Would you like to be a better Christian or be more Christ-like? Let me say at the outset that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a better Christian, but it isn't a very good goal because it's not measurable.
What is a Christian? That word has no true meaning to contemporary Americans. You may find that a little radical, but think about this: Have you ever shopped in a Christian bookstore? Read a Christian book? Listened to Christian music on a Christian radio station?
The problem with being "Christian" is that the word has varied meanings. In fact, some of the music you listen to on "Christian" radio really isn't "Christian." Take for example a very popular song back in the nineties, "Butterfly Kisses." It was a beautiful song about a daddy's love of is little girl who grows into a woman. It was played on Christian radio even though the only mention of God was in the first verse: "She was sent here from heaven /... She talks to Jesus and I close my eyes / And I thank God for all of the joy in my life." (More recently Steven Curtis Chapman's Cinderella doesn't even mention God or Jesus at all!)
So what makes something "Christian"? Who decides that? It certainly isn't defined in the bible.
What makes someone "Christian"? That's defined in the bible. Luke says that "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (Acts 11:26, emphasis added). Peter says "if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name" (1 Peter 4:16). (The only other use of the word Christian in the original text of the bible is in Acts 26:28: "Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?") So, according to the bible, a Christian is a disciple who praises God when he suffers because he is a Christian. An argument could even be made that simply accepting Jesus as your savior and gaining eternal life does not make you a Christian. You must choose to be a disciple too.
Hmmm. I wonder where that puts most Americans who call themselves Christians?
If you're going to be a biblical Christian, you're going to be a disciple which means you're spending time with Jesus Christ to be more Christ-like! And you find suffering a reason to praise God.
You can try to become a better Christian (e.g. not swear, drink, smoke or have extra-marital sex) without ever even approaching being Christ-like. (Or being saved either!)
Being Christ-like means seeking to know the Father (through reading his Word), seeking the Father's will, being a servant, dying to self, being in fellowship, reaching out to the lost, hurting and lonely. If you become more Christ-like, you will become a better Christian (a better disciple of Jesus').
How about you? Do you want to be a better Christian or be more Christ-like?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Silliness is Next to Godliness
I'm working on getting some stuff in my third book, After the Storm, up on my website, so when my Outlook popped up a reminder that I was supposed to blog, silliness was on my mind.
If you've read any of my books, you know that my characters are (too?) prone to break out into silliness, but Pete (the hero of Storm) realizes that he's not comfortable with silliness. When he's with the guys, he follows their silliness easily and even usually willingly, but he never instigates anything nor does he escalate. In fact, when his best friends aren't around, he tends to protect his dignity. He can play games and all (which is obvious since he's a football player) but he always has to play to win, to be the best, be ichiban, number one.
In talking to Jenni, Pete discovers that his difficulty in being silly is rooted in his childhood. He knows he had a pretty bad childhood; his parents are quite different now than they were when he was growing up.
Because Pete is already committed to allowing Jesus to be Lord of his life in all things, that realization makes a big difference for him. He sees that his dignity isn't important. He begins to allow himself to degenerate into silliness. He even discovers that his previously abusive, womanizing father has learned to be silly with his mother.
He does such a magnificent job of getting into silliness that eventually Jenni declares, "I don't guess there's much reason to worry about your dignity anymore."
(If you want to know how Pete gets silly, you'll have to read After the Storm.)
My question for you is this: Do you believe "silliness is next to godliness"? Should Christians be silly?
Maybe it'll help to put things in a biblical perspective: Do you think Jesus was being serious when he said to not let your left hand know what your right was doing, or was he being a little bit silly? Have you ever stopped to examine bible stories for silliness? What about when Peter got freed from prison in Acts 12? Rhoda was so excited to see him that she slammed the door on his face then tried to convince everyone he was actually out there. They argued with her for a while instead of just opening the door and looking. When they finally do, Peter's standing there still knocking. If you haven't seen that as funny, grab your bible and have someone read the story aloud to you while you close your eyes and imagine it happening like it was a sitcom.
God does have a steak of silliness in him. If you're too careful about maintaining your dignity, if you can't let silliness out, maybe you need to have a serious discussion with God about why. Is your dignity of greater value than laughter and fellowship?
If you can't remember the last time you were silly, it's been too long! Go in your prayer closet, put on some music and dance like you're crazy.
Go on, try it, you might actually like it!
If you've read any of my books, you know that my characters are (too?) prone to break out into silliness, but Pete (the hero of Storm) realizes that he's not comfortable with silliness. When he's with the guys, he follows their silliness easily and even usually willingly, but he never instigates anything nor does he escalate. In fact, when his best friends aren't around, he tends to protect his dignity. He can play games and all (which is obvious since he's a football player) but he always has to play to win, to be the best, be ichiban, number one.
In talking to Jenni, Pete discovers that his difficulty in being silly is rooted in his childhood. He knows he had a pretty bad childhood; his parents are quite different now than they were when he was growing up.
Because Pete is already committed to allowing Jesus to be Lord of his life in all things, that realization makes a big difference for him. He sees that his dignity isn't important. He begins to allow himself to degenerate into silliness. He even discovers that his previously abusive, womanizing father has learned to be silly with his mother.
He does such a magnificent job of getting into silliness that eventually Jenni declares, "I don't guess there's much reason to worry about your dignity anymore."
(If you want to know how Pete gets silly, you'll have to read After the Storm.)
My question for you is this: Do you believe "silliness is next to godliness"? Should Christians be silly?
Maybe it'll help to put things in a biblical perspective: Do you think Jesus was being serious when he said to not let your left hand know what your right was doing, or was he being a little bit silly? Have you ever stopped to examine bible stories for silliness? What about when Peter got freed from prison in Acts 12? Rhoda was so excited to see him that she slammed the door on his face then tried to convince everyone he was actually out there. They argued with her for a while instead of just opening the door and looking. When they finally do, Peter's standing there still knocking. If you haven't seen that as funny, grab your bible and have someone read the story aloud to you while you close your eyes and imagine it happening like it was a sitcom.
God does have a steak of silliness in him. If you're too careful about maintaining your dignity, if you can't let silliness out, maybe you need to have a serious discussion with God about why. Is your dignity of greater value than laughter and fellowship?
If you can't remember the last time you were silly, it's been too long! Go in your prayer closet, put on some music and dance like you're crazy.
Go on, try it, you might actually like it!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The Art of Friendship
I believe that friendship is very important. That's obvious from the title of my sixth book, A Cord of Three which is of course from Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. While that passage doesn't mention 'friendship' directly, it's still obviously about friendship - "pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up."
Unfortunately, I think contemporary Americans have lost the true meaning of friendship. Rugged individualism (the Marlboro man riding the range by himself), pulling yourself up by your bootstrap, even "man's best friend" (the dog) all indicate a self-reliance that shuns relationship and sees aloneness as somehow better than the interdependence of friendship.
On the other hand, comments like "She's the best friend anyone could ever have. She's always there for me" smack more of the other side of the coin - codependence, the need to have someone who needs you to validate you.
In A Cord of Three, as Ted and Shelly's friendship deepened, they realized that Ted would always need to withdraw sometimes to process what was happening. Shelly needed to learn to not accept feelings of rejection when he needed to do so, which would be easier if Ted told her he needed time to himself.
True friendship (which any romantic relationship needs if it wants to survive 'til death) realizes that differences are good and it not only allows the differences, but it embraces and encourages them. True friendship also sometimes scolds. In 2 Corinthians 7:8-13, the Apostle Paul tells us that sometimes we need to cause those we love to be sorrowful in a godly way. There is a godly sorrow that leads to repentance and salvation. In the end, there is no regret for the sorrow, either from the giver or receiver, because both draw closer to each other and to God through the sorrow.
Too often we're afraid to hurt someone's feelings, but sometimes feelings need to be hurt! Our friendships, whether they be familial, romantic or platonic, all need to be God-centered. We have to have healthy boundaries that allow us to say 'no,' and we have to receive 'no' without being hurt. We sometimes have to scold, sometimes encourage, sometimes walk away and let the fall happen, but never so far that our hand of friendship isn't there to assist in the recovery.
I challenge you to examine your friendships. Do you have honest ones? If not, why not? Are you willing to trust God enough to open yourself to the vulnerability of true friendship?
Unfortunately, I think contemporary Americans have lost the true meaning of friendship. Rugged individualism (the Marlboro man riding the range by himself), pulling yourself up by your bootstrap, even "man's best friend" (the dog) all indicate a self-reliance that shuns relationship and sees aloneness as somehow better than the interdependence of friendship.
On the other hand, comments like "She's the best friend anyone could ever have. She's always there for me" smack more of the other side of the coin - codependence, the need to have someone who needs you to validate you.
In A Cord of Three, as Ted and Shelly's friendship deepened, they realized that Ted would always need to withdraw sometimes to process what was happening. Shelly needed to learn to not accept feelings of rejection when he needed to do so, which would be easier if Ted told her he needed time to himself.
True friendship (which any romantic relationship needs if it wants to survive 'til death) realizes that differences are good and it not only allows the differences, but it embraces and encourages them. True friendship also sometimes scolds. In 2 Corinthians 7:8-13, the Apostle Paul tells us that sometimes we need to cause those we love to be sorrowful in a godly way. There is a godly sorrow that leads to repentance and salvation. In the end, there is no regret for the sorrow, either from the giver or receiver, because both draw closer to each other and to God through the sorrow.
Too often we're afraid to hurt someone's feelings, but sometimes feelings need to be hurt! Our friendships, whether they be familial, romantic or platonic, all need to be God-centered. We have to have healthy boundaries that allow us to say 'no,' and we have to receive 'no' without being hurt. We sometimes have to scold, sometimes encourage, sometimes walk away and let the fall happen, but never so far that our hand of friendship isn't there to assist in the recovery.
I challenge you to examine your friendships. Do you have honest ones? If not, why not? Are you willing to trust God enough to open yourself to the vulnerability of true friendship?
Monday, August 8, 2011
For country, church or God?
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." President Kennedy said that fifty years ago in his inaugural address. It's a fine sentiment for individuals to live by. It is a dangerous sentiment for governments to live by.
Yes, as Americans we do need to ask what we can do for your country, not what our country can do for us. It's part of that life of service that we were created for. However, when a government asks what its people can do for it rather than what it can do for its people, the government begins to exist for its own sake rather than to provide a safe and orderly environment for the people to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then the government decides what it wants to accomplish with no concern for the people it will have to walk over to get the job done. When people get tired of such governments they rise up in rebellion or civil disobedience, forcing a change in the way things are done. Sometimes those changes are good, but sometimes they're bad.
Substitute "country" for "church" in Kennedy's quote, and you have the same basic scenario.
The contemporary church in America seems quite willing to tell its congregants to seek what they can do for the church, but wholly unwilling to ask what the church can do for the congregants. Churches tend to get focused on the big picture, bringing souls into the kingdom and achieving a God-given vision for the church. They forget the individual. Even in those churches who do disciple believers to grow to be more Christ-like, the tendency is to do it so that they will eventually serve in and/or lead a ministry within the church. Most churches are looking for how they can use their members' God-given gifts and talents, not how they can nurture their members to find their calling from the Lord. When they do talk about "calling," most churches do it in the context of their church, not in the context of God's will.
The Apostle Paul made it pretty clear that unless the church is first concerned about the individuals who make up their congregation, they cannot be serving the Lord at full capacity - "But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." (1 Corinthians 12:24-26)
As church leaders, we must never allow ourselves to get so focused on the mission that we do not nurture the people who make up our congregation. It isn't easy to do that because it means building true relationships, getting to know people in a real way rather than looking at them and trying to figure out what ministry we can stick them in. Their calling from the Lord may give our church no direct benefit, but that doesn't mean we aren't responsible to nurture that calling anyway.
As congregants, we cannot forget that we are responsible not just for using our God-given gifts and talents for our church, but also for finding our God-given calling and serving him, not just our local church. Sure we need to be part of a church, but that church needs to be concerned about us, not just about its mission.
There comes a time when citizen or congregant has to ask not just what they can do in service, but if they are in turn being served. Your first loyalty is to God, not country and not church. If God has something for you to do for him and your church is only interested in what you can do for the church, it's time to reevaluate your membership. It's time to find a place where you can fulfill your calling, not just have your gifts and talents used by the church.
Share what you believe your God-given calling is with a ministry leader whom you already know. If they seem uninterested or talk a good game but never follow through, it is most definitely time to reevaluate where you belong. God's not calling you to open rebellion, but he might want to move you to another flock with a different under-shepherd who will serve you as you grow your calling, not just use your gifts and talents.
If God does call you to leave your church for more fruitful pastures, be sure you calmly explain to your pastor why you are leaving. If you can't do that, then you're not ready to leave yet! Stick around and grow some more. When you can share your concerns with the pastor, without being accusatory, then you'll know that you have grown!
Yes, as Americans we do need to ask what we can do for your country, not what our country can do for us. It's part of that life of service that we were created for. However, when a government asks what its people can do for it rather than what it can do for its people, the government begins to exist for its own sake rather than to provide a safe and orderly environment for the people to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then the government decides what it wants to accomplish with no concern for the people it will have to walk over to get the job done. When people get tired of such governments they rise up in rebellion or civil disobedience, forcing a change in the way things are done. Sometimes those changes are good, but sometimes they're bad.
Substitute "country" for "church" in Kennedy's quote, and you have the same basic scenario.
The contemporary church in America seems quite willing to tell its congregants to seek what they can do for the church, but wholly unwilling to ask what the church can do for the congregants. Churches tend to get focused on the big picture, bringing souls into the kingdom and achieving a God-given vision for the church. They forget the individual. Even in those churches who do disciple believers to grow to be more Christ-like, the tendency is to do it so that they will eventually serve in and/or lead a ministry within the church. Most churches are looking for how they can use their members' God-given gifts and talents, not how they can nurture their members to find their calling from the Lord. When they do talk about "calling," most churches do it in the context of their church, not in the context of God's will.
The Apostle Paul made it pretty clear that unless the church is first concerned about the individuals who make up their congregation, they cannot be serving the Lord at full capacity - "But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." (1 Corinthians 12:24-26)
As church leaders, we must never allow ourselves to get so focused on the mission that we do not nurture the people who make up our congregation. It isn't easy to do that because it means building true relationships, getting to know people in a real way rather than looking at them and trying to figure out what ministry we can stick them in. Their calling from the Lord may give our church no direct benefit, but that doesn't mean we aren't responsible to nurture that calling anyway.
As congregants, we cannot forget that we are responsible not just for using our God-given gifts and talents for our church, but also for finding our God-given calling and serving him, not just our local church. Sure we need to be part of a church, but that church needs to be concerned about us, not just about its mission.
There comes a time when citizen or congregant has to ask not just what they can do in service, but if they are in turn being served. Your first loyalty is to God, not country and not church. If God has something for you to do for him and your church is only interested in what you can do for the church, it's time to reevaluate your membership. It's time to find a place where you can fulfill your calling, not just have your gifts and talents used by the church.
Share what you believe your God-given calling is with a ministry leader whom you already know. If they seem uninterested or talk a good game but never follow through, it is most definitely time to reevaluate where you belong. God's not calling you to open rebellion, but he might want to move you to another flock with a different under-shepherd who will serve you as you grow your calling, not just use your gifts and talents.
If God does call you to leave your church for more fruitful pastures, be sure you calmly explain to your pastor why you are leaving. If you can't do that, then you're not ready to leave yet! Stick around and grow some more. When you can share your concerns with the pastor, without being accusatory, then you'll know that you have grown!
Saturday, August 6, 2011
glory to Glory
This morning when I was reading in 2 Corinthians 3, I found something that I'd never noticed before. Do you ever have those surprises? You know you've read that chapter before, but you have absolutely no recollection of ever reading that part.
Of course, you'll need to read the verses before to get where this started, but Paul was talking about how "the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory" (v.7) after he came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments. This, Paul said, was "the ministry that brought death." Then he said "the ministry of the Spirit [is] even more glorious" (v.8). It is the "the ministry that brings righteousness!" (v.9)
Yes, the glory that Moses brought down from the mountain was great, but it was nothing compared to the glory that Jesus brought to us when he gave us the Spirit. The glory of the giving of the Law was only a temporary glory. The glory of the giving of the Spirit is permanent! It is much, much greater.
Moses shone with the light of the glory he received on the mountaintop. As far as I can tell from reading the Pentateuch, that glory never faded. He was still wearing the veil to tone down the glory when he was standing at the gates of the Promised Land. But that glory is less than what we get when the Spirit dwells in us!
I don't know about you, but too often I discover that I've put on a veil to hide the glory of the Spirit from myself. I get selfish and self-centered and I want things my way. I can't see the glory of the Spirit, much less show that glory to others around me.
But the Spirit is glorious! He comes to remove all the junk that's in me. He takes away the pain, bitterness, anger. He surrounds us with a love that will never go away. He is a life-giving well of joy that should be obvious to all around us.
But we have to learn to let him live in us without hiding from him before we can live without hiding him from others. It's not easy to open up those dark places and let him in, but until we do, his glory won't shine all the way through us, not because it can't but because he won't do it. He wants our willingness to submit to his healing touch.
Are you willing to submit to the healing touch of the Spirit so he can remove all the pain and junk from your life?
Of course, you'll need to read the verses before to get where this started, but Paul was talking about how "the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory" (v.7) after he came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments. This, Paul said, was "the ministry that brought death." Then he said "the ministry of the Spirit [is] even more glorious" (v.8). It is the "the ministry that brings righteousness!" (v.9)
Yes, the glory that Moses brought down from the mountain was great, but it was nothing compared to the glory that Jesus brought to us when he gave us the Spirit. The glory of the giving of the Law was only a temporary glory. The glory of the giving of the Spirit is permanent! It is much, much greater.
Moses shone with the light of the glory he received on the mountaintop. As far as I can tell from reading the Pentateuch, that glory never faded. He was still wearing the veil to tone down the glory when he was standing at the gates of the Promised Land. But that glory is less than what we get when the Spirit dwells in us!
I don't know about you, but too often I discover that I've put on a veil to hide the glory of the Spirit from myself. I get selfish and self-centered and I want things my way. I can't see the glory of the Spirit, much less show that glory to others around me.
But the Spirit is glorious! He comes to remove all the junk that's in me. He takes away the pain, bitterness, anger. He surrounds us with a love that will never go away. He is a life-giving well of joy that should be obvious to all around us.
But we have to learn to let him live in us without hiding from him before we can live without hiding him from others. It's not easy to open up those dark places and let him in, but until we do, his glory won't shine all the way through us, not because it can't but because he won't do it. He wants our willingness to submit to his healing touch.
Are you willing to submit to the healing touch of the Spirit so he can remove all the pain and junk from your life?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
True Report Vs. Truth
One of the problems we have with interpreting the bible is that not every word written in it expresses the truth.
Wait! Hear me out before you get all huhu!
There is a difference between the truth and a true report. A true report reports things that actually happened; the truth is what God has done, spoken, he's immutable laws. So, if I say that my son said he did his homework, I am reporting an event that actually happened. That does not mean that he did indeed do his homework. He very well may not have (and probably didn't knowing my son).
The specific thing that prompted this particular musing today was 1 Corinthians 15:29 - "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Is that truth - we should baptize for the dead - or a true report of things that were actually happening in Corinth - people were getting baptized for the dead?
The immediate context tells us that Paul is arguing for the resurrection. Apparently some of the Corinthian Christians doubted the resurrection. The above statement falls in a logical argument for the resurrection. It points out an illogical action - why ever would you baptize for the dead if you don't believe in the resurrection? Paul doesn't say they are right to do it; he says they are illogical when they do it. That's a big difference!
When you find something that raises your eyebrows like this, you have to read the entire context, get a feel for the whole passage, see how it fits in with the passages around it. How does it advance the theme of the book?
The other thing to do is look for other passages that bolster that idea. If there are none (or maybe one or two that might support it), you have to put that idea in the category of a true report but not a truth that needs to be the basis of a doctrine. If there is an abundance of other passages that refute that idea, then you need to firmly put that verse back in its context and never, ever ever read it by itself!
Wait! Hear me out before you get all huhu!
There is a difference between the truth and a true report. A true report reports things that actually happened; the truth is what God has done, spoken, he's immutable laws. So, if I say that my son said he did his homework, I am reporting an event that actually happened. That does not mean that he did indeed do his homework. He very well may not have (and probably didn't knowing my son).
The specific thing that prompted this particular musing today was 1 Corinthians 15:29 - "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Is that truth - we should baptize for the dead - or a true report of things that were actually happening in Corinth - people were getting baptized for the dead?
The immediate context tells us that Paul is arguing for the resurrection. Apparently some of the Corinthian Christians doubted the resurrection. The above statement falls in a logical argument for the resurrection. It points out an illogical action - why ever would you baptize for the dead if you don't believe in the resurrection? Paul doesn't say they are right to do it; he says they are illogical when they do it. That's a big difference!
When you find something that raises your eyebrows like this, you have to read the entire context, get a feel for the whole passage, see how it fits in with the passages around it. How does it advance the theme of the book?
The other thing to do is look for other passages that bolster that idea. If there are none (or maybe one or two that might support it), you have to put that idea in the category of a true report but not a truth that needs to be the basis of a doctrine. If there is an abundance of other passages that refute that idea, then you need to firmly put that verse back in its context and never, ever ever read it by itself!
Monday, August 1, 2011
Itching ears
In 2 Timothy 4:1-5, the Apostle Paul warned that the time would come when people would "not put up with sound doctrine" but would "gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." He said they would "turn aside to myths," so Timothy had to "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction" and "keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."
Without being specific about why, I feel the need to say that too many Christians are falling into the "itching ears" trap because too many teachers aren't willing to endure the hardship that comes when we "correct, rebuke and encourage."
Today there's a lot of pop theology being preached as if it was gospel truth, but it isn't. Pop theology holds at its center a very valuable kernel of truth, but it goes way beyond what the bible says. It loosely interprets the bible or even totally ignores any interpretation at all and makes up a meaning. Pop theology is unconcerned about correct biblical interpretation and instead seeks to tell people what they want to hear, what makes them feel good about themselves, their church, their culture, their country. It's not necessarily a bad thing to feel good about any of those things, but when you're doing it based upon a false premise, is there true value in the feelings?
As a bible teacher, I want to correct pop theology. Sometimes it makes me hiss like a Navi! The problem is in knowing when I make a direct frontal attack and when I simply patiently show people how to correctly interpret the bible and pray that they find the truth on their own.
One thing I know for sure is that if someone asks me a question, I'm going to answer it to the best of my ability. So, if you have doubts about something you've heard, you can always ask. I'll be more than happy to explore what the bible actually says.
In the meantime, I'll just keep my hisses to myself unless God pokes me too hard!
Without being specific about why, I feel the need to say that too many Christians are falling into the "itching ears" trap because too many teachers aren't willing to endure the hardship that comes when we "correct, rebuke and encourage."
Today there's a lot of pop theology being preached as if it was gospel truth, but it isn't. Pop theology holds at its center a very valuable kernel of truth, but it goes way beyond what the bible says. It loosely interprets the bible or even totally ignores any interpretation at all and makes up a meaning. Pop theology is unconcerned about correct biblical interpretation and instead seeks to tell people what they want to hear, what makes them feel good about themselves, their church, their culture, their country. It's not necessarily a bad thing to feel good about any of those things, but when you're doing it based upon a false premise, is there true value in the feelings?
As a bible teacher, I want to correct pop theology. Sometimes it makes me hiss like a Navi! The problem is in knowing when I make a direct frontal attack and when I simply patiently show people how to correctly interpret the bible and pray that they find the truth on their own.
One thing I know for sure is that if someone asks me a question, I'm going to answer it to the best of my ability. So, if you have doubts about something you've heard, you can always ask. I'll be more than happy to explore what the bible actually says.
In the meantime, I'll just keep my hisses to myself unless God pokes me too hard!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)