miscellanious happenings (updated)
Today was the Flea Market, and it was pretty fun, hanging out with people there. Disappointed in our sales, though; there was a small turnout today, so we didn't sell as much cotton candy as we normally would. The process was pretty painless, thanks to Mrs. Moreno, who saved us by letting us use her machine. I don't think I'll ever eat cotton candy again. I had so much of it today; just goes to show that too much of a good thing is never a good thing. I always seem to learn that lesson the hard way:)
Now, I'm looking forward to 2 days of rest (after I finish the poster assignment from Miss Herber, which I'm hoping will be enjoyable rather than tedious), and then next weekend we have a car wash. Somehow I'll have to convince my classmates that unless almost everybody helps, we won't be able to pull it off. In fact, I'm not going to go through the same thing as last time. If not enough people sign up, I'm just going to cancel it. Last time was chaotic, for various reasons; one of which was the fact that most people who helped weren't even in our class.
So now, I guess it's time to post about my "feelings." Well, "opinons" is probably a more accurate word. Yes, you all know what that means. This is going to be one of those "weird Presbyterian" posts. Actually, "Reformed" is probably a better term for my theology. There are actually many Reformed Baptists, along with other denominations. But just a reminder: All Christian organizations, whether they be Reformed or Fundamentalist, Presybterian or Baptist, etc., all believe in the same Gospel, and that is what unites them. Their ways of communicating the Gospel are different, however, and I pick Reformed because I believe it depicts the gospel very accurately.
Now you're probably saying to yourself, "Great, John Mark. Thanks for your little lecture on theology. Now get to the point; this blog is more boring than observing the reproductive habits of colonial bacteria." Ok, ok! So what's up with this "visual Bible" thing? At least, all the ones I've seen are poorly funded and almost completely inaccurate, and sometimes just completely bizarre. I mean, call me crazy, but I don't think Jesus smiled and chuckled to himself as he rebuked Satan for tempting him after starving for 40 days in the desert. I also doubt that he wore white all the time, and that he looked like he just came from the beaty salon everywhere he went. And since when does Jesus have a British accent? I mean, a common accent would probably be more appropriate, since he tended to hang around the common people. I like the "Gospel of Matthew" visual Bible for that reason, but the problem is that everyone else has a British accent, so it puts him out of place. In fact, why use English at all? I like Mel Gibson's movie because of that, I will admit, but I don't really regard his as a "visual Bible", since it goes beyond the literal interpretation. Also, trying to do an altar call at the end of a movie is definitely not a good idea. I mean, how stupid does it make us sound? "So yeah, this movie PROVES that Jesus is real and that He is the Son of God. So believe now, and be saved!" Now, the movie itself proves absolutely nothing, to begin with, and I do believe that Jesus is real and that He is the Son of God, and that if you believe you will be saved, but people need more proof. What they really need is not the "visual Bible" or a simple tract that will revotionize their outlook on life. They need the Bible, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, who often manifests himself in a friend or pastor. Now, God can use the "visual Bible" for His own good purpose, but God can use anything for his purpose. I guess you can think of God as a skilled repairman. He can use any tool you give him, but why give him poor tools? I think one of the problems with modern Christianity is that we try to "mass produce" converts. This method of "get-saved-quick" can be compared to the food quality of McDonald's. We can try all sorts of new ideas, but all the food items remain under the heat lamp for hours at a time, and the ingredients are mostly from the waste product. The Gospel is not something generic. It affects everyone in the same way, but how can we expect all sorts of complex, unique people to change from the result of one tract? There is a passage in the Bible that immediately comes to my mind, and it can be found in the fourth chapter of Mark, which is the parable of the sower. When a crowd of people claims to accept Christ from a short description of the Gospel, how many of them will actually keep it with them? Jesus says in Mark 4:14, "The farmer sows the word...[some], like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. (17)But since they have no root, they last only a short time." How can we expect to lead a person to a life-long commitment to Christ if we are giving them no root?
So, some of you are probably very frustrated and can't wait to put a comment that reads something like, "Ok, GENIUS, what are we supposed to do then? What's your brilliant idea?" It's actually very simple. Get to know people. See what their interests are. What their faults are. What their practical needs are. Love them and pray for them, and ask God to show you how best to communicate his Grace to them. Now, there are times when we are called to just say what we know in a situation when a person asks us about it. Probably the most effective means of communicating a point is not by making statements; rather, it is by asking questions. So, for example, if someone asks you what a Christian believes, it would perhaps be wise to ask them in return about their conception of Christianity. Depending on their answer, you may want to present the gospel to them in a certain way. A pastor or speaker, who is one put into a situation where he is always presenting the gospel to large groups of people, communicates the Gospel in terms of a certain subject that he has chosen to talk about. But, part of being a pastor or speaker is answering questions. That's why I think it may be wiser to omit altar calls in a service, but rather have people speak with the minister when they feel comfortable to do so.
I hope all of this make sense. I sort of started with a subject, but branched out into a different, much larger one. As a final note, I think it is always important to be communicating the gospel at all times, no matter what we speak about. I have a feeling may people will disagree with me on this stuff, but I hope I am not confusing all of you. I am open to disagreement. Feel free to leave comments/hatemail:)
**UPDATE**
My apologies for not making the proper distinction. I meant to communicate that there are many denominations that fall under the Fundamentalist and Reformed category, but I put it into the wrong words. I would also like to note that Reformed theology does address all of those same topics, but in different ways than Fundamentalist theology. Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Q:) I've re-worded my statement about that above, hopefully that will clear the confusion. One of the key distinguishing marks of Fundamentalist theology is the literal interpretation of certain parts of the Bible, whereas others would argue that those certain parts of the Bible are meant to be taken figuratively and not literally. Fundamentalists do not literally interpret the whole Bible, however. An obvious example would be a passage in the Psalms when the writer weeps a "bed of tears." Obviously, this is simply a poetic way of saying that he cried a lot for a long time. An obvious example of the Bible that is to be taken literally is the death and resurrection of Christ. One controversial passage in the Bible is the first chapter of Genesis. Many interpret it literally, saying that God created the world and all that is in it in seven literal days, which is possible of course. However, there are many implications that Genesis one is a poem, because of the arrangement and versing, and conflicting accounts in chapter two (if chapter one is to be taken literally, it says that the vegetation came right after land and seas, and before the creation of man; in chapter two, it says that "no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground"). There is no conflict in accounts, of course, if the first chapter of Genesis is taken as a beautiful poetic work of literature. I don't know if God made the world in seven days, or in seven billion years. But He did create it ex nihilo, and has complete loving control over all of His creation.
Now, I'm looking forward to 2 days of rest (after I finish the poster assignment from Miss Herber, which I'm hoping will be enjoyable rather than tedious), and then next weekend we have a car wash. Somehow I'll have to convince my classmates that unless almost everybody helps, we won't be able to pull it off. In fact, I'm not going to go through the same thing as last time. If not enough people sign up, I'm just going to cancel it. Last time was chaotic, for various reasons; one of which was the fact that most people who helped weren't even in our class.
So now, I guess it's time to post about my "feelings." Well, "opinons" is probably a more accurate word. Yes, you all know what that means. This is going to be one of those "weird Presbyterian" posts. Actually, "Reformed" is probably a better term for my theology. There are actually many Reformed Baptists, along with other denominations. But just a reminder: All Christian organizations, whether they be Reformed or Fundamentalist, Presybterian or Baptist, etc., all believe in the same Gospel, and that is what unites them. Their ways of communicating the Gospel are different, however, and I pick Reformed because I believe it depicts the gospel very accurately.
Now you're probably saying to yourself, "Great, John Mark. Thanks for your little lecture on theology. Now get to the point; this blog is more boring than observing the reproductive habits of colonial bacteria." Ok, ok! So what's up with this "visual Bible" thing? At least, all the ones I've seen are poorly funded and almost completely inaccurate, and sometimes just completely bizarre. I mean, call me crazy, but I don't think Jesus smiled and chuckled to himself as he rebuked Satan for tempting him after starving for 40 days in the desert. I also doubt that he wore white all the time, and that he looked like he just came from the beaty salon everywhere he went. And since when does Jesus have a British accent? I mean, a common accent would probably be more appropriate, since he tended to hang around the common people. I like the "Gospel of Matthew" visual Bible for that reason, but the problem is that everyone else has a British accent, so it puts him out of place. In fact, why use English at all? I like Mel Gibson's movie because of that, I will admit, but I don't really regard his as a "visual Bible", since it goes beyond the literal interpretation. Also, trying to do an altar call at the end of a movie is definitely not a good idea. I mean, how stupid does it make us sound? "So yeah, this movie PROVES that Jesus is real and that He is the Son of God. So believe now, and be saved!" Now, the movie itself proves absolutely nothing, to begin with, and I do believe that Jesus is real and that He is the Son of God, and that if you believe you will be saved, but people need more proof. What they really need is not the "visual Bible" or a simple tract that will revotionize their outlook on life. They need the Bible, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, who often manifests himself in a friend or pastor. Now, God can use the "visual Bible" for His own good purpose, but God can use anything for his purpose. I guess you can think of God as a skilled repairman. He can use any tool you give him, but why give him poor tools? I think one of the problems with modern Christianity is that we try to "mass produce" converts. This method of "get-saved-quick" can be compared to the food quality of McDonald's. We can try all sorts of new ideas, but all the food items remain under the heat lamp for hours at a time, and the ingredients are mostly from the waste product. The Gospel is not something generic. It affects everyone in the same way, but how can we expect all sorts of complex, unique people to change from the result of one tract? There is a passage in the Bible that immediately comes to my mind, and it can be found in the fourth chapter of Mark, which is the parable of the sower. When a crowd of people claims to accept Christ from a short description of the Gospel, how many of them will actually keep it with them? Jesus says in Mark 4:14, "The farmer sows the word...[some], like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. (17)But since they have no root, they last only a short time." How can we expect to lead a person to a life-long commitment to Christ if we are giving them no root?
So, some of you are probably very frustrated and can't wait to put a comment that reads something like, "Ok, GENIUS, what are we supposed to do then? What's your brilliant idea?" It's actually very simple. Get to know people. See what their interests are. What their faults are. What their practical needs are. Love them and pray for them, and ask God to show you how best to communicate his Grace to them. Now, there are times when we are called to just say what we know in a situation when a person asks us about it. Probably the most effective means of communicating a point is not by making statements; rather, it is by asking questions. So, for example, if someone asks you what a Christian believes, it would perhaps be wise to ask them in return about their conception of Christianity. Depending on their answer, you may want to present the gospel to them in a certain way. A pastor or speaker, who is one put into a situation where he is always presenting the gospel to large groups of people, communicates the Gospel in terms of a certain subject that he has chosen to talk about. But, part of being a pastor or speaker is answering questions. That's why I think it may be wiser to omit altar calls in a service, but rather have people speak with the minister when they feel comfortable to do so.
I hope all of this make sense. I sort of started with a subject, but branched out into a different, much larger one. As a final note, I think it is always important to be communicating the gospel at all times, no matter what we speak about. I have a feeling may people will disagree with me on this stuff, but I hope I am not confusing all of you. I am open to disagreement. Feel free to leave comments/hatemail:)
**UPDATE**
My apologies for not making the proper distinction. I meant to communicate that there are many denominations that fall under the Fundamentalist and Reformed category, but I put it into the wrong words. I would also like to note that Reformed theology does address all of those same topics, but in different ways than Fundamentalist theology. Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Q:) I've re-worded my statement about that above, hopefully that will clear the confusion. One of the key distinguishing marks of Fundamentalist theology is the literal interpretation of certain parts of the Bible, whereas others would argue that those certain parts of the Bible are meant to be taken figuratively and not literally. Fundamentalists do not literally interpret the whole Bible, however. An obvious example would be a passage in the Psalms when the writer weeps a "bed of tears." Obviously, this is simply a poetic way of saying that he cried a lot for a long time. An obvious example of the Bible that is to be taken literally is the death and resurrection of Christ. One controversial passage in the Bible is the first chapter of Genesis. Many interpret it literally, saying that God created the world and all that is in it in seven literal days, which is possible of course. However, there are many implications that Genesis one is a poem, because of the arrangement and versing, and conflicting accounts in chapter two (if chapter one is to be taken literally, it says that the vegetation came right after land and seas, and before the creation of man; in chapter two, it says that "no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground"). There is no conflict in accounts, of course, if the first chapter of Genesis is taken as a beautiful poetic work of literature. I don't know if God made the world in seven days, or in seven billion years. But He did create it ex nihilo, and has complete loving control over all of His creation.
posted by John Mark at 5:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home