Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Philippians 4:5-6 (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible SocietyOften, when Christians hear the biblical phrase “The Lord is near,” they think apocalyptic warning as in: "Oh no, I better behave, Jesus might come back tonight!" That is the case in some passages, but it is not for the one above. If it were, then an eschatological air raid siren would be juxtaposed between some generally encouraging words. How strange that would be if that were the case.
The sounding board of Pastor Stephen L. Winters for Biblical Theology and things that concern him as a preacher of God's Word and a shepherd of God's people. What is shared here is Informed directly or by implication from the scriptures and hopefully requires little else to make its points.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
God Is at Our Elbow
Monday, June 4, 2007
Good Heathen Counsel
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Ubiquity of Fossils and the Bible
For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.In my mind, it's a better answer.Genesis 7:17-24 (NIV)
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Holy Hunch
The evangelists occasionally describe Jesus as being moved in the bowels (i.e. with compassion) just before he began miraculous ministrations. I know there is a scholarly assumption that sees that as nothing more than an idiomatic expression basically equated with "he felt their pain." I think there was more to it than that, I think Jesus was "feeling" inspiration. He certainly felt virtue go out from him when the woman with the issue of blood touched him.
Speaking of what would be our experience in the Holy Spirit after the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus said rivers of living water would flow out from our bellies. A metaphor, or more? How about a physical analog for a spiritual experience: the action of the Spirit causing sensible repercussions in our corporeal beings. I'm not saying every bit of indigestion is God speaking, but I am most certainly saying that God speaks to those that believe and that his voice reverberates in the soul of man.
There are those who would naysay this interpretation of things, but I ask, where are their greater works, their miracles, their anything that Jesus modeled, the Apostles emulated, and that the early church reproduced? Jesus never implied that the church following him, regardless of the passage of time, would do lesser works, see fewer miracles or have a more distant relationship with the Father than he did. In nothing less than unbelief, naysayers say those things passed away, yet charismatic folks daring to believe produce those things even today.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Faith or Feeling
It seems to me, if we're not going to trash a decent portion of the New Testament, we have to assume the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which inspired the first church is meant to inspire any church thereafter. The works that Christ did, and the Apostles did, and the church at Corinth did, we can do, and even greater works than they did. That is a promise from Christ, it was the experience of the church in scripture, and nothing but bad exegesis of I Corinthians 13 could make it an unexpected experience for the church today.
But how does one experience such inspiration? Somehow that inspiration must be discernible to the person inspired or nothing inspired could happen. Since inspiration, generally, is not by fiat, something felt must trigger the action which is being inspired. It has to be felt, perceived in some way, or there would be no way to initiate the supernatural.
That makes some folks nervous, especially those who have had it rammed into their heads that Christianity is a matter of faith and not feelings. On one level that is most certainly true: becoming a Christian is about buying into an historical record, accepting certain facts by faith. Walking as a Christian thereafter is a matter of trusting God's promises, not depending on feelings. Feelings don't impact facts, and yet, even accepting facts by faith requires the conviction of the Holy Spirit to be present and that is the very definition of inspiration!
Inspiration happens in the present rather than the past. The past can set a pattern to gauge present experience by, but inspiration itself is experienced in the now. One must feel something in the moment in order to move by and with it. Without such an impulse, Spirit-inspired manifestations would not have occurred in the past, and they definitely won't happen now.
Where manifestations of the Spirit are not happening now, and where they ceased happening in history, they ceased not because God stopped inspiring them but because believers ceased paying attention to the inspiration that produces them. Inspiration is not a matter of will or decision (they operate quite easily enough without inspiration), but Spirit-initiated impulse does have to be acted upon by discerning, willing Christians or nothing happens.
So what kind of feelings are we talking about? Anyone involved with Pentecostalism or the Charismatic Movement for any amount of time can recount stories of folk doing bizarre, even the harmful things, because of a feeling. On the other hand, they would also be able to recount stories of people not doing what is clearly commanded in scripture because folk didn't "feel" led. Either of these extremes CANNOT represent the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
That still leaves plenty of room in between those extremes for the experience of legitimate inspiration from Holy Spirit. Such would have to fall within bounds (at least generally) of what is described in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul's epistles. The Old Testament isn't germane, because the experience of the Holy Spirit is different in the New Testament than in the old. To dismiss out-of-hand the possibility of biblically described and promised experience is to harden in unbelief and miss out on the legitimate and miraculous.
The Spirit of God inspires and the willing believer senses an awareness-- perhaps an urge, maybe a sudden certainty, even being provoked in spirit, but something. Something rather than nothing. The feeling should be validated (at least generally) by the scriptural precedent, but it's a false dichotomy to say that our experience as Christians is by faith or it's by feeling. The fact of the matter is: if one wants to live out the biblical promise, it's both.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Faith Is the Currency of Heaven
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What's Your Story?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
A Test Any of Us Can Pass
Monday, April 16, 2007
Why Leave A Church?
People leave their churches for all sorts of reasons and in all kinds of conditions. Some leave churches wandering out of a fog bewildered, some surf the edge of the blast wave after a big blow-up, some leave at the end of the left foot of fellowship, and some lose motivation or faith and fall off more than they depart. Some leave because they find another place more attractive, and some just want something new. Everyone that leaves has their reasons, I'm sure.
I doubt that many are legitimately motivated when they choose to leave a church, but I do think that leaving a church can be the right thing to do...
If that church doesn't uphold the Scripture as the infallible rule of faith and conduct;
If that church embraces universalism;
If that church becomes libertine or antinomian;
If that church adopts legalism...You get the point. There are practical and doctrinal issues that are so fundamental and non-negotiable, that if a line is crossed there, then we must cross ourselves off the roll. Even if this is the case, I don't think one should leave such a church without a fight. Not that one should seek to win an argument or engage in a turf war, but that one should contend for the faith and for the souls in that body. Don't let them wander off to hell without an effort to save their souls! However, if they won't hear, and won't stand on sound doctrine, then one must leave!
At times, a bone of contention arises between folk that, given the nature of the personalities involved, cannot be resolved. If continuing together in mission is impossible, separating unto mission is acceptable. It is still unfortunate in the grand scheme, but as long as it is done on reasonable terms and doesn't result in an unending grudge it may be the preferable course of action. We can disagree without being disagreeable, even if it means one going one way and the other going another.
At times, folk are being appointed in the body according to the wishes of the Spirit of God, and leaving one congregation and going to another is precisely what God wants! It's easy to discern this if one is moved to a distant place; it's not so easy if this change takes place in the same town. Regardless, each of us is a gift to the body and we must understand that God gets to place us where he wishes. Actually, I wonder how much dissatisfaction people feel in church is actually just the dissonance in their souls caused by not discerning where God wants them.
There are acceptable, justifiable, and quite spiritual reasons to leave one church and go to another.
And then there are reasons which are neither expedient nor justifiable.
It is not justifiable to leave a church for selfish reasons. Church is about Jesus being Lord, not about the churchgoer getting what he or she wants. Christians are not customers, the church is not a business and spiritual ministrations are not consumer goods. To treat this God-ordained endeavor as if any of these things were true is an insult to grace. And leaving a church for greener pastures is unacceptable for clergy or laity.
It is not expedient for those who have been appropriately corrected, or who have been properly spiritually directed, to leave a church rather than humbly submitting to that which has been rendered for their spiritual development. The flawed natural constitution of humans beings means that we grow as Christians only to our lowest level of incorrigibility. That cannot excuse a lack of obedience to the Word or to the brethren. Escaping correction or rejecting direction in one body doesn't give one a blank slate to start in another (regardless of whether one is clergy or laity).
There are occasions where the godly will be justified in leaving a church. At times it will be the absolutely right thing to do. Even if it is, it's never something left merely to our discretion or preference. Jesus is head over the body, so he gets to plant us where he wants.
As for us, we need to stay where we're planted, grow and blossom.