I've grown up in church. I've heard the following passage of scripture countless times. But every once in a while the cobwebs and dust get shaken off the thought and it becomes shiny and new in my mind and heart all over again. Today has been one such day.
In Luke 23, we read of the crucifixion of Christ. There He was, the king and savior of the world, beaten, bloody and bruised beyond recognition, hanging on a rough wooden cross with a thief on either side of Him. One thief says "If you're the Messiah, save yourself, and save us while you're at it." It wasn't a genuine request for physical salvation; it was more mockery and disbelief.
In verse 40 we see the start of something amazing; something precious; something beautiful. The other thief tells the mocker "Shut up! You and I deserve to be up here because of the things we've done. We're guilty, but this man is innocent." He then looks at Jesus and says "Remember me when you come into your kingdom."
There are several implications in the words of the humble thief that paint a beautiful portrait of salvation as well as subtly imply the great truth that God looks on our hearts and not necessarily our words. The thief never directly said "I'm a sinner, and I ask you to forgive me. I believe that you're the son of God and that you will die and rise again." However, his heart found a way to express the model of salvation in an implying manner through his words.
When the thief told the mocker that Jesus was innocent but they were not, he was implying step one of salvation; admitting to being a sinner. When he looked at Jesus and said "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." he was saying two things. First, he was acknowledging that Jesus was truly the son of God. If he did not believe Jesus was who he said he was, why would he have asked Jesus to remember him. Second, he was asking for mercy and forgiveness. "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." He was saying "Please don't leave me out of heaven."
Here is a man hanging on a cross next to the savior of the world and openly demonstrating sorrow, remorse, and humility. Although he was receiving the punishment that justice demanded, Jesus brought to him the mercy that he couldn't earn and didn't deserve. I believe Jesus lost track of his own pain and suffering for just a moment, and with tears of compassion in His loving eyes He said "Today, this day, you will be with me in heaven."
Oh, my God! What grace! What mercy! Words cannot possibly convey the flood of emotion that bursts out when this beautiful painting of salvation becomes reality. We are all so completely undeserving of life everlasting, much less life in general. Yet when in our hearts we recognize how sinful we really are, acknowledge that Jesus, through His death, replaced justice with ultimate mercy, and ask Him to forgive us, he gives us healing, provision, and life everlasting.
There is no ceremony to perform. No holy writ to be recited. More than any physical action or verbal sounds, it's all in the heart. If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins, that's it. Jesus has done the rest.
Oh, my God! What grace! What love! What mercy!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Study to show thyself approved...
Yesterday morning my dad preached a message at church about rightly dividing the word of God. He started out by quoting a few of the "easy amen" verses about God's word. "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever!" and the congregation replied "Amen!" "I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says!" and the congregation shouted "Amen!" with clapping and hands in the air. Little did they know that they were about to be blasted with some awesome truth that they desperately needed to hear...and I needed them to hear.
If the Bible says what it means and means what it says then Jesus preached cannibalism and women are to keep silent in church. He then broke it down and gave three important keys to studying God's word. More specifically, three questions to ask when trying to understand scripture: why was it written, to whom was it written, and how does it apply to me?
As he preached, there was only a small corner of the church that was shouting "Amen!" with him. It was those of us who are thoroughly annoyed by the judgement coming from religious people who have not studied the scriptures they so quickly throw out to condemn. It was quite entertaining for me, although I know that's not exactly the best attitude to have.
He didn't dive into debunking the religious misunderstandings in Leviticus, which is probably wise since it would have turned a 45 minute message into a 7 day series. However, I sincerely hope that people will follow these three keys when studying God's word. More specifically, I'd really like it if they would follow these three keys when trying to tell other people that they are in sin.
On a different note, Saturday night Alex, my new friend Angel, and myself played worship, and it was surprisingly great. We didn't get to practice much, so I was worried that it was going to suck, but it was actually a lot of fun and I think it turned out pretty great. We had a whole lot of fun...Then Sunday after the morning service we stuck around and had worship practice, and that too went really well. We ironed out 3 songs, 2 of which were brand new, and I think they're going to be a lot of fun to play.
That's all. I know this blog isn't exactly like my typical religious or political rant, but I'm pleased to say that at this moment, I don't really have anything to rant about. So, until something else pisses me off...
Cheers and God Bless!
Hoss
If the Bible says what it means and means what it says then Jesus preached cannibalism and women are to keep silent in church. He then broke it down and gave three important keys to studying God's word. More specifically, three questions to ask when trying to understand scripture: why was it written, to whom was it written, and how does it apply to me?
As he preached, there was only a small corner of the church that was shouting "Amen!" with him. It was those of us who are thoroughly annoyed by the judgement coming from religious people who have not studied the scriptures they so quickly throw out to condemn. It was quite entertaining for me, although I know that's not exactly the best attitude to have.
He didn't dive into debunking the religious misunderstandings in Leviticus, which is probably wise since it would have turned a 45 minute message into a 7 day series. However, I sincerely hope that people will follow these three keys when studying God's word. More specifically, I'd really like it if they would follow these three keys when trying to tell other people that they are in sin.
On a different note, Saturday night Alex, my new friend Angel, and myself played worship, and it was surprisingly great. We didn't get to practice much, so I was worried that it was going to suck, but it was actually a lot of fun and I think it turned out pretty great. We had a whole lot of fun...Then Sunday after the morning service we stuck around and had worship practice, and that too went really well. We ironed out 3 songs, 2 of which were brand new, and I think they're going to be a lot of fun to play.
That's all. I know this blog isn't exactly like my typical religious or political rant, but I'm pleased to say that at this moment, I don't really have anything to rant about. So, until something else pisses me off...
Cheers and God Bless!
Hoss
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Benitez Family Seeks Instant Access to High Society
Meridian police responded to a 911 call placed by a member of the Benitez family in the evening on May 13th. The father and separated-husband, Ricardo Benitez was in need of medical help and not in his right mind according to the family. Nevertheless, the police showed up and Ricardo had a bread knife. He lunged at the police officers, showing physical, deadly aggression. The police drew their weapons and three bullets ripped through the chest of Ricardo Benitez, killing him at the scene.
The family called the police because he was a danger to himself and others. He lunged at police officers with a potentially deadly weapon, and they shoot him. Now, the family has taken legal action and is filling a lawsuit against the City of Meridian, the Meridian police department, the former and president police chiefs and the State of Idaho. The lawsuit is in the amount of $5 million dollars.
When I heard this on the news last evening, I was completely furious. While I'm sure the family misses their husband and father, this is a shameless attempt to bleed the local and state governments so the family can drive a Cadillac or buy a new house in a $500,000+ subdivision.
Shame on the family. Shame on the snaky lawyer representing these greedy leeches. People need to take some friggin' responsibility for their actions and quit blaming everything on everyone else. If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. If you pull a weapon on a cop, there's a good chance you're going to get shot. It's not rocket science and there really aren't any exceptions to the rule. Police have a hard enough time dealing with situations just like this without having to worry that if they pull the trigger to preserve their own lives or the lives of their colleagues that they could end up losing their jobs, costing the city or state millions, or ending up in jail themselves. If the local, state, and federal governments don't stand behind the actions of their officers, that's exactly what will happen. They will simply stop doing their jobs because no one has their backs; they will not protect us because no one will protect them from the fallout.
If you pull a weapon on a cop, you're going to get shot. If you're walking along through the forest and a bear attacks you, you shoot the bear. But what the Benitez family is doing in this case is saying "You shouldn't have shot that bear. He didn't know what he was doing. It's not his fault that he attacked you, even though we thought he was scary enough that we needed to call you."
What would've happened if the police hadn't used their weapons and this psycho killed one of them? Where would the outrage be then? And better yet, how would the Idaho un-Statesman spin the story to make the police department out to be the bad guy? Would the government give the dead cop's family $5 million in damages? Fat chance.
If it were up to me, the friggin' Benitez family wouldn't see one red cent. And further, I'd see to it that the family and the lawyer paid for every cost in fighting this stupid, greedy lawsuit. While I'm at it, why not through the friggin' liberal Idaho Statesman in there too. I'm assuming left-wing spin writing pays pretty well, so let them shoulder some of the load.
Or better yet, make the family, the lawyer and the Statesman pay every one of the police officers for psychological damages from having to use deadly force. You can be sure that the communist ACLU would make a trip to the great state of Idaho to see to it that that one got spun into some sort of racial issue or something.
Cheers, God bless, and thanks for reading my rant!
The family called the police because he was a danger to himself and others. He lunged at police officers with a potentially deadly weapon, and they shoot him. Now, the family has taken legal action and is filling a lawsuit against the City of Meridian, the Meridian police department, the former and president police chiefs and the State of Idaho. The lawsuit is in the amount of $5 million dollars.
When I heard this on the news last evening, I was completely furious. While I'm sure the family misses their husband and father, this is a shameless attempt to bleed the local and state governments so the family can drive a Cadillac or buy a new house in a $500,000+ subdivision.
Shame on the family. Shame on the snaky lawyer representing these greedy leeches. People need to take some friggin' responsibility for their actions and quit blaming everything on everyone else. If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. If you pull a weapon on a cop, there's a good chance you're going to get shot. It's not rocket science and there really aren't any exceptions to the rule. Police have a hard enough time dealing with situations just like this without having to worry that if they pull the trigger to preserve their own lives or the lives of their colleagues that they could end up losing their jobs, costing the city or state millions, or ending up in jail themselves. If the local, state, and federal governments don't stand behind the actions of their officers, that's exactly what will happen. They will simply stop doing their jobs because no one has their backs; they will not protect us because no one will protect them from the fallout.
If you pull a weapon on a cop, you're going to get shot. If you're walking along through the forest and a bear attacks you, you shoot the bear. But what the Benitez family is doing in this case is saying "You shouldn't have shot that bear. He didn't know what he was doing. It's not his fault that he attacked you, even though we thought he was scary enough that we needed to call you."
What would've happened if the police hadn't used their weapons and this psycho killed one of them? Where would the outrage be then? And better yet, how would the Idaho un-Statesman spin the story to make the police department out to be the bad guy? Would the government give the dead cop's family $5 million in damages? Fat chance.
If it were up to me, the friggin' Benitez family wouldn't see one red cent. And further, I'd see to it that the family and the lawyer paid for every cost in fighting this stupid, greedy lawsuit. While I'm at it, why not through the friggin' liberal Idaho Statesman in there too. I'm assuming left-wing spin writing pays pretty well, so let them shoulder some of the load.
Or better yet, make the family, the lawyer and the Statesman pay every one of the police officers for psychological damages from having to use deadly force. You can be sure that the communist ACLU would make a trip to the great state of Idaho to see to it that that one got spun into some sort of racial issue or something.
Cheers, God bless, and thanks for reading my rant!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
An interesting look into Christians and swearing...
I have found myself a bit grumpy these last few days, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out why. I had a good weekend, I've got a full yet fulfilling week ahead of me, both in and out of work, and yet I just couldn't seem to shake this gray feeling; this sort of tired blase` that I just couldn't get rid of, much to my wife's chagrin.
Well, today I figured it out. I don't know if it makes any sense at all, but I took a break from working on loans and started studying a scripture topic. The more wrapped up in this wonderfully written article about Christians and cursing (or cussing or swearing, however you prefer to say it) the happier I become and the more the gray blase` lifted off of me. So, I decided I was grumpy because I was not working on what I should have been working on at the moment. And with that, I would now like to share with you what I've found.
I read through this article about Christians and cussing; more specifically, good and bad reasons to refrain from using vulgar language and times when it is a sin and other times when it's not a sin, but rather just rude. The author actually likened swearing to cutting loose a big, loud, obnoxious fart in that it isn't necessarily a sin, but frowned upon in most social situations.
I'm not sure that I'm 100% convinced that swearing is not a sin. I have to do some further research into what the Bible means when it speaks of idle words and swearing. But the author definitely had a few very good points of interest that I'd like to highlight before I send you on your merry way to read the article for yourself.
The first and most inspiring thing the author said was regarding legalism. He defined it better and more eloquently than I have ever heard anyone do before. He said "My beef with legalism is its rigid and blind insistence on following a code for the sake of following a code, ignoring any other aspect of thinking and reasoning on the subject...daring anyone to challenge...it." Pure poetry. I couldn't in a million years think of a better definition. And because legalism, hypocrisy, pharisaicalism and willful ignorance of believers are the things that fire me up the most and are the things I've decided to battle against in ministry, I think this gentleman's definition is going to be an awesome tool in my toolbox.
Along with that, my whole life I've heard about "a standard." "You represent our church and you need to hold a standard." "Our youth are different from other churches because they have a standard." My reply to that for the longest time has been "Well, then what's the standard?" But in reading the author's definition of legalism I quoted above, I found that "standard" is simply a positive-spin word for "legalism." When people are saying "You represent the church and you need to hold a standard." what they are really saying is "You represent the church and you need to look, talk, think, act, and worship like I do because that's the way it's always been and any other way is wrong." If that isn't legalism, I don't know what is.
Another excellent point, and one that I often forget about, is taking God's name in vain. There are many ways to do that and it doesn't just mean god@mmit. Personally, I believe that by claiming to be a Christian and living any way that would reflect opposite of that is taking God's name in vain. The word "vain" in this instance means without power or authority, and when you claim to be child of God and live like God does not have authority in your life, you are taking his name in vain.
All that being said, speaking the name of "God" or "Jesus" in a way that renders those names meaningless is wrong. And sadly, it is something that is overlooked by many Christians, including myself. "Oh my God!" is a frequent expression of surprise, shock, or disgust in my vocabulary. I've heard very righteous, holy people say "Jesus" in much the same manner, and although they are still righteous and holy (in my opinion and as much as any sinner saved by grace can be) they are still in the wrong when they take God's name in vain.
It can be argued however that "God" is not taking God's name in vain. After all, what is God's name? I'm a man, and people often say to me "Hey, man!" but "man" is not my name. So, there's definitely some further studying that needs to be done on my part before I reach an absolute conclusion, but the principle remains the same regarding not taking God's name in vain; without power or authority.
In another article (which led me to the article I've mentioned above) I read about Evangelical speaker Tony Campolo who starts his speeches off by saying "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." Good point, huh? We Christians, in our legalistic minds, so often have a tendency to focus on the minor issues with an ant-in-the-magnifying-glass intensity, yet we overlook the whole reason we are here. We get so wrapped up in our "No drinking, no gambling, no swearing, no tattoos!" that we neglect the biggest commandment in the Bible, to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.
While swearing isn't always a sin, it's definitely not always a good thing either. All things are permissible (except where expressly prohibited by God's word) but not everything is beneficial. A time when cussing is definitely a sin (in my opinion) are when it offends someone else or it turns someone else off to Christianity. On a sidenote to that, you cannot live your life according to someone else's convictions. That's a hard lesson I had to learn. Yes, Paul said that if eating meat offered to idol gods was a stumblingblock to his brother, or that it would offend his brother, he would refrain. But I've found in my own life that there are "professional offendees;" people who are offended over every little thing that they don't agree with. There is a very fine yet very real line between not offending your brother and you being a slave to what other people think. If you allow it, there are people out there who will subject you to their personal standards and convictions, and while those standards and convictions may work for them, they are not necessarily yours or mine. Seek out your own soul's salvation with reverence to God.
The article actually ends with the idea of living to your own personal convictions which come from God. Even though the scripture isn't necessarily cut and dry regarding cussing, alcohol, tattoos, or many other things, it needs to be remembered that whatever is not of faith is sin. That simply means that if you can't do it with a clear conscience, you are sinning. Now why you don't have a clear conscience about the matter needs to be sorted out before you can truly decide what is of faith and what is sin, because if you can't have the liberty to do something because of someone else's legalism, the matter might necessarily be a sin, but the fact that you are living in bondage under someone else might be.
Ah, the fine lines we must walk. The Bible says to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. Sometimes I think it would be easier to not question the status quo and just blindly follow what I've always been taught. Ignorance is bliss, but curiosity and truth-seeking can bring true liberty.
You can read the articles I based much of this blog about at:
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/cuss1.html
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/cuss2.html
Cheers, and God bless!
Hoss
Well, today I figured it out. I don't know if it makes any sense at all, but I took a break from working on loans and started studying a scripture topic. The more wrapped up in this wonderfully written article about Christians and cursing (or cussing or swearing, however you prefer to say it) the happier I become and the more the gray blase` lifted off of me. So, I decided I was grumpy because I was not working on what I should have been working on at the moment. And with that, I would now like to share with you what I've found.
I read through this article about Christians and cussing; more specifically, good and bad reasons to refrain from using vulgar language and times when it is a sin and other times when it's not a sin, but rather just rude. The author actually likened swearing to cutting loose a big, loud, obnoxious fart in that it isn't necessarily a sin, but frowned upon in most social situations.
I'm not sure that I'm 100% convinced that swearing is not a sin. I have to do some further research into what the Bible means when it speaks of idle words and swearing. But the author definitely had a few very good points of interest that I'd like to highlight before I send you on your merry way to read the article for yourself.
The first and most inspiring thing the author said was regarding legalism. He defined it better and more eloquently than I have ever heard anyone do before. He said "My beef with legalism is its rigid and blind insistence on following a code for the sake of following a code, ignoring any other aspect of thinking and reasoning on the subject...daring anyone to challenge...it." Pure poetry. I couldn't in a million years think of a better definition. And because legalism, hypocrisy, pharisaicalism and willful ignorance of believers are the things that fire me up the most and are the things I've decided to battle against in ministry, I think this gentleman's definition is going to be an awesome tool in my toolbox.
Along with that, my whole life I've heard about "a standard." "You represent our church and you need to hold a standard." "Our youth are different from other churches because they have a standard." My reply to that for the longest time has been "Well, then what's the standard?" But in reading the author's definition of legalism I quoted above, I found that "standard" is simply a positive-spin word for "legalism." When people are saying "You represent the church and you need to hold a standard." what they are really saying is "You represent the church and you need to look, talk, think, act, and worship like I do because that's the way it's always been and any other way is wrong." If that isn't legalism, I don't know what is.
Another excellent point, and one that I often forget about, is taking God's name in vain. There are many ways to do that and it doesn't just mean god@mmit. Personally, I believe that by claiming to be a Christian and living any way that would reflect opposite of that is taking God's name in vain. The word "vain" in this instance means without power or authority, and when you claim to be child of God and live like God does not have authority in your life, you are taking his name in vain.
All that being said, speaking the name of "God" or "Jesus" in a way that renders those names meaningless is wrong. And sadly, it is something that is overlooked by many Christians, including myself. "Oh my God!" is a frequent expression of surprise, shock, or disgust in my vocabulary. I've heard very righteous, holy people say "Jesus" in much the same manner, and although they are still righteous and holy (in my opinion and as much as any sinner saved by grace can be) they are still in the wrong when they take God's name in vain.
It can be argued however that "God" is not taking God's name in vain. After all, what is God's name? I'm a man, and people often say to me "Hey, man!" but "man" is not my name. So, there's definitely some further studying that needs to be done on my part before I reach an absolute conclusion, but the principle remains the same regarding not taking God's name in vain; without power or authority.
In another article (which led me to the article I've mentioned above) I read about Evangelical speaker Tony Campolo who starts his speeches off by saying "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." Good point, huh? We Christians, in our legalistic minds, so often have a tendency to focus on the minor issues with an ant-in-the-magnifying-glass intensity, yet we overlook the whole reason we are here. We get so wrapped up in our "No drinking, no gambling, no swearing, no tattoos!" that we neglect the biggest commandment in the Bible, to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.
While swearing isn't always a sin, it's definitely not always a good thing either. All things are permissible (except where expressly prohibited by God's word) but not everything is beneficial. A time when cussing is definitely a sin (in my opinion) are when it offends someone else or it turns someone else off to Christianity. On a sidenote to that, you cannot live your life according to someone else's convictions. That's a hard lesson I had to learn. Yes, Paul said that if eating meat offered to idol gods was a stumblingblock to his brother, or that it would offend his brother, he would refrain. But I've found in my own life that there are "professional offendees;" people who are offended over every little thing that they don't agree with. There is a very fine yet very real line between not offending your brother and you being a slave to what other people think. If you allow it, there are people out there who will subject you to their personal standards and convictions, and while those standards and convictions may work for them, they are not necessarily yours or mine. Seek out your own soul's salvation with reverence to God.
The article actually ends with the idea of living to your own personal convictions which come from God. Even though the scripture isn't necessarily cut and dry regarding cussing, alcohol, tattoos, or many other things, it needs to be remembered that whatever is not of faith is sin. That simply means that if you can't do it with a clear conscience, you are sinning. Now why you don't have a clear conscience about the matter needs to be sorted out before you can truly decide what is of faith and what is sin, because if you can't have the liberty to do something because of someone else's legalism, the matter might necessarily be a sin, but the fact that you are living in bondage under someone else might be.
Ah, the fine lines we must walk. The Bible says to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. Sometimes I think it would be easier to not question the status quo and just blindly follow what I've always been taught. Ignorance is bliss, but curiosity and truth-seeking can bring true liberty.
You can read the articles I based much of this blog about at:
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/cuss1.html
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/cuss2.html
Cheers, and God bless!
Hoss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
