When I got this matchbook, as soon as I saw the building and the address, I said to myself (and my cat):

“I bet its that fucking Scientology building!”

Sure enough, the poor Hotel Christie has been turned into a Scientology Test Center. I used to work next door to it at the Egyptian Theater, and I remember trying to dodge “The Cult” while running to get to work on time.

Even though Scientology is a bunch of bullshit, I do give them props for their rehabilitation of old buildings. They really do fix them up nicely while trying to keep any historical attributes.

But it’s still a fucking cult.

So back to the Hotel Christie. It was built in 1922 and it was the first luxury hotel in Hollywood. Charles H.V. Christie was a Canadian that came here to make movies and opened up a little studio there on Hollywood Blvd. that made comedies. They used their earnings from that to open the Hotel Christie.

The Hotel Christie/Scientology Test Center is featured in one of my most FAVORITE movies of all time – “Reflections of Evil”. I found a clip on You Tube with the Hotel Christie scenes, starting at 0:09 second (where Bobby has a fit) and it’s featured in the background when the black guy is having a meltdown.

I bet Xenu enjoyed the Cocktail Lounge & Grill at the Hotel Christie!

I also have been seeing the words “casual Christian” around latley. Today I received an e-mail from Andrew Strom at http://www.revivalschool.com that has to do with the subject.
It is written by Darren Smith who is the founder of Streetscape Ministries,
an awesome ministry to the homeless seeing miracles on the streets
in Galveston, Texas.

IS THERE Any SUCH THING AS a CASUAL CHRISTIAN??
-by Darren Smith.

Is there any such thing as a casual Christian? I have heard this
term a lot in recent times and to tell you the truth it makes me sick.
But, as I have thought about this subject and spent time looking
around at the body as a whole, I venture to say for the most part
it is true of most of the church today. Before you get angry and
stop reading, please hear me out. How many believers do you
know that are really sold out for Christ? When I say this I mean
that Christ is the central focus of their life. I mean a person that
has died to self and relies on Christ for his substance, willing to
sacrifice even to the point of their well being, to serve the Lord.

For a long time we have heard sermon after sermon on giving 10%
to the church and yet from the modern church accounts, only 30%
of the people give 10%. This is sad but considering that most of
that doesn’t go to do the work of the ministry, its not surprising. I’m
not teaching on the tithe system, I’m using this as an example on
the casual attitude of believers. But I want to take it much deeper
than this and ask some very hard questions. How much of your
time do you give to the Lord? Do you spend more time on you
than you do the Lord? More on entertainment or hobbies than
service to the Lord?

Many times people tell us that we would love to come and help you
guys in the street but we are just so busy we simply can not find
the time. I wonder if they ever stop to think that we have to sacrifice
and make time ourselves. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining,
the Lord blesses us and I wouldn’t be anywhere else, but it requires
sacrifice for us to be here as well. I want you to see that if you are
willing to serve, God will bless you. We have people all the time
say, “I have never seen God’s power and grace like this in my life.”
Many of these guys have been in church all their life and have never
ministered to anyone.

Another response we get is, “I’m not called to do that type of ministry.”
Oh, really? I believe we are all called to take the Gospel to the
world, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and to take care of
the widows and orphans. To be able to put off these things places
you in the casual realm. Many will go to church once a week and
then go right out and serve themselves all week without doing
anything for the Lord. Trust me, “I didn’t have time” will not help
them when they stand before the Lord.

What makes this so sad is that many of them will never hear a
message on repentance and total commitment to the Lord because
this type message is not popular in the modern church. It doesn’t
fill the offering plate or the seats. Instead we hear funny stories
and jokes from the pulpit as well as humanistic teaching on self-
help and prosperity. This system has created the casual Christian
which is no Christian at all. So many have been converted to a
false religion of self and greed and what is worse, they think they
are fine because everyone they know is a casual Christian as well.

When they come in contact with a sold out believer, it makes them
uncomfortable. When they hear a repentance message they label
it extreme and harsh. These same casual Christians see the world
going to hell around them and are not affected at all. The thought
of sacrifice is foreign to them. Material wealth is equated with
blessings from the Lord – after all, many pulpits teach this for self
enrichment – so in their mind it’s OK.

The reason I write this is for an awakening. We all must look into
our heart and see if we are sold out to the Lord. We all have areas
we can improve and should! We must get this type of word out
and the body must mobilize for the battle. We all will have to
sacrifice, but we were not put here to live our best life now – our
best life is yet to come when the Lord returns. I know this is very
convicting, but it must be said. We must repent and give our whole
life to the Lord and that means everything, all of us, everything we
are and all we could ever become – we must give it all to the Lord.

So I ask you again, is there any such thing as a casual Christian,
or maybe more important, are you a casual Christian?

-Darren Smith
http://www.streetscapeministries.com/

In the last post, I highlighted some aspects of how Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism was put together and the things I found helpful and disappointing. In this post, I want to get to some of the core theological issues.

East and West have long been at cross purposes, in many ways speaking different languages, not just in terms of Latin and Greek (in the ancient church) but also in terms of terminology and worldview. Thus Edward Rommen helpfully points out in his essay that where the East is more interested in relationships i.e. “new life with Christ”, the West concentrates on propositions i.e. “change in legal status” or “justification” (p.239). The question, though, is whether those differences are simply different emphases, or represent different beliefs entirely. This is the first book I have read on the topic. By no means am I an expert, but, from my limited viewpoint, there are three key theological issues, that, even once the language has been waded through, continue to be significant points of difference: anthropology (humans); soteriology (salvation); and authority.

Anthropology

Anthropology, in the theological sense, is the study of humans – who they are and how we are to understand them. For many evangelicals, this boils down to the question of what the status of humans is before God; for many Orthodox, it is the question of how one relates to God. Much of the discussion revolves around different understandings of Rom 5:12ff. Orthodox insist that sin is not inherited from Adam but rather that each person ‘falls’ on his own. The implication is that since humans are not irreparably damaged by sin, they can recover with the help of the Holy Spirit, by cooperating with the Trinity (p.150). In contrast, Michael Horton points out that if each of us is born to sin and death “in Adam” our hope must lie outside of ourselves, that is, in inheriting “Christ’s obedience, justification and immortality” (p.160) Are humans basically ‘good’ on account of their imageness? Or are they evil beyond recovery apart from Christ because of the fall? Of course both questions hold an element of truth: the depravity of humans does not entirely negate the image; but nor does the image consume the depravity. Yet the danger of the Orthodox view must be that such an optimism leaves room for humans to contribute to their own salvation (p.73). However, this is God’s work, not ours. As Horton says, “We are not declared righteous because we have cooperated with Gods grace; we are justified “freely by his grace” (Rom 3:24) so that we can’ (p.161).

Soteriology

An understanding of the nature of humans obviously affects how you expect salvation to come. My understanding of the Eastern Orthodox soteriology is that while they affirm that Jesus’ death saves, the emphasis is on his incarnation. By this, they mean not only Jesus’ life but also the church. If the church is his body, it is the extension of the incarnation: to be “in the church” is to be “in Christ”. Thus it is by participating in the church and in particular its sacraments, that union with Christ (salvation, in the Orthodox mind) is achieved. This raises the question of the role of faith. On one hand, Nassif argues that faith is necessary (p.71); on the other, he suggests that Communion (or the Eucharist as he calls it) really is Jesus’ body and blood, another incarnation, in which case by taking it, a person is automatically joined to Christ (p.77). Nassif himself acknowledges that this may be the root of Orthodox nominalism (p.82, 86). In contrast, evangelicalism takes a much more personalised view of salvation, with the emphasis on the legal concept of justification. All the Orthodox writers affirmed this and then very quickly moved to explaining their larger vision of union with Christ. They support the biblical motif of justification, but unlike Calvin, for whom it was the “hinge on which all religion turns” (p.138), it is given little treatment. While the Orthodox maintain that this is because they see all the pieces of the puzzle, unlike evangelicals who are transfixed on but one, Horton argues that this underemphasis actually turns the puzzle into something else entirely.

Authority

Many evangelicals are suspicious of Roman Catholics for their location of authority in the Pope. The Patriarch in the Orthodox church does not carry the same position as the Pope and that’s an important distinction to make. However, nor does the Orthodox church carry ‘Scripture alone’ as the authority, as near as I could make out. It is a little confusing: Nassif argues that Scripture is authoritative, as received and interpreted by the church (p.62-63); Berzonsky says that the Bible is not the ultimate source of truth at evangelicals believe, because to do so would be to equate it with Christ, but Christ is incarnate in the church, not a book (174-176); Rommen takes tradition as a tool to interpret Scripture but does not see that it has authority over it. At the very least, it could be said that the role of Scripture and tradition is somewhat ambiguous in Orthodox understanding. While Nassif rightly criticises evangelicals for an historical amnesia which produces a spiritual and interpretative arrogance (p.67) he also admits to broad biblical illiteracy in his own church (p.85). Perhaps more to the point in terms of compatability, the Orthodox church leaves little room for further Biblical reformation of tradition. It also so roots the message in the tradition, that there is not only little room for Biblical reform, but indeed, a lack of tolerance for contextualisation of the gospel for evangelism (Nassif p.82; Hancock-Stefan p.211).

Conclusions

Nassif’s thesis that evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy are compatible is based on a belief that all the core beliefs of evangelicalism exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but that the latter is the more developed and mature form of Christianity (p.84). There is work to be done in bringing practice into line with this maturity (p.86) but it remains that Orthodoxy comes to grips with the Trinitarian God is a far richer way than evangelicalism. The evangelicals in this book, on the other hand, see that the ‘fuller’ Orthodox understanding of the gospel actually takes its heart away: adding to the gospel subtracts from it.

But what does this mean for compatability? Unfortunately, none of the writers defined what they mean by ‘compatible’. Nassif calls for evangelicals to become Orthodox so that their principles might grow to maturity; Berzonsky calls for evangelicals to repent of their Reformation theology and become Orthodox (p.195). Rommen offers the suggestion of limited compatability, that is, that some things will never be agreed on (especially certain points of Western thought that the Orthodox church has anathematised p.249) but that there are some points on which there is considerable agreement.

What I noticed was this: by and large, the Orthodox and evangelicals agreed on their doctrine of God. The main areas of disagreement were the doctrine of man and of salvation. It is on this basis that I am happy to say that the Orthodox worship the same God as evangelicals, but that they have misunderstood the means of relating to him. If someone is a converted Orthodox (i.e. not nominal), they are my brother or sister. Yet, the distinctions highlighted in this book are not unimportant. There are significant pitfalls in the  Orthodox message of salvation. Until these are resolved, I suspect that respectful dialogue and separated traditions will continue to be the principal expression of any compatability.

Introduction: N. T. Wright’s New Testament Foundations for Ecclesiology

The starting point, the a priori, for any ecclesiology must be an understanding of the Church as the people of God, an eschatological community that exists for the sake of those not yet apart of said community. N.T. Wright lays out the three primary criteria that defined the church in its first few decades, it was essentially baptismal, Eucharistic and disciplined.[1] Wright continues, “The problems which arose in relation to the care of the needy, particularly widows, are most readily comprehensible if we envisage the church, not as a part-time voluntary organization of the like-minded which left normal social and familial attachments unaffected, but as a group with definite boundaries.”[2] The question then becomes what are the boundaries that define the people of God? How should the church understand itself and what would a definitively “charismatic” ecclesiology look like? These are the questions that will be attempted to be addressed in a brief and admittedly shallow treatment, for the sake of space.  Perhaps the two major theological voices in modern ecclesiology and ecumenism are Volf and Küng. By synthesizing these voices into a duet perhaps a definitive and constructive “charismatic” ecclesiology can be ascertained and thus expressed.  The most pressing issue to face the church over the next hundred, or so, years will most likely not be issues of morality or politics but of ecumenism and the church’s self-understanding.[3]

Volf’s Participatory Ecclesiology

Primarily, Volf wants to equate the church with the expression of charisms, “Wherever the Spirit of Christ, which as the eschatological gift anticipates God’s new creation in history, is present in it ecclesially constitutive activity, there is the church.”[4] While this does not necessarily validate the expression or it’s experiential interpretation, it does make room for otherness inside of the community (which is an idea to be explored later). Volf will go on to try and transcend the disagreement between Free Church and Episcopal models of ecclesial criteria for what constitutes a church, unfortunately his definition borders on the overly subjective and begins to side more with the Free Church suppositions.[5] He states directly, “the presence of Christ is not attested merely by the institution of office, but rather through the multidimensional confession of the entire assembly.”[6] The consequence of this statement is the striping of any Sacramentology to the foundation of mere communal confession of faith, not an objective reality.[7] While Volf’s experiment in ecclesiology is right minded and often correct in its aims, the way in which he answers key issues is at the expense of history and ecumenism for the higher church traditions. What is needed is an understanding of the activity of the Spirit that is not objective solely or subjective merely.

Acknowledging the objectivity of the Spirit’s work within the subjective experience and expression is imperative. Room must be made for the work of the Spirit to communicate objectively through otherwise subjective means. Ultimately these experiences and expressions will be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misappropriated, but that does not mean we discard or devalue them. Volf’s disdain for Episcopal authority is directly related to his witnessing its abuse in the Balkans during the late eighties and nineties.[8] What is needed, in order balance Volf, is to embrace theological otherness within the community as a charism. Ecclesiological self-understanding as the community that embodies the objectively subjective work of the Spirit is a priori to a healthy ecumenism and view of the universal as well as local church.

Hans Küng’s Pneumatological Ecclesiology

Kärkkäinen makes an observation about Küng’s ecclesiology that is important. “As a real church, the faith community is composed of sinful men and women and it exists for sinful men and women. Küng’s view comes close to that of Luther, who regarded the church as the community of sinners. Therefore, the communio sanctorum as communio peccatorum is always in need of forgiveness…”[9] This self-perception on the part of the church is essential in that it requires self-criticism, self-criticism that lends itself to a more open ecclesiology, one that makes room for otherness inside of the community. Otherness inside of the Christian community is not only a self-evident fact of the current state of world Christianity as Volf points out[10], but can also be understood as a virtue, which Küng is rightly advocating.[11] When otherness is embraced in ecclesiology, not simply in a vague superficial manner but as ontologically legitimate otherness, it demonstrates two things. First, its mimics and reveals the identity of the church as the image of the Trinity, which is the argument of Ware[12], Lossky[13] and Zizioulas[14]. Second, it shows the church in her glory as the redemptive community that accepts and embraces the strangeness of the other.  Küng argues that without this ability to embrace the otherness that exists inside of the universal church in a real way there is a loss of legitimacy, or genuineness, in the ability to embrace the otherness outside the boundaries of the community.[15]

The natural consequence of accepting otherness as ontologically legitimate in ecclesiology is the ability to not only co-exist but also to enter into dialogue through common language, dialogue that leads toward communion. The goal of any ecclesiology with any legitimacy is not simply the defense of one’s theological system or traditions, as is all too often the case[16], but toward real familial communion that recognizes one Lord and one Baptism.

Küng, not unlike Volf, is explicitly interested in defining the church in terms of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.[17] Kärkkäinen notes, “Küng. . . emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God who indwells the church is no ‘obscure and nameless power’. . . but is the concrete presence of God in Christ and derivatively in the church. . . the Spirit is the earthly presence of the glorified Lord in the Church.”[18] Küng goes onto to exposit the “charismatic structure of the church” paying much attention to issues of ecclesiastical authority and the tension between the laity and hierarchy. [19][20] The pertinent portions of Küng’s treatment lie in his persistence toward the oneness of the Church.[21] By placing his definition of the church in strictly Pneumatological terminology, Küng proves himself light years ahead of much of his ecclesiastical colleagues, He also provides the linguistic framework for a holistic charismatic ecclesiology, one that, hopefully, places the charismatic-Pentecostal understanding of the charisms within the linguistic traditions of the historical, sacramental church.

A Proposal for a Charismatic Ecclesiology

The cardinal issue in defining a distinctly charismatic ecclesiology will be with the definition of what constitutes a charism. Charisms, almost without exception, have essentially been hijacked by the Pentecostal tradition and its subsequent offspring in the last century. Rather then accept a rather narrow definition of charismata the definition must be broadened, to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the expression of the Church that is pointing to an eschatological reality.  This understanding of charismata is supported not only by Küng[22] and Volf[23], but also Moltmann[24], Stronstad[25] and even Barth.[26] If considered seriously and examined thoroughly the broadened language defining what a charism is, and by consequence what it means, lends itself towards a mutual vocabulary between the sacramental and charismatic churches.

That which defines the meaning of a sacrament and that which defines a charism are not mutually exclusive. Both only hold meaning in an eschatological sense, and if understood as being objective within their subjective contexts because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (as explored earlier), the two have a tremendous amount in common. Ultimately the classical argument about the distinction between the two has to do with the effects of each. With the sacrament being a means of grace conferred for the personal sanctification[27] of the participant and the charism being a means of grace by which the Spirit effects the work of the church through but not necessarily in the life of the participant.[28] The difference, in reality, between the two understandings? Semantics.  The commonality between the two definitions is uncanny; both are the activity of the spirit in the life of the church for salvific purposes that point toward an eschatological hope and reality caught between the “already” and “not yet.”  If the commonality is truly present between the two realities then the ecclesiological consequence is that the sacraments are to be understood as charisms and the charisms, conversely, become sacramental; the barriers between ecumenical belief, rhetoric and praxis breakdown.

Last, the church must be understood as “for the sake of the non-elect.”[29] A church ceases to be The Church when it’s charismatic/sacramental expression loses its missional presupposition and purpose.  A church is only The Church in so much that its primary self-understanding and orientation is focused on the culture and community in which it is particularly located.[30] Once this breaks down it becomes just another cult among the plethora offering personal spiritual salvation in the history of Greco-Roman mysticism.[31]

[2] Ibid. 448.

[3] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231.

[4] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129. While such a definition of the church is valid, what is needed is a more thorough and yet broad understanding of a charism then Volf seems willing to consent to, which will be explored later.

[5] Ibid. 133-135.  Volf defines the ecclesiality of a church it terms of Matthew 18:20, while ideal and true, it does not constitute a complete definition of the church as it does not seem to acknowledge any sense of objectivity in the activity or experience of the community.

[6] Ibid. 152.

[7] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 137.

[8] Hedges, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. (New York, Anchor Books, 2002), 56.

[9] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 105.

[10] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 140-141

[11] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 230.

[12] Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 308.

[13] Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 176-177.

[14] Zizioulas, Being as Communion. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 15.  Interesting to note that all three contemporary Orthodox theologians embrace a view that theirs is the true church and yet have the ability, seeming theological mandate, to embrace those not inside the eastern church in a way beyond the typical ecumenism in the west. See Anglican-Orthodox dialogue and communion.  The Moscow statement of 1976, the Dublin statement in 1984, and the Cyprus agreed statement presented at Lambeth 2008 as “The Church of the Triune God.” Also see Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue by Kallistos Ware.

[15] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 169.

[16] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231-232.

[17]  Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 215-18.

[18] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 109.

[19] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 239-247.

[20] Ibid, The Church: Mandated in truth. Trans. Edward Quinn, (New York; The Seabury Press, 1979), 50-51.  This passage particularly deals with the interaction between the Magisterium and laity and tries to lay out a possible future interaction. An interesting read but not overly pertinent to the current discussion.

[21] Ibid, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 353.

[22] Ibid, 215-18.

[23] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129.

[24] Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit. Trans. Margaret Kohl.  Munich: Fortress Press, 1993.  294.

[25] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 81-82

[26] O’Grady, The Church in the theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Books, 1968.  250-268.

[27] The Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Image Books, 2^nd edition , 1995.

[28] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 73. Stronstad makes a strong and clear argument for the purely vocational understanding of the “baptism of the Spirit.”

[29] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 334, 447.

[30] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 141-147.

[31] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 152-166.

good stuff happening at gbck. here is the latest…….

-great discussion at our staff meeting about momentum.

-also talked more about what it takes to break the “missional code” in kapolei.

-learning more and more how to contextualize stuff we are doing for our community

-great meeting with some other guys building financial partnership teams for their ministries. super encouraged by the faith and commitment of these guys as they pursue what God called them to pursue.

-preached this past week at xchange. love talking to the youth. believing for great stuff with our youth.

-wrapped up FAQ series by answering the question “are we living in the end times”

-answer: NO ONE knows when the world will end, but the bible does tell us to know the signs

-if the world were to end today would you know what would happen to you? do your know what will happen to your loved ones?

-passed out door hangers to people at cambridge apartments. taking sign ups for anyone who would like a FREE box of can goods. love the fact that the church can meet the needs of people in our backyard.

-super excited about our Christmas Conspiracy series starting this Sunday. Talking about 1 of 4 keys toputting meaning back into a Christmas that has turned into a conspiracy meant to make people spend money.

-over the next 4 weeks we will uncover this conspiracy for what it is and explain what Christmas was supposed to really be about.

well thats it for me for this week. gotta get geared up for another great day of meetings tomorrow as we continue to push the flywheels in Kapolei.

I read a story last week: Return of the Guardian King.  Fourth and final of a vividly epic fantasy series written by a woman who knows my world, my type, and my God.  Her name is Karen Hancock, and her stories have invaded my imagination permanently.

It is a book about temptation, I told a friend.  Resisting in the slow way, wearied by the persistence, common days, small things.  And massive temptations: to betray all you have believed in, to denounce the promises of God for the power of ruling kingdoms, to trade love in the good God and His simple gifts to the extravagant suit of the alluring devil.  But the large and the small are the same. 

The characters are strong against deception and temptation when they have been faithful in the daily denying of self.  To live for others, in kindness and patience, prepares each person against bitterness and despair.  Immersion in the truth and promises of God is comfort and hope.  Even if their prayer is a single cry for help from God, bad things trun to good when people talk to their God. 

The story isn’t about what is happening on the outside as much as it is about whether the characters are trusting God, whether they know with all their might that He loves them and that His plans for them are good.  When they are rebelling against him, they are miserable.  So are those around them.  So am I. 

Kiriath is in the hands of the jealous and vengeful brother Gillard, possessed by a demon rhu’ema.  Already they treat and ally with the archenemy, Belthe’adi, Abramm had warned them of.  Abramm is known to be dead.  But Abramm is also walking the mountains, chafing under the waiting in a snowed-in monastery.  Maddie is back at her childhood home, a palatial life she never embraced, and her newest royal duty is to marry some rich aristocrat who can offer troops to defend the last stand of her homeland.  But her dreams linked with her beloved’s are back, and something tugs hope alive in her that maybe Abramm survived after all. 

Shapeshifters, dragons, and the critical people who are supposed to be his friends plague Abramm on his Odyssey-like journey back to his wife and sons.  Trap and Carissa mirror Abramm’s struggle with pride and longing but in a quiet domestic setting.  Detours take the exiled king and longed-for husband to places of faith and doubt he never would have imagined – and sometimes wishes he had never asked for. 

Every character learns the power of friends: locking them against temptation, praying for their dearest concerns, teaching and challenging with the truth, dividing the attacks of dragons, delivering messages, watching with unbiased eyes, guarding against betrayal.  Again Abramm learns that it is not his strength that conquers, and that God has not gifted him with leadership and military prowess to fight God’s battles for Him.  He is but a vessel. 

Maddie meets a charming man who is attractive in all the ways Abramm never was.  Tirus wants her, wants to help her.  He understands her and shows her off, showers her with gifts and protects her from scorn.  How long can she wait for her husband whom even her dearest friends still believe is dead?  Will she believe the light-born visions and promises from God, or the technological, repeatable sight from the stone sent to her by her suitor?  Will she change her mind about regal living and the purpose of marriage?  The things that stood in Maddie’s way when she wanted to marry Abramm, and the undeniable need they had for each other – will she forget those? 

When things go from bad to worse, whose job is it to protect the ones they love?  At what cost will they buy safety and love?  Will the armies of the Moon, and the powers of the air – dragons winging terror across the skies – will they succeed in doing their worst, in taking everything from those faithful to God?  Or will they be utterly defeated?  If they cannot be defeated, what is the point in fighting and sacrificing? 

And when God’s people fail, bitterly weak, The Return of the Guardian King resounds with display of God’s mercy.  God knew we were weak when He chose us.  He knew we would fail when He sent His Son to suffer for those sins.  And a single prayer, sometimes the end of God’s longsuffering chase, brings grace empowering His servants to do the right thing.  He cannot deny Himself.  His promises will be true, however faithless we are. 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

The prodigal son had to learn this lesson. Wanting freedom from family restraints, he demanded his share of his daddys estate and took off. Boy did he learn fast! Soon he was out of finances, fun and friends, bogged down in brothels and putrid pig pens. Some freedom this was! Ah but it’s a picture of the whole human race. Created to be in Gods family, we are prone to swap this privilage for a false freedom that will rob us of our place in our Fathers house…And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journy into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. Luke 15:13…What a great story to remind us to be thankful for what we have. It could always be worse.

New>>The story of Joseph on the childrens page

I just read an article in Esquire magazine from Shane Clairborne.  He is part of The Simple Way and the author of Jesus for President (a highly suggested read).  His article is geared toward, as he calls it ‘To all my nonbelieving, sort-of-believing, and used-to-be-believing friends’.  The article does a great job of trying to describe who Jesus is and what the church is really all about.  Here is the article.  Here are a couple excerpts I thought were great:

The more I have read the Bible and studied the life of Jesus, the more I have become convinced that Christianity spreads best not through force but through fascination

I am convinced that the Christian Gospel has as much to do with this life as the next, and that the message of that Gospel is not just about going up when we die but about bringing God’s Kingdom down

I really like Shane Claiborne and his views on Christianity.  I think his writings are very easy to understand and are right to the point.  My kind of teaching.

bg

I just got home from choir practice so I’m in a good mood. Have I mentioned how much I love singing in the church gospel choir? I just have to mention it again.

We had a good weekend here this weekend. I got to spend time with my best friend Betsy and chat with my fave cousin Jen. I finally finished the scrapbook of my brother Eric’s wedding to his beautiful bride Brittany also! Yesterday was spent at church, a bit at home, and then the church annual meeting. Does your church have a DJ and red velvet cake at their annual meeting?

It is Thanksgiving week so I’ve got my big to-do-list of what has to happen before we leave our house Wednesday evening for Fergus Falls. There is cleaning, laundry, packing, shopping, and some chex mix to be made! We’ll be spending Thanksgiving Day with 40+ Tungseths at the lake cabin. We’ll be making lefse and Christmas cookies on Friday, and going Christmas Tree cutting on Saturday! Lots of photo ops. No tree for us on Saturday though. We will stick with our artificial tree for another year. We have old wood floors and a male dog, so I don’t think we need to see what kind of disaster a real tree would be, although I would love to have our house filled with the smell of pine!

Today I spent some time organizing photos and putting them in albums. Between all the different online photo sales in the past couple months I was able to only pay the price of shipping for the photos from the past year and a half! I only have one scrap page done of 2008, but at least it’s started! I’ll get back to scrapping that, but also still need to figure out my plan for Christmas cards…

Here are some of my fave pages from the scrapbook I made of Eric & Brittany’s Wedding. You can see the whole album here.

In the 23^rd. Psalm, David wrote, “The Lord is my shepherd, I will not be in want . . .” As you work through the journal this week, consider how much God loves & cares for you. He is your shepherd. “. . . Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”

Download this week’s readings here:

journal-week-of-11-22-2009

This is the file you will need for this week’s Dig Deeper:

Spiritual Growth Assessment Tool FUMC2009

New Mission in Action resource for Advent:

mission-in-action-advent2009

Well if u realised from my previous post i was in a drama that lasted for three weeks (including this one) and it ended with a superb finale yesterday!!!

the finale was 3 hours long and well it was an exciting event!

______

well i`m glad that my exams are over… i honestly do not know how i did or even survived it but i know as long as i put in my best foot forward I can be confident that I have done my best. I guess i have been entirely wound up for the past month or so… and even ah jin commented smth like i look quite tired ahh on sat..

Anyways i wont moan and complain about the exams because i believe what is done is done and there is nothing you can do abt it… something my tution teacher (Ms. Sharon) taught me a long time ago! haha she actually contributes alot to my study style and my ways of doing things and ms sharon if u do actually read my blog (which i hope you dont.. LOL) thank you!

5 years later and i still am grateful for all the pain and misery u put me through, the mountains of homework, your scolding, the torture of classes so many times a week, the mountains of papers and exams and tests that i had to study for, the stress and the … rest

AHH actually this post is dedicated to the people who have been seeing me through this past month. i really couldnt have done it without you!!! =) all the moaning and complaining from me about how i`m going to die and no one told me to shut up and go away!!! i`m really thankful! Thanks for praying for me and for standing with me (though u cant study for me) during this tough time.

I admit it was a bad season of exams.. i never had such pain and studied so hard in my life……

SO why the jiggly a person may ask …. i actually dunno…hehe

so here is a jiggle for you!

So thank you to everyone who prayed for me and supported me in this time! I did my best alreadi and now I believe God will do the rest!! haha!! i`m soo happy now! and there are a few things to look fwd too!! OH YEAH… i wanted to mention but i cant rmb everyone… -_- but you know who you are la!! THANK YOU!!

ben

It was a busy day at church on Sunday. They had the alternative market in the northex sponsored by Larry’s Beans, 10,000 Villages and others to give church members a chance for some Christmas shopping. I picked up a couple of bags of Larry’s Guatemalan for gifts.

In the sanctuary, chairs were filled with Advent Calendars from Stop Hunger Now. The calendar offers opportunities to consider important Bible verses, as well as offers ideas for addressing hunger. Along with the calendars were Operation Sharehouse bags used for packaging fortified rice-soy meal. The calendar encourages several times over the course of Advent that your family make donations that can be collected in the bag and returned to the church as a donation to Stop Hunger Now.

Finally, this Sunday was the last for Mr. Jim who has led children’s programming at the church for 10 years. He’s moving with his family to Pennsylvania. His concern for children and leadership will be missed.

From Abraham Piper over at 22 Words, a post that applies to churches as well as other non-profits:

Every non-profit has traits that, if you knew, you wouldn’t give to it…but you should still give.

If you’ll never give money to organizations that disappoint you, you have two choices: either willfully remain naive or be rigorously ungenerous.

Another unilateral declaration of independence won’t mean an Arab Palestinian Statehood.

Many have declared Islamic terrorisms victory over Israel. Here Vatican envoy to Israel, French Cardinal Roger Etchegaray.

The Palestinian Authority is reportedly seeking international support for issuing another unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). This would not be the first declaration of «independence» the Palestinians have issued.

In 1948, the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini declared the independence of Palestine. In 1988, the Palestinian National Council issued a declaration of a state of Palestine. The Palestinians did not attain independence in 1948 or in 1988 and are unlikely to attain independence now if the PA goes ahead with another UDI.

Over 100 states recognized «Palestine» in 1988. However, it lacks some of the most essential elements of statehood including effective control over its territory. The EU and the U.S. have cautioned Abbas from prematurely issuing a UDI. And their support is crucial.

Source: The Guardian,UK. Letter to the editor by Victor Kattan.

My comment:

You can not declare a statehood of a state that do not exist. There is no other statehood that the state of Israel on Jewish soil.

The Arab Palestinian statehood is a Islamic fiction, a political ploy. The true motive behind the political rhetoric of a Islamic statehood in the district of Judea and Samaria, is the total destruction of the Jewish homeland.

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt was occupying Gaza. Syria had the control over the Golan Hights, and the kingdom of Jordan had annexed the so-called West Bank, and was occupying East Jerusalem.

When the PLO was formed in 1964, what land was the Islamic forced controlled by Yasser Arafat going to liberate?

Were the PLO formed to liberate land already controlled by the Arabs?

Its obvious for everyone that is above the age of seven, that the PLO was formed to achieve the final and total destruction of the state of Israel.

The Satanic inspired struggle goes on.

For those of you who haven’t heard, I’m heading over the Pacific ocean for a few weeks in December. It all began as a trip to visit a friend in South Korea who was there teaching English and the discovery of cheap tickets. Now that friend is back in the states because her school closed and I’m still heading over. I feel like I’m getting to check out the the Bride of Christ, in different parts of the world and God is definitely keeping me on my toes in the process. My friend was just the bait to get me to Asia.

There are a total of three of us going and the word for this trip is ENCOURAGEMENT. We’re going to see, encourage and be encouraged by what God is doing in S. Korea. There are a few ministries we’re hoping to visit and we know the church is alive and active, but much of what we want to see and do are currently hopes rather than plans.  Please be keeping us in your prayers. E-mail me at naylor121@gmail.com if you would like to get more information or prayer updates about the trip.

Blessings,

-Matt

Terminally ill priest Luigi Squarcia came to Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday and offered his «sufferings for the good of the Church»

The pope presents sickness as something divine and good, an offer for the Church. The Pope and his priests are blinded by Lucifer, the dead Messiah on the cross.

Father Luigi Squarcia, a pastor in the Italian town of Acquapendente who has suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease for the last four years, met with Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday and offered his «sufferings for the good of the Church».

After the meeting with the Holy Father in Paul VI Hall, Father Squarcia said:

«I came to offer the Pope my sufferings for the good of the Church. I am here, for the first time, after years of working with the parishioners and the children at our school».

Now, he told L’Osservatore Romano,

«I can no longer move my arms or legs and I know I will lose my speech and later maybe the ability to breathe». He noted that more people than ever are coming to him for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Lou Gehrig’s disease is a serious neuromuscular disorder that causes muscle weakness, disability and eventually death.

Source: Catholic News agency (CNA)

My comment:

This Catholic priest has replaced Jesus. Just change this line, and you will see this

The priest said:

«I came to offer the Pope my sufferings for the good of the Church»

With this kind of attitude, praying for healing will become the absolute non-sense. Why pray for healing, when physical terminal sickness is presented as something divine and good?

The truth is:

«Jesus came to offer the Pope His sufferings for the good of the Church».

Isaiah: 53:4
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

When we suffer and are persecuted, it will be a divine fruit of telling people the truth about sins like idol worship, sins like doctrine of Papal infallibility, sins like adoration, veneration and worship of saints and madonnas. Banned by the 2nd commandment it self.

2 Timothy 1:8
So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God.

It will forever be strange to me, that the prince of this World has blinded the Catholics, so they can not see, will always hear, but never being able to understand.

Why is there terminal physical sufferings in this World?

When we suffer sickness and pain, we do not suffer for the Church. Most of human sufferings is a result of the work of Satan. He has made men pollute God`s`perfect creation beyond repair.

The rest of the human sufferings is a result of our own free will. We suffer as a products of our own foolishness

When Jesus the Messiah walked on Earth, He healed everyone who came to Him in Faith. Only when Jesus returns, He will restore everything.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I did lots of errands and driving around today. First I went to the gym first thing today and got a good hour of exercise. I really really need to get to the gym a lot more. Because the exercise makes me feel 100% better. When I got home, Amber called and rescheduled until Wednesday. It was no problem. Because Linda wanted to give me her four boxes of towels to donate to the animal shelter.

So I went over to Linda’s, in her new apartment. Every time I see her she’s so stressed out and down on herself. I really expected to see her much much happier now, being in a new place. But she was even worse. I tell her that she has nothing to be worrying about, but she insists she does. I can only stand so much of her and then I have to be on my way. But she actually gave me $20 for the trouble. I was okay with that. And then she wanted to hug me when I left. That was fine too. I guess she needs a friend like me. The boxes had a few nice towels that I kept for myself.

I decided to come home first before going over the the animal shelter, to see if my EDD check was here, and it was. Thank you God. So I deposited it to my credit union. And then made the towel delivery to the pound. There was a woman there giving her cute little dog to the shelter. She looked like a fairly rich woman. It pissed me off. But I didn’t say anything to her. I just walked down to the rabbit cages to see all of the soooo cute little rabbits. The 2 gray lop-eared bunnies were gone. But there was a female pretty rabbit who just arrived. She had that super pretty fur that looks kind of like wild gray rabbit fur, she was a few months old. And there were 2 cages of baby rabbits. And the black and white male rabbit was still there. I wanted him. But now I can’t take care of the ones that I have now. I’m hoping that someone will adopt him and the others, especially the pretty girl bunny. And there were 3 Nubian goats that were not ready for adoption yet. I wonder how a goat can end up as a stray. If I had a ranch or even a large back yard in that kind of area, I’d adopt them. One of them for sure.

I’m happy now, because Pinkie is laying down in her cage. That means she’s getting comfortable in it. Instead of trying to break out of it. And this morning as I was leaving for the gym, little Priti was laying down on the floor, flat on her tummy with her little hind legs splayed out in back of her. She’s been eating a little and then running under the couch. I have to put her back into the cage for the night. I want to be able to keep them in their cages at night from now on. I bought them some more pellets today. And I got them new water bottles. And of course I bought Nala some new mousie toys. She jumped up onto the counter and sniffed them all. And then chose a gray one and carried it in her mouth, and then batted it onto the floor. And she’s outside now.

Alright I’m home now and feeling so much better than the weekend. I’m seriously wondering why I felt so stressed out on Saturday. It was like my entire weekend went to waste. Because I was too tired to do anything yesterday.

This morning I went into the Catholic church and kneeled down and said a prayer, and also talked to my grandfather, by myself. I miss him so much. And I also went to eat a French dip sandwich at Watsons before coming home.

Tomorrow is the big Thanksgiving dinner at my work. I want to tint my hair tonight.

فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه الرومانسىافلام لك تحميل من

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى – سعد الصغير 2009
تحمل وتنزيل فديو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى انا بيه ورومانسى

لمشاهدة وتحميل الفديو, فيديو كليب …

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب اغنية سعد الصغير انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى
يو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البية الرومانسى – انا بيه ورومانسى

اضغط هنا لمشاهدة الكليب

|اغانى|فديو, فيديو كليب|مقطع|هدف|مسلسل|اعلان|فلم, فيلم|برنامج|حلقة|شاهد|مشاهدة|اون لاين|سرعة عالية |بدون
تحميل|اغانى|عربى|اجنبى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري|البوم|
2009|سينجل|نغمات|تنزيل|نزل|شعبي|راب|حمل|موسيقى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري

|افراح|فديو, فيديو كليب|راديو||اون لاين|بدون تحميل|مجانا|بدون اشتراك|2010

Not so long ago we were a new church in a new suburb. We’re still a young church in a rapidly growing suburb. So how did we get to the point of ‘flat growth’ (to put it euphemistically).

Disunity

If you walk into our church, your first impression will be that we’re friendly. You’ll be welcomed from the front (anonymously, but visitors are acknowledged) and greeted after the service. We have no major conflicts (I can’t even think of any minor ones) and everyone gets along. But scratch the surface and you’ll find something missing in our unity and koinonia.

Maybe it has something to do with our history. The church was started by a pastor with Reformed leanings. I came in with a slightly more charismatic bent. That raised the odd theological question in the early days! But more than that, the church has evolved so that there is a  charismatic element struggling to break out, and a conservative (or maybe it’s just apathy) culture happy to stay where we are.

Until recently this disunity had a huge effect on our leadership. Our Board, while amiable, was not unified, simply not ‘on the same page’. It made moving forward very difficult because, even if I got permission to do something, it wasn’t strongly supported and occasionally would be retracted later.

We’re just not a socially close church. Maybe it’s busyness. Maybe fortress suburbia. We just don’t do much together beyond Sundays, small groups and the odd programmed event. And few people have a consistent commitment even to those.

Truly, disunity is death. And disunity doesn’t have to mean conflict.

Tomorrow: two more ways we got here.

“Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

(co-authored by Dean Timothy George)

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Many people are fisher of money. They live for money, and they store up money. But the Messiah Jesus did not allow his students to have any other Master`s than Him. He did not call his students among the present day Investment Bankers, or among the religious or political leaders. His first students were Jewish fishermen. From that day onwards, they fished for men like you and me.

فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه الرومانسىافلام لك تحميل من

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى – سعد الصغير 2009
تحمل وتنزيل فديو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى انا بيه ورومانسى

لمشاهدة وتحميل الفديو, فيديو كليب …

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب اغنية سعد الصغير انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى
يو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البية الرومانسى – انا بيه ورومانسى

اضغط هنا لمشاهدة الكليب

|اغانى|فديو, فيديو كليب|مقطع|هدف|مسلسل|اعلان|فلم, فيلم|برنامج|حلقة|شاهد|مشاهدة|اون لاين|سرعة عالية |بدون
تحميل|اغانى|عربى|اجنبى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري|البوم|
2009|سينجل|نغمات|تنزيل|نزل|شعبي|راب|حمل|موسيقى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري

|افراح|فديو, فيديو كليب|راديو||اون لاين|بدون تحميل|مجانا|بدون اشتراك|2010