I don't have evidence but I presume that it could be the case) people that are afraid that, if there is a God, this God may not be pleased with them for whatever reason and therefore, may be worried about that. I want to thank the atheists for taking care of their problem. They have solved it beyond a shadow of a doubt and now, the world can be joyful. Or is the problem actually solved?<br /><br />I, for one am not going to put my head in the sand and ignore centuries of history. There were, and still are, things done in the name of Christ that had and have no place in Christianity. Because a pope or a king or a priest or a minister or any other person past or present simply says that they are a follower of Christ and therefore excercises the authority to simply do things that are in opposition to the teachings of Christian scripture, does not in any way, shape or form make them Christian. My atheist and agostic friends, please understand this. I am not going to suppose that the abuse of power of some probably made you less than able to see the truth of Christianity, but if that is the case, I can understand. I would hope that those who embrace atheism or it's half brother, agnosticism, would be equally able to hear a Christian perspective as well.<br /><br />In closing, I'd like to sum up what the slogan in the opening says in my own words...<br /><br /><strong><em>We have no evidence or facts to back up what we believe, but, we're going to believe that there is no god. In fact, because we have the audacity to think that your life isn't enjoyable, and your belief in a god has produced fear and worry in your life, we want you to believe like us, with no evidence. Now you can stop worrying. <u>There, you should feel good now...</u></em></strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-33769819111278739372009-01-24T15:11:00.008-07:002009-01-24T23:51:14.048-07:00"Love"?I was surfing the net and checking out some sites lately and came across a blog. The blog was from a pastor on a multi-staff church. The writer of the blog was sharing some great ways to love people and was sharing of one way in particular. Here's what he said, and I quote...<br /><br />"One way we seek to love at (church) is through technology. Technology is simply a tool we offer to God to help us love others."<br /><br />The context of this statement was the explanation of the use of computers at church kiosks to garnish personal information from visitors and attendees. He went on to say how it's a great way to stay in touch with and keep track of prospects and people that are in some way connected to the church.<br /><br />Should this notion of love be accepted as loving or biblical?<br /><br /><em></em><strong>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.<em></em> </strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong><em>Jesus Christ</em></strong><br /><br />Jesus' form of loving people appears to be drastically different from what others may seem to think. While love can be packaged by some to mean gathering data, Jesus simply told us to treat people in the same manner we would want to be treated.<br /><br /><br /><em></em><strong>Love your neighbor as yourself.<br /><br /><em>Jesus Christ</em></strong><br /><br /><br />Today my neighbor knocked on my door during our family dinner. It was minus 30 degrees Celsius (really cold!) and he needed a ride to do an errand. He presently has no car and his other buddy could not assist him. My response was to simply explain to my wife what he needed, excused myself and simply took him to where he needed to go.<br /><br />I could have had him go to my computer and fill out his information, address, hobbies etc. and then get back to him later. No, I accepted the interuption as an opportunity to show love.<br /><br /><strong>This is a new commandment that I give you, that you love one another.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong><em>Jesus Christ</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />So as our dear commrade in ministry writes about love, let not one of us forget what love really is by paying attention to what Jesus Christ himself said. Are computers wrong? Absolutely not. Can they serve a purpose? Absolutely yes. Is technology and its use what Jesus intended for us to employ to love people? I am not at all convinced at that.<br /><br />The nitty gritty love that Christians are to abound in is the type that is face to face. It's the kind that causes interuptions to one's personal agenda. It's the kind that pulls a twenty out of your own pocket and helps someone out right then and there. Love causes us to hold our tongue when we want to "rip someone a new one." It is love that constrains the saints to be patient with the abbrasive people that come into contact with us on a daily basis. Simply put, love isn't some sterile, isolated, impersonal act. Let's just not be confused that's all.<br /><br />Assistance in administration and tools for management are necessary organizationally. Love, well, that's just something that us people just ought to do.<br /><br />Keep loving.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-35486573261003258452009-01-12T10:11:00.005-07:002009-01-12T10:15:48.540-07:00Salad Bar ChristianityOver the last several years I have been increasingly alarmed at the "pick and choose" approach to Christianity. In other words, I've seen a trend in people adhering to the teachings of the Bible that they like and choosing to ignore the teachings that they don't like. You know, it's kind of like going to a salad bar.<br /><br />George Barna has a recent article on his web site (www.barna.org) which backs up this trend with his latest research.<br /><br />I encourage you to give it a read at http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=324 to see for yourself. <br /><br />Simply cut and paste this link and it will take you there. If not, go to www.barna.org and you'll find it.<br /><br />Godspeed.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-35484465681873633582009-01-02T10:11:00.016-07:002009-01-02T11:09:27.731-07:00We've Never Done It That Way BeforeIt is my opinion, after months and years of observation, that many people in North America who are responsible for teaching and preaching the Bible to congregations, do so to perpetuate their own thoughts, teachings, preferences and traditions. This isn't necessarily always intentional but it still happens. Look at any Christian TV program and see for yourself. But it doesn't stop there.<br /><br /><strong>God's word still remains hidden to so many people.</strong><br /><br />At the end of 2008 I was re-introduced to God's word. This book, called the Bible, that I grew up reading, that I went to college to study verse by verse, even spent fifteen years studying it to teach to others on a weekly basis, yes this book, I was re-introuduced to in a whole new and eye-opening way. I now use an entirely different process to study and understand God's word. I think everyone else should do this too. Let's begin with the common way.<br /><br />A person, usually the minister or teacher, reads a book on church growth, leadership or some other inspirational content (doesn't really matter what it is). A quote or concept is recognized and it catches the attention of the teacher. Incidently, the concept is supported by a Bible verse or two (maybe!). Subsequently, the teacher that is "studying" for a sermon or teaching uses the verses and spring boards into all kinds of points to support his concept, theme or teaching. Sometimes it's the opposite where the Bible is being read first and then other materials are used to substantiate what the Scripture says. Presto. The Bible has been taught. Right? Hold on a minute.<br /><br />This form isn't necessarily evil. There is some good that can come of it. I participated in this form of study many times as professional clergy. It was modeled to me and it is very common. It's all I really knew for some time. The problem is that there is such a great danger of a few things. 1. It is very easy to simply make up what you want the Bible to be saying. 2. It is easy to miss much or all of what the Bible is really saying. 3. It is entirely possible to teach something that is absolutely false doctrine. There's plenty of that going on today.<br /><br /><strong>This leaves our churches biblically illiterate and impotent. It's evident all around us.<br /></strong><br />I only scratched the surface. I shortchanged myself, and probably the people I was preaching to and teaching by not utilizing another form of study of God's word.<br />Using other authors' materials, commentaries and other helps can help us widen our understanding of something perhaps, but only after the work of studying God's word by ourselves and unpacking what the scriptures say are done first.<br /><br />How do you "unpack" God's word and understand it? Well, that's what I'm committed to. Not only understanding it myself, but helping others know how to read, know and understand it as well. I'm in this process now going on about fourteen weeks. We call it "Word Ministry". My teachers have been amazing. God's word is coming more alive to me than ever before.<br /><br />P.S. Is the teaching you're sitting under need to go a bit deeper into God's word? Do this little test. <u>It doesn't mean your teacher is not prepared at all. It <em>may</em> mean that they are using the old common method</u>. Ask yourself if some of these red flags are present...<br /><br />1. Are there lots of quotes from books outside of the Bible (again, not evil but must be careful)?<br />2. Is there a catchy title and a few points that all seem to fit nicely together?<br />3. Are there random Bible verses that are all seemingly connected to the point of the teaching?<br />4. Is the theme of the message being taught simply not found in the Bible?<br />5. Can you take the same message and teach it in Haiti, the slums of Mexico or impoverished parts of North America?<br />6. Are the points of the teaching actually found in the text of the verses being taught OR are the points surmised and taken from the collective proofs of other random verses?<br /><br /><strong>Don't let anyone convince you to settle for a "we've never done it that way before" mentality. There's more in that Bible of yours. Go find it!</strong><br /><br />Go deeper!<br /><br />If you would like to know more about "word ministry" email me at <a href="mailto:escapetheflames@hotmail.com">escapetheflames@hotmail.com</a> and we can begin to dialogue about the process and perhaps find someone in your area that is committed to it and maybe help you even more. Perhaps, if I can boil it down to put into words on a web page, I can attempt to explain it. Really though, it is such an organic process, and done very well in groups, it is better taught in person. It literally takes hours and hours, perhaps days and weeks to study a passage of scripture thoroughly. No shortcuts.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16137939.post-56872807386991836352008-06-29T22:01:00.008-06:002008-08-31T16:36:42.669-06:00The Why QuestionRecently, in my previous post, I shared the heart-wrenching stories of several people that I personally knew that just simply died...all in a two week period. A young father in Florida, a mother of teenagers in Massachusetts, an infant baby boy in Alberta. On the heels of this was another heart-wrenching story of a three or four year old boy that we know that has a heart that beats at about 20 beats per minute. Sometimes at night it even stops beating! This lad now needs a pace maker.<br /><br />It's these situations that these people had, you had, perhaps we all at one time had, where we asked God "Why?" Sometimes we crumble into a heap of desperation. Sometimes we may shake our fist in anger and scream the grand question "Why God? Why?" <br /><br />Why do the young die? Why are people victimized? Why do people starve? Why do people murder? Why do natural disasters happen? Why doesn't God do something? You can fill in your own question of "why" and join the list.<br /><br />You may have heard preachers and teachers share that personal and corporate tragedies are all part of the sovereignty of God's working among mankind. I'm not saying that they aren't. I am just not going to give a pat answer and move away from people's pain at this point. We may not want to hear that our suffering has anything to do with God's sovereign plan but it might. Even more frustrating is the fact that <strong>even though our suffering may be part of God's plan, he may not be inclined to share with us what that plan is at any given time</strong>.<br /><br />The example of Job is a great way to look at human suffering in relation to God's plan for any given individual for it teaches us many lessons. Perserverance, longsuffering, faithfulness, God's restorative grace etc. But what we often overlook is the "why" question in the book of Job. <br /><br /><strong>God never answered Job's "why" question. He may not answer mine or yours.</strong><br /><br />Look in Job chapter 1 verses nine through twelve where God is almost bragging on Job's perfect uprightness...<br /><br /><em>9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." <br /><br /> 12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." </em><br /><br /><br />We know the bits and pieces of the story. Sickness, loss of all material possessions, the loss of the lives of his children and even his own wife urged him to curse God and die in light of all the aftermath. <br /><br /> <strong>I mean think about it. He lost everything in life based on what looks like a "double-dog-dare you" from Satan. So God allowed it.</strong><br /><br />Forget the friends of Job who came to "comfort" him in his state of despair. Forget the fact that bad things sometimes happen to good people. This is the worst season of Job's life. It's worse than most of us have ever lived through. What was Job's response?<br /><br /><strong>20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship 21 and said: <br /> "Naked I came from my mother's womb, <br /> and naked I will depart. <br /> The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; <br /> may the name of the LORD be praised." <br /><br /> 22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.</strong><br /><br />Job didn't say that God did him wrong, even though God is personally responsible for it all. Unbelievable! Perhaps you don't think God is responsible? Look at Job 2...<br /><br /><strong>3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." </strong><br /><br />There you have it. God admitted that he was responsible. He ruined Job for no reason. Or was there a reason? Lots of people will try to tell us, explain to us, teach and preach to us the reason. The fact of the matter is, although there are lots of life lessons to be gleaned from Job's story of tragedy to triumph, the one thing we really don't know is "why".<br /><br />So keep believing, keep walking and when life's stuff happens to you, don't be surprised if you don't always have the "why" question answered. Just keep going. Just "because".<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=GettingUpToSpeed&loc=en_US">Subscribe to Getting Up To Speed by Email</a></div>Bob McGawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10585842593140328081noreply@blogger.com0