Stealin' It Back!

Theft #17 - Stealin' Back Faith - Who Can We Trust, Really???

2012-01-13T16:57:00.000-05:00

John 2:23-25

23 ¶ Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.

Here's one of those curious and "difficult" passages that makes me think again just when I think I have Jesus all figured out. "Many believed in His name," but in contrast, Jesus "was not entrusting Himself to them." Literally the Greek New Testament translates: "many believed in His name" but "He was not believing in them."

Well now, that hardly seems fair, does it? After all, I have bestowed upon Jesus the great honor of putting my faith and trust in Him, and yet here it seems as if He is unwilling to reciprocate. How dare He???!!!? Who does He think He Is???

Oh wait, He thinks He Is the I AM." He thinks He Is the One Who Is and Who Was and Who Is Coming. He thinks He created the universe and holds it together by His Word, and He thinks He created a creature in His image called man who violated His love and His law, and brought sin and death into a creation that was meant to be sinless and deathless. He thinks He had tried everything in the Book (HIS Book!) literally, to bring mankind out of sin and death, and He thinks He probably will have to die a bloody, horrible and undeserved death to finally make that happen. He thinks He has the right to insist that mankind should trust in Him and His sacrifice, but He also thinks He can never trust man, at least not in this present evil age.

Oh wait, He doesn't just think all of that: He knows it and says it and makes sure all of that truth is woven through His Word from start to finish.

So, Jesus loves me, He has compassion and mercy on me, He give grace to me, He bring hope to me, He promises to bring me to ultimate salvation, He give me His Word to pass on, but still . . . He just doesn't trust me. Jesus flat out doesn't believe in me, and none of the Oprah-izing false prophets who fantasize bout such falsehood can change that. It's not the warm and fuzzy comfort food we crave, but the cold hard bread of life and the absolute truth that nourishes us: Jesus doesn't believe in me, or in you, or in any person, not even His own people.

Hmmm. Well, when I think about, at this stage of salvation, I don't trust myself either. And, guess what? I also don't trust any other human being, not really, nor should I, nor do I see any admonition in God's Word that I should. I am told to love my brother, to encourage my brother, to have mercy on my brother, to lift up my brother, to protect my brother, to admonish my brother, and even to lay down my life for my brother, but never, ever, ever in God's Word am I told to trust my brother, to believe in my brother. So, my brothers and sisters in Christ, guess what? I l love you all, I really do!

BUT: I don't believe in you, I don't trust you because, like Jesus, I know the dark sin that is in you. And how do I know this? Two reasons: 1) God's Word says so and 2) I know the dark sin in myself.

So what now? If I only trust the Lord Jesus, but I don't trust you and I don’t trust me, and I don't expect that you should trust me, what are we to do?

Well, beloved ones, there is something to do, and here it is:

Colossians 3:12-17

"12 ¶ So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. "

I don't need to trust you to forgive you, to be kind toward you, to be humble toward you, to be gentle toward you, to clothe myself with love and peace and seek unity with you, poor sinners and wondrous saints that we all are.

***Oh, and one more thing: since I can't trust you, but I can and will bear with you, I'll stop trying to find and cure every little thing I see wrong with you, because I'm probably not pure enough to even try to get inside you and tear out all the imperfections that sin brings. I'm going to stop looking at the little Lego in your eye, and I'm going to get the huge plastic lawn chair out of my own eye.

Tell you what, since I don't trust you and you shouldn't trust me, I'll make a deal with you: I'll stop trying to fix you and you stop trying to fix me. Let's trust in the Lord Jesus Christ together (who doesn't trust any of us) and accept that He'll bring this all together for good if we just hang in there with each other under His name and His promise. Is it a deal?

With trust in Christ and love for the brethren, Rick.

Theft #16 - Stealin' Back Labor Day with Psalm 46

2011-09-03T13:04:00.002-04:00

OK, so this is a recycled FABS (Family Adult Bible Study) lesson, which I thought was worth posting here. As usual, the Blogspot editor didn't convert my Word doc very well, so some sections are a bit "scattered" on the page, but I hope you'll get the essence. Above all, on Labor Day . . . RELAX ! ! !

For the Chief Musician. By the sons of Korah.

According to Alamoth.

1 God is our refuge and strength,

a very present help in trouble.

2 Therefore we won’t be afraid, though the earth changes,

though the mountains are shaken into the heart of the seas;

3 though its waters roar and are troubled,

though the mountains tremble with their swelling.

Selah.

4 There is a river, the streams of which make the city of God glad,

the holy place of the tents of the Most High.

5 God is in her midst. She shall not be moved.

God will help her at dawn.

6 The nations raged. The kingdoms were moved.

He lifted his voice, and the earth melted.

7 Yahweh of the Angel Armies is with us.

The God of Jacob is our refuge.

Selah.

8 Come, see Yahweh’s works,

what desolations he has made in the earth.

9 He makes wars cease to the end of the earth.

He breaks the bow, and shatters the spear.

He burns the chariots in the fire.

10 “Be still, and know that I am God.

I will be exalted among the nations.

I will be exalted in the earth.”

11 Yahweh of the Angel Armies is with us.

The God of Jacob is our refuge.

Selah.

"Relax: God Works on Labor Day!" - Psalm 46

– Summer 2011 – Rick Ludwig

Although the concepts of "rest" and "Sabbath" are not present, Ps. 46 ties in with Labor Day as a celebration of labor and leisure. However, the Christian celebration of Labor Day ought to go a step further and lead not simply to leisure and partying, but awestruck contemplation of God's person and mighty works. This is the objective, the mood and attitude we are trying to encourage.

Introduction

On Sept. 5, 1882, the first Labor Day parade and celebration took place as 10,000 workers marched around Union Square in New York City. The first Monday in Sept. was chosen because it was "the most pleasant season of the year, midway between the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving, and would fill a wide gap in the chronology of legal holidays."

Labor Day was supposed to be a time of celebrating the worker, for remembering the multitude of abilities and efforts that made this country great. It has evolved into a family festival--the last big celebration of summer, vacation's end, the final fling before the start of a new school year, and end of summer and prelude to fall. It has become not just a day, but a weekend--a time for taking to the out-of-doors for trips, picnics, and sporting events. (Robert Myers, Celebrations: the Complete Book of American Holidays, Doubleday 1972).

Originally, the day's rituals emphasized--along with picnics, fireworks, and speechmaking--the parade of workingmen, of laborers, but this aspect has been lost to the summer's end activities of today (Jack Santino, All Around the Year, University of Illinois Press 1994).

In other words, we no longer really honor the accomplishments of working people on Labor Day, but we attempt to cram a whole summer's worth of fun into a three day weekend. The massive schedule of activities for CityFest this weekend contains, at the very bottom, a small announcement for the Labor Day parade on Monday. We not only forget to honor the workers, but we work so hard at relaxing, we forget to relax on our day off from work.

As Americans, we really need to recover a sense that Labor Day should honor American workers, and give them a day to relax from their labors. As Christians, I'm going to suggest we go even further and use Labor Day to honor the work of the Lord, and use our day of relaxation to focus on Him. Psalm 46 can help us approach this day properly.

Context

Psalm 46 was probably written as a song of confidence and reassurance that God was still in charge despite the threatening forces of nature and foreign nations. As Creator, God keeps the world from falling apart, and as Redeemer, God keeps Israel from falling into the captivity of foreigners; as Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, God keeps His people safe in the midst of the turbulence which occurs when He brings final judgement upon the earth. The psalm acknowledges those things in life for which we are totally dependent upon God, and before which we are helpless without Him.

Theme: We can truly relax (on Labor Day) only when we know the protection and person of the Lord.

1a. We Can Relax When We Know the Protection of the Lord. vv 1-7

1b. God protects us during natural disasters. vv. 1-3

*God is our shelter in the storm

1c. v1a "God is shelter and strength for us."

--Shelter for when there is nowhere to run

--Strength for us when we have none of our own

v1b "Ever-present help" - help "being found abundantly"

--Idea of "being found" presumes we are looking for help.

ISA 55:6: "Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near."

2c. v2 "We will not fear when the earth/land changes..."

--"Mountains..." is a picture of earthquakes, but could be any drastic change on earth

--most common for us is weather.

Gen. 1:9--God caused dry land to appear from the waters;

since the Creator Himself is our God, we need not fear that creation will be reversed

3c. v3 "Let its waters ... , Let the mountains ... "

--In other words, as long as we have confidence in the Lord's protection,

we can say "let the storm come! I'm ready!"

2b. God protects us during national disturbances: vv. 4-7

*God is our fortress in the fight

These verses see the unstable state of foreign nations world as a threat to God's chosen nation,

God's chosen city.

1c .v4 "A river!"

--In contrast to the turbulent sea

--The streams or "canals" are channels of irrigation making the city

not dependent on water from outside. Refer back to river in Eden

and, for us, forward to river in New Jerusalem (Rev. 21)

--"city of God" certainly Jerusalem, but metaphorically, the people of God;

-again ref. forward to New Jerusalem as people of God

as well as God-built city (Rev. 21).

--"holy tabernacles of Most High" - then in a city,

now the church is the earthly dwelling place of God.

2c. v5-6 "She will not fall ... kingdoms fall"

--city will not "fall" even though kingdoms "fall"

and even though mountains "fall"

--presence of God is the key to security of city, our security

--The turbulent, uncertain behavior of the nations seems a threat to us,

but nonetheless, under God's protection,

His city, His people, His church survives,

and the "kingdoms fall." Indeed,

when God raises His voice in judgement, the earth itself will melt.

The city of God survives even that because "God is in her midst."

3c. v7 "YHWH of Hosts/Armies...our fortress/stronghold/secure height" -

This is military terminology

--EXO 15:3 "The \Lord\ is a warrior; The \Lord\ is His name." (NASB)

--ZEP 3:17 "The \Lord\ your God is in your midst, A victorious warrior.

He will exult over you with joy, He will be quiet in His love,

He will rejoice over you with shouts of joy." (NASB)

---"God of Jacob" - identifies historical God of the patriarchs with YHWH

--their God is the same one Who rescued Israel;

Our God, our Lord Jesus is the same God

Who rescued Peter, Paul, the rest of the early church.

2a. We Can Relax When We Know the Person of the Lord - vv. 8-10

1b. We know Who He is when we see what He's doing. - vv. 8-9

*We know the person of God by knowing the works of God.

1c. v8a "Come, behold/see/envision..."

--the invitation is to focus on what the Lord has done,

specifically as the covenant God of Israel, is YHWH.

"See" could be "envision,"

that is, not only what you have seen with your own eyes,

but what you have read about God doing in the past

and what He will do in the future.

"Come, get a vision of the works of the LORD!"

2c. v8b-9 "placing desolations ... stopping wars"

--"Desolations" refers to the results of what we have called natural disasters.

None of them are accidents,

God has complete control over them at all times,

and uses them for His purposes.

--It is possible that God "makes wars cease" through the use of "desolations!"

That is, He stops wars by using earthquakes, hurricanes, fire, etc.

BUT: In in the final war in Revelation, He just wins!

2b. We know Who He is when we stop what we're doing. v10

*We know the person of God by knowing the position of God.

1c. "Be still" (KJV,ASV,RSV,NRSV); "Cease striving" (NASB);

"Let it be" (REB);

*lit. "let drop" the hands, ie. from labor, or possibly war: from any kind of struggle.

*In a word: "Relax!"

*In its Labor Day edition of 1984 USA Today reported

that 70 million people would be traveling by automobile that weekend,

then went on to say that the airlines and Amtrak rail services

were temporarily expanding service to deal with the increase in travelers.

The same story mentioned that the National Football League season

began that weekend, as did the college football season

(Santino, All Around the Year).

2c. "Know that I am God"

We know Him by experience

when we are still from our work and worries

long enough to focus on God; but also,

by being "still" to acknowledge the priority of God

in our lives over work, and that when we relax

in order to focus on Him, He takes care of our needs.

MAT 6:31 So do not worry, saying, `What shall we eat?' or What shall we drink?' or `What shall we wear?' 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (NIV)

3c. "I will be exalted ... "

When we relax before the Lord and focus on Him,

we become aware that He is using

both the natural and national realms for His own exaltation.

To be exalted is simply to "be high."

God is affirming that His position as Creator and King

will be acknowledged in the world of nature, "the earth,"

and in the world of nations.

The two realms which were viewed as threats

to God's people earlier in the psalm

are now brought into the service of God to exalt Him.

God is being exalted out there, among people all over the world,

and certainly by nature itself.

*If we don't take the time to be still, to relax before God, we miss it.

Conclusion/Reflection - v11

--Let's use our time of relaxation on Labor Day for contemplation of the Lord's protection and person.

--Let's do some written reflection on God's word to you today.

Theft #15 (Repost of #8) - Stealin' Back Classical Thought

2011-07-23T12:31:00.000-04:00

***This is a repost of a post from 2009 which at that time I entitled "Stealin' Back Classical Music." I should have noted that this discussion of contrasts has a much broader application that to music only. It involves the whole of critical thinking, and--indeed--the whole of one's philosophy and lifestyle. I am indebted to British author Paul Johnson (Modern Times) and to conversations from a few years ago with my old friend and consummate conductor, John D. Other than this new prologue, the essay below is substantially unchanged.

The following rambling essay may read at first like a rather limited perspective on classical music, but I only want to discuss two composers that fit roughly into the very broad category of classical music. Those two composers are Richard Wagner and Anton Bruckner. Arguably both composers are better described--by most music scholars--as part of the late 19th century Romantic movement in music, but this presupposes an understanding of what the terms "classical" and "romantic" actually mean in 19th orchestral music.

So, here's a brief lesson in the philosophy of musical history as it relates to the turmoil generated in the 19th century by the emergence of what became known as the Romantic movement. First of all, the term "classical" as applied to a musical movement was marked by a focus on musical form and intellectual content in composition. In a sense Bach and Handel were "pre-classical" in their adherence to form, but the real classical "crown" certainly belongs to Franz Joseph Haydn, who brought the form and substance of the symphony into it's rightful place in musical history. You can listen to all 104 Haydn symphonies and hear the form of the music, and the mind of the composer, in every single piece. He epitomizes "classical" as a tribute to proper form and the dominance of intellect over emotion.

"Romantic" on the other hand, came as an almost anti-intellectual movement which emphasized emotion over mind, and sometimes emotion over form. This doesn't say that great classical emotion didn't evoke strong feelings in the listener, but that Romantic composers spent more time trying to put their own emotion--rather than their thought--into their compositions.

So, by these two admittedly simplistic descriptions--if they are correct--we can see that the the terms "classical" and "romantic" represent two opposed philosophical approaches to not merely music and the arts, but to life itself. That is, ask yourself if you approach life led by your mind or by your emotions. That is the question which the 19th century composers were trying to answer in the creation of their art. From a Biblical standpoint, it is the question to which we all must seek an answer.

At any rate, the great Classical/Romantic dichotomy (and debate) came a head first in the works of Ludwig Van Beethoven. Was he the last Classical composer or the first Romantic composer, or--perhaps--a bit of both? Ask two scholars, two conductors, two "fans," and you will get widely different answers to that question. Personally, since this is my blog, I prefer the conductor's interpretations that approach Beethoven's works as Classical, but that shows my bias towards mind leading emotion, which I think is a more Biblical order than the reverse. Nonetheless, which "take" on Beethoven one prefers, his music stands at the crossroads between Classical and Romantic, and his music starts the argument.

(NOTE: I respectfully but intentionally bypass Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at this point, only because he is a bit of an anomaly in his time; that is, he was a "pre-Romantic" composer living and writing at the peak of the Classical era. I personally believe Beethoven could have come to greatness directly from Haydn without the existence of Mozart, but that is an argument for another time.)

So, getting back to Bruckner and Wagner, we have Richard Wagner emerging from the Romantic view of Beethoven, and producing the first full-blown unashamedly Romantic music of the 19th century. Not-surprisingly, it was also the fist totally and unabashedly pagan music of its time. (By "pagan" here I mean European music not tied to the ideas and beliefs of 19th century Christianity.) It was not only rooted in the "emotion leading mind" approach, but also rooted in pre-Christian Teutonic mythology which were expressed explicitly in Wagner's monumental operas, which combined music, art, theater, and philosophy--and most of all: emotion--in one huge "sub-genre" which defied categorization. In the 21st century we would call it "Performance Art," I think. It was unarguably a great achievement from an artistic point of view, and also unarguably, an utterly ungodly abomination from a Biblical point of view. It was the wave of the future, and the pre-cursor to the movement of "Modern" music away from any Christian roots.

By God's grace, however, in the same century we had Anton Bruckner. Bruckner adored and admired Wagner and his music, and there is no doubt that Bruckner's "sound-scape" is--at first listen--much like Wagner's. Even if I reject Wagner for his neo-paganism, I must accept him for the fact that Bruckner probably would not have existed without him. This however, is finally where the aspect of redemption, of "stealin' it back" comes in: Bruckner was a very devout German Catholic, and every composition he wrote he intended for God's glory. In one sense, he was the most thoroughly Christian composer since Bach.

However, here's where I kick in the real controversy: whereas Wagner's music was both pagan and Romantic, Bruckner's was both Christian and Classical! What? A man using the same musical scope and size as the ultra-Romantic Wagner was not even Romantic? That's it; that's the other side of Bruckner's redemption of Wagner: Bruckner followed the "mind leading emotion" approach. Ironically, Wagner is viewed historically as the "intellectual" and Bruckner as the "country simpleton," but Bruckner's brilliant composition techniques make that comparison a historical and academic fraud. Indeed, Bruckner freely used counterpoint (which Bach brought to it's highest point) and also stuck to classical form in a monumental way. There's something else: Wagner wrote operas; Bruckner wrote symphonies. Indeed, the only vocal music Bruckner composed was for the church (3 Masses, a great Te Deum, and several smaller sacred pieces.) Bruckner's choice to stick to the symphony was--I think--totally linked with his devotion to God, and to classical form.

For those who will argue that Bruckner's music is emotional, I simply say this: look to Bach, for the musical emotion of both Bach and Bruckner is generated in the listener by the impact of the Spirit of God on those composers, rather than by their own fickle emotions. We hear the "voice" of the true God even in the instrumental works of these two great and faithful men, and in Bruckner, we hear not simply Wagner redeemed, but the essence of the Classical philosophy redeemed in musical form. Wagner stole the Classical principle from Beethoven and buried it in the neo-pagan Romantic; Bruckner stole it back and used it for the glory of God.

Later in Christ, RFJ.

Theft #14 - Stealin' Back the Charismata

2011-07-15T17:10:00.000-04:00

Ok, well this is a study I put together about 4 years ago as my view that the "manifestations of the Spirit" in 1st Cor. 12 continue throughout the whole church age. Or, more precisely, that there is no good Biblical reason to say that they stopped with the passing of the apostles at the end of the 1st century AD. So, I'm not only "stealin'," but maybe cheating a bit by recycling some of my own material, but at least is IS my own material (;>).   Have fun!
***Some of the indentations and diagrams don't work quite right in this editor, but hopefully you'll get the idea.

The “Manifestation of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11
                   A Moderate Defense for the Continuance of the Charismata

Introduction
         This study will briefly propose a position that the 9 “manifestations of the Spirit” mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 are intended for the entire church age, subject to the proper guidelines and usage. The basis for this position is a lack of clear Scriptural evidence that these things ended at any particular time in the past. The paper is called a “moderate” defense of the “continuance” position because the writer is not a traditional “charismatic,” and because the defense is intended to rely entirely on Scripture, as opposed to personal experience.

1a. “Manifestations” in the Book of Acts are Distinct from Those in 1 Cor. 12-14.

      1b. “Tongues” in the Book of Acts are not the same as “tongues” in 1 Cor 12-14.
            1c. The descriptions of “tongues” in the Book of Acts refer to a distinct and unique phenomenon with a specific purpose. The first—and most complete--presentation of tongues in Acts 2 is described by Peter as a (partial) fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, a claim Paul never makes for tongues in 1 Corinthians.
     Furthermore, the tongues are spoken—apparently in unison—by the 120 disciples gathered with the apostles, and miraculously understood—each person “in his own language” by an audience of thousands of “Dispersion Jews.” There is no “interpretation” by other believers given nor is it needed, in sharp contradiction to the conditions specified by Paul in 1 Cor. 12 and 14.
         2c. The other major primary description of tongues in Acts 10 occurs as the gospel is presented by Peter and his Jewish helpers to a family of Gentiles. The purpose is defined by Peter in Acts 10:47: Gentiles have believed in Jesus and received the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way as the Jews, therefore they cannot be denied water baptism as outward confirmation of this belief. Again, the circumstances, purpose, and results are totally different from those described in 1 Cor 12-14

     2b. “Prophecies” are sporadic and unregulated in Acts as opposed to 1 Cor. 12-14.
           Without citing specific passages, it is enough to say that “prophecies” in the Book of Acts are virtually always spoken by a prophet (or prophetess). That, they are spoken by people who have a prophetic “calling” or an “office”—as in the OT—in a permanent sense. In contrast, 1 Cor 12-14, while elevating prophecies over tongues, never suggests that those speaking prophecies are anything other than ordinary believers to whom the Spirit has given something to speak at a particular time: they are pointedly not “prophets” as presented in Acts.

     3b. Descriptions of tongues and prophecies decrease rapidly in the 2nd half of Acts.
          This is not in dispute, for it is easily discerned by simply reading the Book of Acts. However, if points 1b and 2b above are valid, then this has no bearing on the present validity of the “manifestations” in 1 Corinthians. That is: if the tongues and prophecies described in Acts are not the same phenomena as those presented in 1 Cor. 12-14, then their apparent cessation in the Book of Acts cannot be used to argue that the tongues and prophecies presented in 1 Cor 12:7-11 must also have ceased.

2a. The “Manifestations” in 1 Cor. 12-14 Are Presented as Normal in the Local Church

      1b. Brief summary of the problems in the church of Corinth
             Because Paul has so many rebukes for the Corinthians church, it is sometimes assumed that everything they practiced must have been wrong. This is certainly not true, since Paul commends their spiritual enthusiasm more than once. Nonetheless, the Corinthian church had a huge case of “eschatological confusion;” that is, they totally misunderstood Biblical prophecy about the future. Specifically, they thought they had received the Kingdom of God on earth in its fullness, which led to all kinds of wrong belief and practice in both their church and family life. It also led to an arrogant attitude of superiority over those who—perhaps—had not received the same level of “the Spirit” has they had.

      2b. Paul insists that the “manifestations” are valid and normal when properly regulated.
          Although the Corinthians were clearly arrogant and spiritually immature, Paul—nonetheless—presents in 1 Cor 12-14 a group of spiritual phenomena that he seems to regard as perfectly acceptable, and apparently expected, in the local church.
         1c. In 1 Cor 12:28 he says that God “has appointed” such things in “the church,” and clearly not just the Corinthian church. His continuing caution, however, is that not every believer will receive such things, and further, that those “gifts” are in no way superior to many other less spectacular and less public gifts.
        2c. He concludes his corrections on this issue with the following: “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” (1 Cor 14:39-40).
       If—in fact—Paul thought that these gifts were not acceptable and continuous for the whole church, it seems unlikely that he would have encouraged their practice once the abuses were corrected. Indeed “do not forbid to speak in tongues” is a very strange admonition if Paul was preparing Corinth for the disappearance of this gift.

     3b. 1 Cor 13:8-10 - A reasonable interpretation
           1 Cor. 13 is well-known for Paul’s insistence that agape love is the overriding spiritual element which should supersede and regulate all other Christian gifts and virtues. In verse 8, he shifts gears to announce that 3 things will either “be abolished” or “cease” at some time in the future. The 3 things are prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, and the future time is “when the perfect comes.”
      In the early to mid 20th century, a few Bible teachers argued that “the perfect” must be the completion of the canon of Scripture, as we know it today, and that this probably coincided with the death of the last apostle (traditionally, John). There are numerous problems with this view, but three are glaring: 1c) Paul’s continuous expectation—in all of his epistles—that Jesus could return at any time make it highly unlikely that he would be thinking of the final form of Scripture as “the perfect.” He almost certainly equated “the perfect thing” (neuter in Gk) with the coming Kingdom of God when Jesus returned. Since the Corinthians had wrongly assumed the Kingdom was already present, Paul would want to emphasize that this momentous event was still future. 2c) The finished NT—as we know it—was not fully completed until the late 2nd or early 3rd century, making the actual end of tongues and prophesy rather ambiguous in this view, and 3c) Scripture does not record the death of the last apostle, also making this event an unlikely candidate for “the perfect.”
      If the words above are accepted as reasonable, then the time when “the perfect comes” is still future today, and this cannot be used as a case for the end of tongues and prophecy.

3a. Cautions On Dismissing New Testament Scripture as Relevant to the Church Today
       This study is presented in full awareness that there are many who would to limit the gifts of 1 Cor 12-14 to the 1st century, and dismiss their continuing presence in the church. This study, so far, has attempted to show that there is no basis in Scripture for holding such a position, and that the burden of proof is on those who hold the “cessationist” position.
      Before closing, there is another and perhaps more important issue at stake: the continuing validity of New Testament Scripture as it applies to the church from Pentecost to the present and beyond. When believers start dismissing any NT passage as no longer valid, a challenge should be issued as to their criteria for such a dismissal.
      For example, it can be carefully shown that some parts of Jesus’ discourses in the gospels are not intended directly for the “church;” also, there are portions of the Book of Acts that could apply only to the first Jewish churches, but not directly to the later mixed Gentile/Jewish churches.
       However, the letters of Paul are in an entirely different realm, since they are addressed to churches established well after Pentecost, and are direct addresses from author to audience. For example, there is a current trend toward dismissing Paul’s limitation on women Bible teachers in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. It is argued that this was a cultural issue, and not normative for the continuing church, and certainly not for the 21st century church. The problem is that Paul roots his argument in Genesis, in the creation and fall of mankind. This makes the “cultural” dismissal of his teaching null and void. Some believers just don’t like it, so it is dismissed. If the same test is applied to 1 Cor 12-14, there is a similar failure to demonstrate a “cultural” or temporary limitation. Just as it would be unthinkable to dismiss Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11 as still relevant, the same caution should be applied here.

Diagram of 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (with 1-3; 12-14)

1 Now concerning the spiritual things, brothers, I am not willing for you to be ignorant. 2 You know that, when you were ethnics, being led away toward the voiceless idols, as often you were led. 3 Therefore I am making known to you that no one, speaking in the Spirit of God, is saying "Anathema Jesus," and no one is able to say "Lord Jesus," except in the Holy Spirit.

4 Now there are differences of grace-gifts {charismata},
                      but the same Spirit;
5 and
           there are differences of ministries (or services),
                    and the same Lord;
6 and there are differences of energies,
                but the same God                 Who is energizing all things in all.
7 So to each one
                                     is being given
                                                             the clear disclosure of the Spirit
          toward the bringing together.
8 For to one
                                                                                                 through the Spirit
                                   is being given
                                                         a word of wisdom,
and to another one                            a word of knowledge
                                                                                                 according to the same Spirit,
9 to a different one
                                                       faith                                   in the same Spirit,
and to another one                          grace-gifts of healings           in the one Spirit,
10 and to another one                    energizings of powers {dunamis}
and to another one                         prophecy,
and to another one                         discerning of spirits,
    to a different one                        kinds of tongues,
and to another one                         translation of tongues;
11 but                                               all these things
                                       is energizing
the one and the same Spirit,
                                          dividing
                                          to each individually,             just as He is intending.
       12 For even as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of the body, being many, are one body, so also Christ. 13 For also in one Spirit we ourselves all into one body were baptized--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freemen, and we all one Spirit were made to drink.
       14 For also the body is not one part but many.

Petty Theft - Stealing Back Grace

2011-07-07T12:56:00.001-04:00

Just a bit of Scripture below, and this observation to 75% of the Christians I know: What do you not understand about "you are not under law, but under grace"????? (Rom 6:14).

Galatians 2:16-21 ¹⁶ Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. ¹⁷ "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! ¹⁸ "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. ¹⁹ "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. ²⁰ "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. ²¹ "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Theft #13 - Stealing Back Spiritual Warfare

2011-07-02T14:36:00.000-04:00

I just finished watching "The Patriot," one of my three DVD "traditions" for the Independence Day weekend. This movie in particular shows 18th century warfare at its worst, even as it was considered normal and orderly by the English, French and other European armies.

What we see in the film is that the American Colonial army cannot possibly fight the English army and win using those standard European tactics, for example, having two massive groups of soldiers facing each other, on a field across a relatively short distance, and taking turns firing at each other with one-shot muskets. So, as portrayed in the movie, and verified by history, the Colonial militia fights what is essentially a guerilla war, and "hit and run" war, hiding and ambushing, destroying roads and bridges, and in general just keeping the English army from making any advances. It is a tactic that works well enough to baffle and anger the English "gentlemen officers" to the point where they can no longer predict how or where the Colonials will fight.

It strikes me that in our "battle" against the world, the flesh, and the devil, that we--ordinary believers in Jesus Christ--are probably entirely too predictable, and are employing similar "stand and shoot" tactics which can never give us the victory that the Bible promises.

If, instead, we follow the "battle tactics" of Jesus Himself, and of His apostles, we see men who just showed up in places and begin to "do battle"--spiritually, and with words--with no formal declaration of war, no formal plan of attack, and no notion that retreat was an option. Jesus showed up suddenly, said His peace--generally stirring up controversy as a consequence--and then when on. Paul did the same, as noted in the last post on Acts 17.

The Bible teaches us that the weapons of our warfare are not related to normal physical battle at all, but are aimed at unseen spiritual forces allied against God, against us as His people, and have as their captives the entire unbelieving world. We have faith and words as our weapons, faith in Christ past, present and future, words to the Father in prayer and words to the world in the gospel. Sometimes we must be "hit and run" soldiers, speaking to those we come in contact with only for a moment or two, and other times we are true "guerillas" living amongst our neighbors those having infiltrated the enemy camp simply because don't look all that different on the outside.

These are the tactics God has given us. He has never told the Church to act as a unified army waging war on Satan, but merely to stand firm against Satan's attacks on us and resist his temptations so that he will flee. God has also never told the Church to rely on the respective governments of whatever nation, state, or city in which we happen to reside. God does not bless His people because of the nation, but rather He blesses the nation which accepts the message and faith of His people. Although it is not entirely true that "you cannot legislate morality," it is utterly true that you cannot legislate faith in the One True God, Jesus Christ. We speak, the Spirit convicts, and the listeners believe or don't believe, and that battle is the same in every part of the world now and until Jesus returns.

It's time to stop depending on a favorable political environment in which to worship God and speak the gospel, and time to rely only on the spiritual environment created by the truth that we are in Christ, and He in us.

Later in Christ, RfJ.

(He's BACK!!!) - Theft # 12 - Stealing Back God's Boundaries

2011-07-01T13:15:00.001-04:00

      Well, high time to get back to this dreaded discipline of blogging regularly. Since my my last post was two years ago when I first got a Facbook account, you might conclude that I have been spending too much time on Facebook itself, and you might be right . . . errr . .
     At any rate, I'd thought I'd charge back in with a Biblical lesson/homily on being Christian in the USA as provoked by thoughts of Independence Day 2011, and by Scripture, of course. So here goes:

FABS July 1, 2011 (The "Fourth of July Lesson")

Introduction
       What do you think about on the 4th of July?   Historically the holiday called Independence Day celebrates the document by which the original 13 colonies declared their intention to withdraw from British rule and establish self-government.
     However, in 2011, 235 years after the colonies issued the Declaration of Independence, what does Independence Day mean? That is, what does it mean beyond the fireworks and the parades and the flags? The people of Jesus Christ should be asking that question of themselves especially at a time when Christianity has lost much of her favored status in the government and culture of the United States.
      What does it mean to be a Christian in America today? More pointedly, how do I, as a Christian, speak to non-Christian America about Jesus Christ? If you open your Bibles to Acts 17:16, we'll take a look at one way the apostle Paul spoke to his culture, and discover what we can learn about speaking to ours.
First of all:  Read Acts 17:16-34

The Boundaries of Truth: Acts 17:16-34

          16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. 17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. 18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities," -- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? 20 For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean." 21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)
          22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
                24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
        29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
        32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this." 33 So Paul went out of their midst.  34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. (NASB)

Input: God Has Placed Boundaries on Human Existence to Draw People to Himself. Specifically: God Has Placed Boundaries on Life in the United States to Draw People to Himself.

I. God Has Placed Physical Boundaries on Human Existence - Acts 17:26-27
   A. Geographic - simple enough: oceans, rivers, mountains, forests,
   B. Ethnic (racial) - cf. v26 "He made ... every ethnic group ..."; includes:
   C. Language - esp. from Gen. 11-tower of Babel and division of languages; but Pentecost and universal "translation" for sake of gospel
   D. Political: seems man-made: but ultimately determined by God as much as both of the above, and usually includes many geographic and ethnic boundaries within political boundaries.
     1. Roman Empire established political boundaries around a variety of ethnic groups and geographical features; Christian mission was furthered by Greek as a common language and relative peace kept within the political boundaries of the empire
      2. Same in the United States - Christian mission furthered by English as a common language and relative peace within the political boundaries of the nation.

II. God Has Placed Philosophical and Religious Boundaries on Human Existence - Acts 17:16-19, 21, 22-23, 29
   A. Human beings feel a need to explain their existence. That need creates a variety of philosophies and religious practices.
      1. Athens was full of idols, but couldn't settle on a common religion: Note Epicureans and Stoics: both firm in belief but totally opposed to each other in philosophy.
      2. they always wanted something newer; we would say they latched onto every new religious fad that came along. The ultimate futility of this situation is the altar dedicated to "an unknown God."
      3. Again, the U.S. experience is becoming so similar.
B. This variety of explanations leaves people empty and despairing, or fanatical and militant. Why? They fall short of the truth and are ultimately unable to provide the meaning of existence humans seek. God will not bless religions and philosophies not based on His Word and His Way. He is not in those "temples" (cp vv 24, 29).

III. God Has Placed Chronological Boundaries on Human Existence - Acts 17:30-31
A. The obvious . . . Death !!! Death of individual people. Death of civilizations.
      What is the most obvious chronological boundary for everyone? Death. We would think mainly of individual human death; but what about the death of civilizations? You don't have to read much history to see a pattern in the rise and fall of nations, of empires, of entire cultures.
      How much longer will the United States exist as a nation? The Bible says that when the people and leaders of a nation willfully resist His will, He brings that nation down, sometimes through the use of another nation. God used Assyria and Babylon to punish His own people for disobedience, but He also used Babylon to bring down Assyria, He used Persia to bring down Babylon, He used Greece to bring down Persia, and He used Rome to conquer the Greek empire established by Alexander the Great. We know this because it is prophesied in the book of Daniel. Does God still do things this way? Was the United States used by God to help bring down the ungodly Nazi kingdom? Could the United States be brought down hard if our people keep ignoring God? Ultimately only one kingdom will last forever, the kingdom of God brought in by Jesus Christ.
        This brings us to the final boundary: Read 17:30-31
B. Ultimately . . . Judgment !!!
      The human race as a whole is now at the edge of judgment. God the Father has already decided on a day of judgment to be carried out through Jesus Christ. Furthermore, God proved that Jesus is His Chosen One to rule and judge the world when He raised Him from the dead. Human history as we now know it will come to an end when Christ returns. That boundary is given as a primary motivation for human beings to repent, to turn from idols, from sin, from false religion, to the True and Living God.

Output: God's People are Responsible for Declaring God's Truth within God's Boundaries - Acts 17:17, 18b, 23b

Extra Credit - Characteristics of Paul's Response to Athens:
1. He was bothered by the idols, but did not lobby the Roman government to have them torn down or try to block their entrances.
2. He talked to everyone he could about Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
3. He corrected false ideas about God by declaring Biblical truth.
4. He understood the culture he was speaking to well enough to communicate the gospel in terms the people could understand.

Theft #11 - Stealin' Back My Friends

2009-07-18T13:18:00.003-04:00

I recently joined Facebook (about 2 weeks ago), after resisting it for years now. Overall, I have found it to be an interesting and most enjoyable experience. I've had some doubts about the sheer amount of information that we all share together, but in general it does keep mutual friends aware of each other's activities in a unique way. And, for the most part, I can control what info I want to share.

In the last couple days, however, I discovered a feature of Facebook called "Highlights" that cannot be controlled--at all--by the user. This is a right sidebar list that shows apparently randomly selected items from my friends as "highlights" for my Facebook homepage.

Now, since these are all from people with whom I agreed to be friends, you'd think I would have no objection. But as I think about it more seriously, I realize that the placement is directly below the advertisement section, which appears in the top right section of the homepage. Noticing that correlation, I don't think it is a stretch to say that the "Highlights" section is really nothing more than Facebooks "advertisements" for certain of my friends' posts, notes, comments, applications, etc. That is, Facebook is deciding which of my friends entries should be most important to me. Why should they be able to do that without my explicit input? And why shouldn't I be able to delete, re-order, add to, or otherwise change the content? Well, as I said, Facebook controls the ads on it's site, and if my friends' entries are--in the end--nothing more than ads to be promoted, then Facebook is --by default--stealing away my friends whose entries are not chosen as Highlights.

So--you guessed it--I'm stealin' back my friends! If I can't control the content of these friendship "ads," I can do what I do with most online ads: I can ignore them! I can chose to click on no "Highlights" at all! And--when you're online--to click or not to click is the make or break decision for most websites.

But-bottom line: How does this "no click" decision fit into the Biblical-redemptive purpose of this site? Simply this: the freedom and election in Christ that I share with most of my Facebook friends is threatened (IMHO) by Facebook's control over whether their entries are "Highlights" or not; those who are not "the chosen" are--by redemptive standards--in a form of bondage, since their output will not be as widely accessed. By stealin' back these friends, I affirm that I regard them all as chosen by God for salvation, chosen by me for friendship, and equally free both in Christ and in their importance on my homepage.

"To click, or not to click," that is the theft.

Later in Christ, RfJ.

Theft #10 - Stealin' Back the Savior

2009-07-09T18:10:00.003-04:00

All the media attention about Michael Jackson's death and funeral got me to thinking about the murder of John Lennon in 1980, and the almost mystical media event that became. Both of these celebrity deaths created the kind of absurd world-wide attention that implicitly gives them the same media significance as the death of Christ.

I realize this is arguable, especially since--at the time--the death of Jesus Christ was a pretty localized event, and it wasn't until after His resurrection and ascension that his disciples spread the news through the whole Roman world. It's hard to say what would have happened if Jesus had come and died at a time in the day of satellite TV and "The Web 2.0."

What strikes me about the attention celeb deaths get is that people are still looking for a savior, or at least someone they can make into a savior, 2000 years after the only True Savior came, died, was raised, and ascended back to heaven. Personally, I have a great appreciation for and attraction to music and musicians, but I look to neither for deliverance from my sins nor my troubles. Strangely enough, I hardly think our musical heroes think of themselves as saviors. Bruce Springsteen warns that we should not "Waste your summer praying in vain for a saviour to rise from these streets." Patti Smith is yet more cynical and bitter when she sings "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine." Can these quasi-magical people save us when they can't accept that salvation exists?

Since it is unlikely that the current media will suddenly look back to the death of Jesus and think they have a scoop, it is still up to the disciples of Jesus--us, for those who believe--to continue spreading the word to everyone we can.

We need to steal back the Savior from the media with only the power of His Word and His Spirit. Wait, did I say "only"???? Hmmmm...... the media has technology and we have the Eternal God. Ba'al had 400 prophets and Yahweh had Elijah. Rome had a thousand legions and Jesus had 12 disciples. What was the outcome in those situations?

Could it be that we need to steal back the history of the Savior as well? (If only for our own assurance!)

Later in Christ, RfJ.

Side Job: Born Again On the 4th of July

2009-07-04T19:12:00.003-04:00

It's probably cheating a bit to just put out song lyrics as a blog post, but this song by Rich Mullins really wraps up the tension I often feel about being a follower of Jesus Christ in a country like the USA.

Land of My Sojourn - by Rich Mullins and Beaker

"And the coal trucks come a-runnin'
With their bellies full of coal
And their big wheels a-hummin'
Down this road that lies open like the soul of a woman
Who hid the spies who were lookin'
For the land of the milk and the honey
And this road she is a woman
She was made from a rib
Cut from the sides of these mountains
Oh these great sleeping Adams
Who are lonely even here in paradise
Lonely for somebody to kiss them

And I'll sing my song, and I'll sing my song
In the land of my sojourn

And the lady in the harbor
She still holds her torch out
To those huddled masses who are
Yearning for a freedom that still eludes them
The immigrant's children see their brightest dreams shattered
Here on the New Jersey shoreline in the
Greed and the glitter of those high-tech casinos
But some mendicants wander off into a cathedral
And they stoop in the silence
And there their prayers are still whispered

And I'll sing their song, and I'll sing their song
In the land of my sojourn

Nobody tells you when you get born here
How much you'll come to love it
And how you'll never belong here
So I call you my country
And I'll be lonely for my home
And I wish that I could take you there with me

And down the brown brick spine of some dirty blind alley
All those drain pipes are drippin' out the last Sons Of Thunder
While off in the distance the smoke stacks
Were belching back this city's best answer

And the countryside was pocked
With all of those mail pouch posters
Thrown up on the rotting sideboards of
These rundown stables like the one that Christ was born in
When the old world started dying
And the new world started coming on

And I'll sing His song, and I'll sing His song
In the land of my sojourn
In the land of my sojourn
And I will sing His song
In the land of my sojourn"

***I'll try to follow up in the next couple days with a "real" blog on this subject.
Later in Christ, RfJ

Theft #9 - Stealin' Back Politics (from BOTH sides)

2009-07-01T18:19:00.005-04:00

The following is a lesson I'm teaching tonight at our mid-week church mtg. I thought I'd post my lesson notes.

Luke 23:50-54 (and parallels.) Joseph of Arimathea "How Do You Spot a Righteous Politician?" July 1, 2009 - Rick Ludwig

Translation - Luke 23:50-54
50Then behold, a man, Joseph by name, being a council-member, a man good and righteous 51(this one had not put down his vote together with their decision and plan of action), from Arimathea a city of the Jews, who was anticipating the kingdom of God, 52this man, when he went to Pilate, asked for the body of Jesus, 53then after he took it down, he wrapped it in a piece of fine linen and laid Him in a tomb cut into rock, of which no one had yet been laid. 54And it was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was dawning.

Objective: To establish character traits that a Christian politician ought to exhibit in public life.

Introduction

What are the two topics we should never discuss during polite conversation? {Politics & religion}. These topics have the reputation of generating fiery debate even at the most casual and friendly of social gatherings. But, before we pray tonight, guess what?

Actually, Independence Day weekend has particular significance for a discussion of religion & politics; indeed the Declaration issued on July 4, 1776 lit the first batch of fireworks over a new nation in which religion and politics would be virtually inseparable.

In particular I have chosen to talk about the way we view the religious beliefs of our elected officials. Virtually all the leaders of the American Revolution believed in God at some level. Indeed, I doubt you could find any American presidents in the annals of history who called themselves anything but Christian. Our contemporary obsession with our leaders' religious views began not, in fact, with Ronald Reagan, but in 1976 with Jimmy Carter's declaration of himself as a "born again" Christian. As a result, for better or worse, Time Magazine declared 1976, our bicentennial year, as the "Year of the Evangelical."

With the establishment of the New Religious Right and the election of Reagan in 1980, political candidates have had to consider seriously the impact of the evangelical Christian vote in their campaign. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore made their Southern Baptist affiliation very public. Indeed, President Clinton's victory party looked and sounded almost like a revival meeting. Here in Toledo, our first strong mayor election brought forth a major discussion of the spiritual beliefs of the candidates, and fact that a major contender was an avowed atheist quite possibly brought about his close defeat. Americans still seem to want leaders who have basic religious beliefs.

In our 233 years as nation, American believers have had more than their share of political figures who embrace the Christian vote; but not necessarily the Christian God and His righteousness. George Washington was a Free-Mason; Thomas Jefferson published his own version of the gospels with the miracles of Jesus cut out; Ben Franklin's reputation as a shameless womanizer, especially in Paris, is well-documented. Let's get closer to home with our last four "Christian" presidents: Ronald Reagan's wife practiced astrology to plan his schedule; the George Bush dreamed of a "New World Order; that good Baptist Bill Clinton supported abortion and homosexual rights. George W. Bush was too often pretty vague on what he believed.

Background and Theme Statement
The question that comes to mind from all this is "How Do You Spot a Righteous Politician?" Please turn look at Luke 23:50-54. In this passage we meet a 1st century Jewish politician named Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned only in connection with the burial of the body of Jesus, but his contribution is recorded in all four gospels. The setting is soon after the death of Jesus on the cross, and nearing sundown on the day before the Jewish Sabbath, which was the Day of Preparation. Jn. 19:38-42 shows that Joseph approached Pilate immediately after Jesus' side had been pierced to be sure he was dead. John's gospel also shows that Joseph was accompanied by Nicodemus.
The setting in Luke's gospel comes after what are probably the last words of Jesus on the cross before he died (Lk. 23:46), and immediately before the women prepare spices (Lk. 23:55-56). It is the day of our Lord's crucifixion; the Roman spear in His side has shown He is already dead, and the Jews want their crucified countrymen taken down because the Sabbath is near.

Now I call this Joseph a politician because he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the council of priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees who ruled the Jews under the Roman empire. The gospel accounts present the Sanhedrin as a group of scheming, self-serving men who were interested in increasing their personal stature, and keeping the Roman empire and their own people off their backs. They were politicians. Joseph was a politician, and from the accounts in Matthew and Mark we learn he was a rich and prominent politician. But Joseph was also different. Luke calls him a righteous and good man, and there are three things revealed about Joseph that justify Luke's evaluation.

These are the character traits of a righteous politician:
1. He acts according to his convictions.
2. He puts politics in a Biblical perspective
3. He makes his faith public under pressure.

1a. He acts according to his convictions - Luke 23:51 - "He had not consented...."

1b. This could be rendered "He had not put down his vote with their decision and their plan of action."
2b. When the Sanhedrin made their decision to pursue the persecution and death of Jesus Christ, Joseph of Arimathea apparently voted against. Whether he knew exactly who Jesus was at that time isn't certain, but he surely recognized the both the innocence of Jesus and the thoroughly immoral and cruel nature of the Sanhedrin's decision. He wasn't swayed by the majority decision when that decision was corrupt. He voted with his convictions.

3b. Sometimes the majority is wrong: ie., Kevorkian?

2a. He puts politics in a Biblical perspective.

1b. Luke 23:51b/Mark 15:43 - "waiting for the kingdom of God"
Lit.: "Anticipating/eagerly awaiting the kingdom of God." That is, he was anxious for the kingdom of God to come, and was ready to welcome it. Whenever Luke uses this particular word for "waiting" the people doing the waiting are always pictured as godly. To wait for the kingdom is the godly thing to do.

2b. Joseph certainly understood that the present state of affairs was not the kingdom. The non-Jewish king Herod and a ruling council who were a puppet of the Roman empire certainly didn't match the Biblical description of the coming Messianic age, and unlike his fellow politicians, Joseph wasn't content with that. In John 11:47-48 we see the council convened that made the decision to kill Jesus. Listen to their reasoning: READ John 11:47-48. I think Joseph knew better. The Romans already had the nation; only God's deliverance would bring in the true kingdom.

3b. A truly righteous Christian politician today understands that the kingdom of God cannot be legislated in by the United States government, or manipulated in by political lobbies. He votes his convictions, but he eagerly awaits the kingdom which Christ will bring.

3a. He makes his faith public under pressure

1b. Both Mark and John tell us that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but John emphasizes that he had been keeping it secret for fear of the Jews. He picked a great time to go public. His comrades have succeeded in convincing Rome to crucify his Lord, the apostles are off hiding somewhere, but Joseph finally shows his faith.

2b. He goes to Pilate - Luke 23:52
Mark says that Joseph gathered up courage to go see Pilate. He certainly knew that Pilate was never thrilled to be involved in the mess. Pilate was a politician too, and the most powerful one in Judea for the time. The last thing one wanted to do was upset the Roman governor. But Joseph asks, and Pilate agrees.

3b. He buries Jesus - Luke 23:53
Joseph takes Jesus' body off the cross himself and buries Him in a brand new tomb. We know from Matt 27:60 that it was Joseph's own tomb, freshly cut into a wall of stone. This had to thrill the Sanhedrin. The man they went out of their way to discredit and murder was now buried in the tomb of one of their most prominent members. This Jesus spent most of His life with poor people, and now a rich man buries him: What kind of politician does that sort of thing? A righteous one does! A righteous politician is willing to make his faith in Jesus public even when the circumstances are totally wrong from a political standpoint.

A few years ago, on a nationally televised interview Dan Quayle, vice-president of the United States at the time, said in so many words that the most important thing in his life was his relationship with Jesus Christ. Now, Mr. Quayle had taken his share of abuse from the press, but when Barbara Walters asked the vice-president and his wife the loaded question regarding their belief in the Bible as the Word of God, the unflinching response was: Yes. The Bible is the Word of God. That's a pretty righteous stand for a politician. I think Dan Quayle meant what he said. I'd also like to point out that our vice-president chose to affirm his faith in Jesus Christ at a time when the Bush administration was losing popularity because of economic and social issues, and at a time when the media was hacking Christianity to pieces because of confrontations over abortion and immoral preachers. If Dan Quayle was ever a secret disciple, he wasn't after that show.

Conclusion

In the lingo of today's pagan-humanism, the behavior of Joseph of Arimathea was not "politically correct." He risked his reputation and career by choosing to be a righteous politician.

On Independence Day week of 2009 we live in a country where our political leaders sail on the waves of social change, one finger in the air to feel the direction of the wind of public opinion. We want to support political figures who stand apart from that system; we long for righteous politicians, politicians who are willing to acknowledge that God raised this nation up, that God can take this nation down, and that the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be kicked out the White House, or the Capitol, or out of the United States of America by the President, or Congress, or the Supreme Court because Jesus is the Name above all names. Let the doubters ask Nebuchadnezzar Who holds the real power!

Before we stop today we need to acknowledge that politicians are not alone in their hypocrisy; they are not alone in expressing opinions shaped by their supporters; they are not alone in making truth relative to their own best interest. Don't we all feel the pressure of the crowd, the tyranny of the majority, now and then? We all have a public life of some kind, we all deal with the politics of the neighborhood and the workplace.

I've asked the question "How do we spot a righteous politician?" But all things considered, shouldn't the question perhaps be "How do you spot a righteous person?" We all find ourselves tempted to go with the flow occasionally: the media pressures us, our peers pressure us, and sometimes we just get used to a lower standard of holiness in our life because the evils around us that used to fill our eyes with the tears of God now seem almost normal. How do we spot a righteous person; how do we behave as righteous people? Joseph of Arimathea gives the model: He acts with his convictions; he puts politics in Biblical perspective, and most of all, when the pressure's on, he makes his faith in Jesus Christ public.

Later in Christ, RFJ

Theft #8 - Stealin' Back Classical Music

2009-06-27T14:33:00.009-04:00

Greetings, fellow thieves:

The following rambling essay may read at first like a rather limited perspective on classical music, but I only want to discuss two composers that fit roughly into the very broad category of classical music. Those two composers are Richard Wagner and Anton Bruckner. Arguably both composers are better described--by most music scholars--as part of the late 19th century Romantic movement in music, but this presupposes an understanding of what the terms "classical" and "romantic" actually mean in 19th orchestral music.

So, here's a brief lesson in the philosophy of musical history as it relates to the turmoil generated in the 19th century by the emergence of what became known as the Romantic movement. First of all, the term "classical" as applied to a musical movement was marked by a focus on musical form and intellectual content in composition. In a sense Bach and Handel were "pre-classical" in their adherence to form, but the real classical "crown" certainly belongs to Franz Joseph Haydn, who brought the form and substance of the symphony into it's rightful place in musical history. You can listen to all 104 Haydn symphonies and hear the form of the music, and the mind of the composer, in every single piece. He epitomizes "classical" as a tribute to proper form and the dominance of intellect over emotion.

"Romantic" on the other hand, came as an almost anti-intellectual movement which emphasized emotion over mind, and sometimes emotion over form. This doesn't say that great classical emotion didn't evoke strong feelings in the listener, but that Romantic composers spent more time trying to put their own emotion--rather than their thought--into their compositions.

So, by these two admittedly simplistic descriptions--if they are correct--we can see that the the terms "classical" and "romantic" represent two opposed philosophical approaches to not merely music and the arts, but to life itself. That is, ask yourself if you approach life led by your mind or by your emotions. That is the question which the 19th century composers were trying to answer in the creation of their art. From a Biblical standpoint, it is the question to which we all must seek an answer.

At any rate, the great Classical/Romantic dichotomy (and debate) came a head first in the works of Ludwig Van Beethoven. Was he the last Classical composer or the first Romantic composer, or--perhaps--a bit of both? Ask two scholars, two conductors, two "fans," and you will get widely different answers to that question. Personally, since this is my blog, I prefer the conductor's interpretations that approach Beethoven's works as Classical, but that shows my bias towards mind leading emotion, which I think is a more Biblical order than the reverse. Nonetheless, which "take" on Beethoven one prefers, his music stands at the crossroads between Classical and Romantic, and his music starts the argument.

(NOTE: I respectfully pass by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at this point, only because he is a bit of an anomaly in his time; that is, he was a "pre-Romantic" composer living and writing at the peak of the Classical era. I personally believe Beethoven could have come to greatness directly from Haydn without the existence of Mozart, but that is an argument for another time.)

So, getting back to Bruckner and Wagner, we have Richard Wagner emerging from the Romantic view of Beethoven, and producing the first full-blown unashamedly Romantic music of the 19th century. Not-surprisingly, it was also the fist totally and unabashedly pagan music of its time. (By "pagan" here I mean European music not tied to the ideas and beliefs of 19th century Christianity.) It was not only rooted in the "emotion leading mind" approach, but also rooted in pre-Christian Teutonic mythology which were expressed explicitly in Wagner's monumental operas, which combined music, art, theater, and philosophy--and most of all: emotion--in one huge "sub-genre" which defied categorization. In the 21st century we would call it "Performance Art," I think. It was unarguably a great achievement from an artistic point of view, and also unarguably, an utterly ungodly abomination from a Biblical point of view. It was the wave of the future, and the pre-cursor to the movement of "Modern" music away from any Christian roots.

By God's grace, however, in the same century we had Anton Bruckner. Bruckner adored and admired Wagner and his music, and there is no doubt that Bruckner's "sound-scape" is--at first listen--much like Wagner's. Even if I reject Wagner for his neo-paganism, I must accept him for the fact that Bruckner probably would not have existed without him. This however, is finally where the aspect of redemption, of "stealin' it back" comes in: Bruckner was a very devout German Catholic, and every composition he wrote he intended for God's glory. In one sense, he was the most thoroughly Christian composer since Bach.

However, here's where I kick in the real controversy: whereas Wagner's music was both pagan and Romantic, Bruckner's was both Christian and Classical! What? A man using the same musical scope and size as the ultra-Romantic Wagner was not even Romantic? That's it; that's the other side of Bruckner's redemption of Wagner: Bruckner followed the "mind leading emotion" approach. Ironically, Wagner is viewed historically as the "intellectual" and Bruckner as the "country simpleton," but Bruckner's brilliant composition techniques make that comparison a historical and academic fraud. Indeed, Bruckner freely used counterpoint (which Bach brought to it's highest point) and also stuck to classical form in a monumental way. There's something else: Wagner wrote operas; Bruckner wrote symphonies. Indeed, the only vocal music Bruckner composed was for the church (3 Masses, a great Te Deum, and several smaller sacred pieces.) Bruckner's choice to stick to the symphony was--I think--totally linked with his devotion to God, and to classical form.

For those who will argue that Bruckner's music is emotional, I simply say this: look to Bach, for the musical emotion of both Bach and Bruckner is generated in the listener by the impact of the Spirit of God on those composers, rather than by their own fickle emotions. We hear the "voice" of the true God even in the instrumental works of these two great and faithful men, and in Bruckner, we hear not simply Wagner redeemed, but the essence of the Classical philosophy redeemed in musical form. Wagner stole the Classical principle from Beethoven and buried it in the neo-pagan Romantic; Bruckner stole it back and used it for the glory of God.

OK, that was long, but it has been awhile. I'll be back.

Later in Christ, RFJ.

Side Job: Stealin' Back Time for The Blog

2009-06-27T14:15:00.007-04:00

Wow. This has to be the most neglected thing I've ever started. It's all about time, or that's what I tell myself anyway. But if this blog means anything, I should be posting daily, or a least couple times a week, or I should take it down. Ironically this blog gets it's name from the admonition in Eph 5:15-16, " Look therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise; 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil." "Redeeming the time" is the Biblical principle of "buying back" time lost on the world to be used for God. I call it "Stealin' it back" based on U2's comments about "stealing back" the song Helter Skelter from Charles Manson, but the concept is the same.

But the core of my neglect is seen in the fact that it is specifically TIME that the Bible tells us to redeem, to buy back, to "steal back," and the reason is not that the days are short, but that the "days are evil." So, I have to negate my own neglect of this blog by stealin' back the time to post on it, and in that respect, to make the days a bit less evil. So, this is a notice of my return, as much to myself as to anyone reading.

Later in Christ, "The Thief."

Theft #7 - Submerging the Emergent Musician

2007-10-20T11:46:00.000-04:00

Welcome back Rick! Boy, what a lazy summer I had. Now that the temp is consistently below 80F, my brain is beginning to work again, so here's a long overdue return to blogging (not that anyone is reading this thing anyway).

In a nutshell, I'm fed up with musicians who are Christians, but seem to feel they need to be as vague or "tolerant" about their faith as possible. This is one of the traits of the current Emergent (or Emerging) Church movement, but it has been a problem among Christian musicians (or "musicians who happen to be Christians," or "Christians who happen to be musicians," or "{...you get it, right?....}") for a long time.

Now, I'm not posting to rant on the Emergent Church, but I have argued for years that our best Christian musicians are the last true prophets the evangelical Church has left. My prime examples--for non-crossover artists--have always been--Larry Norman, Daniel Amos, 77s, The Choir, Adam Again, early Steve Camp, Keith Green, et al. Of the "secular" and/or crossover Christian musicians, my examples have been (painfully obvious) U2, Bruce Cockburn, POD, DC Talk/Kevin Max, The Call, Vigilantes of Love, Bob Dylan (don't start!), T-Bone Burnett, and so on.

So, if I'm right about Christian musicians being the "last prophets," it could be true that their musical/lyrical vision has always given a glimpse of the theological direction of the evangelical Church.

This can be solid or iffy:

Solid = true Biblical criticism of modern and post-modern culture, plus warnings about those cultures' influence on the Church. Best current examples are Daniel Amos, Larry Norman and Steve Taylor. These folks are no-compromise, Biblically conservative Christians who have always been on the prophetic cutting edge musically and lyrically, and work from "within" the Church. >>>I would also add U2 to this list even though they work from "outside" the church.
Iffy = Criticism of the Church and culture from a primarily political (rather than Biblical) perspective. Examples are Bruce Cockburn, T-Bone Burnett, Bob Dylan (I included him with hesitation), Vigilantes of Love(maybe), and now Zao (if you even know who they are). The folks--I think--truly believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, but their political motivation too often overrides clear Biblical truth. They identify themselves with political liberal causes and positions, and have an implicit (or sometimes explicit) aversion to being identified as a Christian musician. >>>Again, I would add U2 in this list (to a degree) even though Paul Hewson (Bono) has--in the last 5 years--proven that his very active Christian compassion overrides any attachment to liberal or conservative politics.
***NOTE: By using the labels "solid" and "iffy" I am not saying that I am ready to fully accept one group and reject the other. Because of the prophetic stance inherent in the work of both groups, I believe we need them both. I have been challenged to think differently about evangelism by those in the "iffy" category, and--frankly--I really like their music. It is their blindly liberal politics that drives me batty. On the other hand, some musicians in the "solid" group can tend to be too insular or sheltered regarding the harsh reality of a world without Christ. However, their willingness to 1) take the Bible seriously, and 2) express their faith openly more than makes up for any cultural blind spots. Plus--as re the iffy group--I really like their music.

What triggered this whole post was my purchase of the newest CD by Over the Rhine--The Trumpet Child, and my subsequent exploration of their website. Now OTR is not a band I would describe as "prophetic," but they are "musicians who happen to be Christians," and they exhibit a vagueness about what that means. However, the core trigger was reading comments from their "fans" on their website's forum.

These fans--almost uniformly--are either not Christian at all, or they are what I have called Emergent Christians. That is, they show little interest in Biblical truth, practical holiness, or evangelism. There is a section of the forum devoted to prayer requests, but--again--the type of "prayers" being offered are so generic and vague as to be either only quasi-Christian, or even explicitly non-Christian. Neither the band nor their "Christian" fans exhibit any interest at all in getting their numerous non-Christian fans interested in Biblical truth about Christ. This drives me up the wall. I can deal with the expected anti-Bush rhetoric, but I can't deal with the utter disinterest in telling people the truth about sin, judgment, and salvation in Christ.

So, having said all that, what is there to "steal back" from these "iffy" Christian musicians? It's just this: I will keep listening and learning from them, but I will be more vocal and interactive with them and their fans about the need to "submerge" themselves back in the Bible, rather to "Emerge" away from 2000 years of orthodox (small "o") Christianity. This post is the beginning.

Bear with me.
RFJ.

Theft #6 - Redemption in the Potter's Field???

2007-07-25T16:37:00.000-04:00

Well, it's been a long time since I've felt like writing anything anywhere, but after almost 3 weeks, I guess I need to get on board or stay put. I've had computer problems, physical problems, church-changing problems, etc, etc, etc, and I've just been wondering if it's worth it all.

But, into the midst of all this despair comes the new and final Harry Potter book, and--against my better judgment--the driving need for me to once again take a stand against, in my view, this irredeemable series which celebrates "good" wizards, denigrates "bad" wizards, and generally has no Biblical foundation which questions the whole idea of "wizards" in general.

So, just as I had made some comments to a co-worker regarding the occult underpinnings of the Potter series, I came across this online review of the new book from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118523218924275494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. The article makes the following astounding assertion: "It has been widely observed that J.K. Rowling owes a creative debt to Christian fantasists J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (apart from their fondness for initials). It's odd now to remember that, at the same time, some parents have objected to the magic depicted in the Harry Potter books as a glorification of satanic practices. For "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" confirms something else apart from the well-thought-out-ness of Ms. Rowling's moral universe: It is subtly but unmistakably Christian."

Well now, just what do I do with that? Read all seven books to see if I can follow the Christian thread? Certainly I can't accept the word of the Wall St Journal on something this critical, can I?

OK, in the meantime, I ran across this from the Christian Science Monitor: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer. This article--in unintentional opposition to the previous--chides the Potter series for not having a true moral center: "If literature truly reflects society, then the end of the Harry Potter series spells trouble for us all. Because, after 10 years, 4,195 pages, and over 325 million copies, J.K. Rowling's towering achievement lacks the cornerstone of almost all great children's literature: the hero's moral journey. Without that foundation, her story – for all its epic trappings of good versus evil – is stuck in a moral no man's land."

Quite logically, I will leave you to click on the links and examine each article. Also, I leave it to you to judge the moral value of the Potter series. I did read one of the books--the first really "long" one (about 800pp) a few years ago, and it collided head on with my Christian worldview. It also collided with my personal experiences in the occult before I gave myself to Christ. In that one book--at least--I saw nothing of redemption, nor did I see anything to be redeemed (especially in judging whether my kids should be exposed to the series).

So . . . now what? It is at best doubtful that I will spend money to read all seven volumes of this series to trace alleged Christian foundations, and it is equally unlikely that I can--in conscience--utterly dismiss the possibility. I have been a sci-fi fan my whole life, and I continually find redemptive value in the oddest places. I'm currently just finishing the "Dune" series by Frank Herbert for about the 5th time, and, although it is hardly Christian, it has strong redemptive, religious, and even messianic themes.

I guess the best I can do at this point is point out the main reason some Christian folks I know like the Potter books: "Good triumphs over evil." I shouldn't have to point out that this alone does not make the series Christian.

Nonetheless, I would like to raise one devastating question about that oft quoted moral virtue in quotes above:

Who, in the end, establishes what is "good?"

Who?

Theft #5 - Stealin' Back Christian Cliches

2007-07-05T21:20:00.000-04:00

"Stealin' It Back" does not always refer to those of the non-Christian or anti-Christian minset. There are those times when you have to steal things back from other folks who think and believe the same way you do. That is, as a Christian, sometimes I have to steal back cliches from other Christians so the truth can be told. For example: despite the fact that the place referred to as "Hell--which is sheol in the OT and Hades or "lake of fire" in the NT--is never viewed as being under the control of Satan, Christians persist in thinking that this is Satan's domain. When they see evil, they say things like, "That's right from the pit of Hell!" Of course, they mean it originated with Satan, but they commit a huge error in implying that Satan rules over Hell. In Milton's Paradise Lost, Milton has Satan say that "It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven;" this is another colossal blunder. Satan rules nothing except those portions of the present evil age (on earth!) over which God permits him to exercise his vile ways.

So: stealin' it back:

Matthew 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels."
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

In other words, Satan and his demonic followers will end up simply as eternal prisoners in "Hell," aka "lake of fire, "hades," "eternal fire," et al. Satan will have no power there.

One more thing:

Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

So, if "Hades" does not represent any power or rule of Satan, then in the above verse, "Hades" must mean what it meant to every Greek-peaking person of the 1st-C AD: It simply meant death! It is the "gates of death/the grave" that will not stand against the church. Satan is not in this verse.

To be continued . . . RfJ

Untheft (Sideways glancing) - Hard to Keep Up, In'nit?

2007-06-29T21:03:00.000-04:00

It's hard to keep a blog going. If I'm supposed to be "stealin' back" bits and pieces of God's creation for Him, I have to fight the inertia that settles in which keeps me from even writing this much. It is a sort of "time," or lack of it, or misplaced use of it, which is "stealin" my energy and ability to keep this thing going.

Then there's the issue of finding readers, getting links, etc, etc, etc; it's a lot of work to improvise a blog intelligently, and to stick to the stated purpose.

I think I need God to steal back some time and energy for me. That will probably require me to ask for His help, if indeed He even wants me to do this thing. I think that's called prayer, and specifically prayer according to His will. And, quite naturally (or supernaturally), to find His will I must seek His Word: in graphe, in rhema, and ultimately in logos; or--in English, roughly: in His writings, in His utterances, and in His, His . . . well, in the essence of His absolute Word/Reason which contains more that what He writes and speaks, and which the apostle John actually equates with God Himself. That's a tuffy . . .

BTW, I think I will continue to use the term "Untheft" in the title whenever I am doing this bit of self-examination; this bit of walking alongside my life and glancing over at it, rather than being immersed in it and living it. God can do both, but I just twist my neck, and my mind.

Later, RfJ.

Theft #4 - Blessings the Devil Tried to Steal

2007-06-25T17:31:00.001-04:00

The Blessings of Ephesians 1:3-14

3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who blessed us

in every spiritual blessing
in the heavenlies in Christ
4 just as He chose us in Him

before the foundation of the world
for us to be

holy and blameless ones
in His sight

in love
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:
5 Who predestined us for sonship

through Jesus Christ

for Himself,
according to the good pleasure

of His will
6 for the praise

of the glory of His grace,
with which He graced us

in the Beloved.
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:
7 In Whom we have redemption

through His blood
the forgiveness of the trespasses
according to the wealth

of His grace
8 which He poured into us
in all wisdom and insight.
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who made known to us

the mystery of His will
according to His good pleasure

which He purposed in Him,
10 for the administration

of the fulfillment

of the times,
to bring to a head all things

in Christ,
the things above the heavens
and

the things upon the earth

in Him.
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:
11 In Whom also

we were appointed by lot,
having been predestined
according to the purpose

of Him

Who works all things
according to the counsel

of His will
12 so that we might be

for the praise

of His glory,
we who hoped beforehand

in Christ.

3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:
13 In Whom also you,
when you heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation,
in Whom also,

when you believed,
you were sealed

by the Holy Spirit of the promise
14 who is a pledge

of our inheritance
for the redemption

of the posssesion
for the praise

of His glory.

Theft #3 - More About the Blog Title + a New Link

2007-06-24T13:40:00.000-04:00

I got some feedback on my 2nd post from a Christian brother and friend (yes, he is actually both). He goes by the web name "Mr. Bevets" and his website link has now been added to the "...Steal Back Theology" links section. My purpose in mentioning this is not to answer or highlight his comment, but to highlight Mr. Bevets. For one thing, he was my personal inspiration for the title of this blog. I've already explained about the U2 connection to the title, obviously Bono is not a personal friend of mine (although he is a Christian brother).
Anyway, Mr Bevets sent out an email that dealt with his visit to the new Creation Science Museum down near Cinci, OH, and his subject on the email was "Charles Darwin stole the dinosaurs. Now we're stealin' 'em back," which I think was brilliant cultural parody and also very cool "flattery by imitation." That one email ended up generating a fervent email debate (about 60 emails at last count) back and forth between about 5 of us, all of whom are Christians, and all but one of whom are Young Earth (or Recent Earth) Creationists. I've known Bevets for 18 years, and he's had his own website for about 12-15 years, and for the last 5 or so years he's been bugging me to get a blog started focusing on--well--pretty much things I have said this blog will be about. So, he's clearly happy that I've finally done it, and I'm happy that he's given me my first comment. I really am a "callow youth" in the realm of blogging, so I'll be tapping his experience, (along with Google help) to get this thing set up right.
One final thing about comments ("feedback"): I noted that Mr Bevets left a comment; however, I won't be replying to that on this blog, In fact, very rarely will I reply to comments/feedback with another blog post. In the case of someone I know (like Bevets), I'll get back to them by private email; in the case of folks I don't know, you're welcome to comment, and I will read them, but I don't intend this blog to be a "forum" or "group" type situation. When I want that, I'll form a Google Group.
****EXCEPTIONS to the above policy will happen: 1) if you add comments with foul language, or 2) you leave comments that are vehemently anti-Christian. Foul language will not be tolerated, and such comments will be deleted ASAP. If that ever gets out of hand, I'll have to switch on the "moderator" control. Anti-Christian comments that are just sheer blasphemy will also be deleted without an answer. However, intelligent comments from those who reject Christianity--in rare instances--may provoke a new blog post relating to the issue (but not necessarily a direct answer or refutation of the comment).

--Grace and peace, RfJ.

Theft #2 - No Sign But the Cross!

2007-06-23T21:22:00.000-04:00

I just figured out that there's no way to put my birthdate in the designated place in my profile without the website displaying my astrological sign and my Chinese year of birth. Since I am serious about Jesus Christ being the sole and only Lord of the universe and of my life, I obviously don't want any pagan superstition on my profile. So, you still get my year of birth in the more open "about me" section, but none of that "what's your sign" baloney. Since 1984, the only "sign" I claim allegiance to is the sign of the Cross. I'm stealin' the constellations back to declare the glory of God as Psalm 19 proclaims and the Book of Job implies. Want to know more? You can can look in the Book!

Grace and peace, RickforJesus.

First Theft: What About the Blog Title?

2007-06-23T14:41:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm just starting out on this thing, and I haven't blogged before, so be as patient as you can with someone who will quite possibly get in some of your faces sometimes.

The blog title refers to a song intro made by Bono (U2) before a live version of "Helter Skelter" from the movie (and CD) Rattle and Hum. He simply says "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles. We're stealin' it back!" As an American evangelical Christian (knowing that Bono is an Irish evangelical Christian), this intro strikes me as a powerful redemptive statement. (Biblical "redemption" means--in the strictest sense--to buy someone back out of slavery.)

So, with that brief explanation, I will tentatively establish the purpose of this blog to be to "steal back" or "buy back" good and Godly concepts, ideas, cultural practices, words, books, music, paradigms, philosophies, theologies, et al, which--in particular--our neo-secular American culture and media have stolen and perverted for bad and ungodly uses. Since the return of Jesus is is sometimes compared to "a thief in the night," I chose to adopt the "stealin' it back" metaphor over the (perhaps) more precise "buying it back." Plus, since U2 is pretty much my favorite rock band (and has been for over 20 years), I just want to use it.

Because this is a blog, my method of such "re-thievery" must be the written word, probably very often used in the genre of debate and/or argument (in the classical sense).

I believe that is a sufficient intro.

Comment if you wish, or wait till you see more.

Till then, I remain:
RickforJesus