THE FLYING IRON

I first started "rethinking 1776" a little bit back when I was in 8th or 9th grade. I wondered why some wars are called revolutions and others, revolts or rebellions. My little middle-school reasoning led me to the conclusion that uprisings were called the latter two unless they were successful, in which case they were given the classier name of "revolution".

Later, in the mid 1980's, I came to have even more misgivings about "1776". It happened thus: My best friend's mother died during that time; and my friend and her sister told me about how their father was rather passive and permissive, and that their mother would sometimes demonstrate her frustration and resentment and unhappiness by bitchy behavior. The sisters told how one morning the mom was so frustrated, mad and unhappy that she the threw the iron that she had in her hand at that moment. Thank the Lord she missed the father.

That and other stories made me really sad, because the woman had always been sweet and kind to me and happy that her daughter had a friend. Also, the mom went to church regularly when she could and had even moved from one church to an 2nd denomination during her life indicating to me that she was trying to do right/was searching for the help she knew the church or God should be to her.

Then I wondered how a woman is supposed to deal with a husband who, in her viewpoint, is failing her. Somehow it became clear then that our American history of embracing the decision of the colonists to revolt against the tyranny of the British at that long ago time (1776) somehow has molded our culture, specifically the dynamics of the relationships of husbands, wives, church leaders, children in a specific way (that I judge to be unhelpful).

Specifically thinking of this example I just gave, how could that family- the frustrated mom, the passive dad and the three daughters- be helped? What could the Church (either her local church or God's world-wide church) have done? Part of their problem was, I think the problem of many of us: they didn't ask for help. Or if they did, it was perhaps in a timid way. The surrounding community couldn't receive the transmission. ARGGGGG!!!!! WE ARE SO INDIVIDUAL, ISOLATED, WITH CONTINUING EXPECTION THAT EACH ONE WOULD HELP HER- OR HIMSELF (OR EACH FAMILY WOULD HELP THEMSELVES, etc.!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, my friend did ask for help later, by attempting suicide ("self-killing"). (Later, unfortunately, she did success in killing herself.)

I think the Church is changing getting better at being the church together. Let's keep praying for us and reaching out.


So that is the story of the flying iron.

I hope we can talk later.

Your sister in Christ's love, Joan

I'm still wavering between two blogs. Do I need to grit my teeth and delete one?
I just posted something I planned to put here on APOLOGIA (or vice versa).

OFF COURSE? (originally published 3-20-2009)

I wrote this below article in 2009. That is 8 years ago now. Much has happened in eight years. I'll address that in a separate post. Here I am only republishing the edited post from 2009:
               * * * * * * * *
I am blessed to be able to attend a discussion class at church, WestburyUMC in Houston, Texas on Wednesdays, where we are studying CHASING DAYLIGHT by Erwin McManus. Our preacher asked us, the congregation to read this.

I've liked this book muchly. I think that between reading the book and listening to the preacher preach and exhort based on the book and talking with my brother and sisters in class about our lives and experiences and how this book is pushing us to change in good ways, this book is having a good effect on me and others in class and in the church.

Today we were talking on the subject of "impact"- that pioneers in pushing out the boundaries of God's kingdom in new and untamed areas are going to experience buffetting and some kind of injury, probably. (why do I feel the need to step back from speaking in absolute terms?)

McManus has been using Jonathan's story (of 1 Samuel 14:1-15) to learn, teach and illustrate the principles of his book.Also, McManus reminded us of Elijah 1) demanding a demonstration comparing God's might and glory to the nothingness of the false gods that were the focus of Israelites who were drifted away from God, 2) raining down revenge on the 850 baal and other pagan priests (I still wonder if that part- the killing of the pagan priests- was God's will.), 3) running from Jezebel, 4) getting worn out and depressed, 5) being the blessed recipient of God's miraculous provision, encouragement and correction  while on the run and 6) finally hearing from God in a quiet voice. (1 Kings 18 and 19).

My wondering about whether Elijah was in God's will when he orchestrated the killing of the pagan priests reminded me of what my main focus will be in my other blog, APOLOGIA. I plan to explore and discuss in the APOLOGIA blog the many times in history where believers, whether Christians, or, in the Old Testament times, believing jews (or others?) have gotten off course, out of God's will.
Andrew Wommack has taught me so much about the Bible and truths that are there if we will dig below the first few inches of topsoil. Bro. Wommack was the one who pointed out, comparing actual numbers in two places in the Exodus story, that Moses caused the Israelites time in Egypt to be 10 years longer than God had wanted, presumably because Moses (rashly) killed a man. (The man he killed was a cruel slave driver.) That vigilante act turned Moses from a prince of Egypt with great influence into an outlaw who had to run. (I would also interpolate that the manner in which the jewish nation left Egypt and the relationship between Israel and Egypt would have been much different if Moses had been among the ruling family before the events of the Israelites leaving occurred.)
Andrew Wommack calls it "Andyology" when he makes these jumps of logic mixed with intuition on non-principle ideas. But I think he is right with this. AND, I am beginning to think that these mistakes have had devastating consequences on the flow of history. But not anything God can't cure. I further believe that addressing these missteps by believers (including the Church) is a necessary step in bringing about God's ending to this part of the story of mankind.

I don't want this writing to be too dry. So:Today was a beautiful spring day, March 18, 2009. It started out foggy and mild. Later, it was sunny, bright, clear. I went and brought son, John, home from U of Houston, across town. There were seven of us in class today: Donna, Evelyn, Roy, Melissa, Janet, Mary Lou and me. Carol and Brenda couldn't be there for some reason.
I so much am nourished by being with these brothers and sisters in Christ, hearing what they think about what we are studying and stories from their lives, whether from today or twenty years ago. Tom cooked. That was good.

STREET PREACHER

When I was in college, I would sometimes ride the bus home. I enjoyed these mini-adventures. I remember one time, or maybe more than once, seeing a young black man (in his 20's or 30's) preaching to the people passing by or maybe just to the air. I remember I was so proud of that young man that he was representing God, reminding people that God and His words are important.

Later I would ponder the special place that street preachers have, in contrast to ministers who preach from the pulpit.

Whereas ministers who are ordained and are representatives of church organizations must consider their words and maybe even censor them, street preachers , I would think , would be more willing to express "politically incorrect" ideas.

As I admired that street preacher, I also want to follow his example.
I feel that my job here is to express ideas that are not presently expressed or accepted. Of course I ask and encourage any readers to decide for themselves if what I am "putting out there" is valid or not valid.

One person that I admire is John Lienhard. In his daily radio spots on KUHF, he often points out that pioneers (in various areas of science and technology) are sometimes dismissed as crackpots or at least misguided only to be proved right by later developments.

In CHASING DAYLIGHT, which I recommend, author Erwin McManus encourages Christians to follow God even when they are scared of the response of others (among many possible troubles.)

Jefferson Hillel and Jesus, part 2

I noticed Hillel's omission, leaving God and relationship to God out of his summary of the Torah, when I was reading an article by Karen Armstrong (who also wrote THE HISTORY OF GOD) in AARP magazine MODERN MATURITY 5 to 10 years ago. Her topic was compassion (and that pure compassion, devoid of rhetoric and dogma should be our goal. Maybe I don't remember it quite right. I may be biased against Karen's viewpoint.)

Anyway, Karen refered to Hillel, and the simple way he distilled down what was needed to live a good life. Maybe I was studying Jesus' words that were similar at that time. I think I had taught 3 or 4 year olds at vacation Bible school recently, and our theme for that week of VBS was Jesus giving the TWO great commandments: 'the first one is you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your strength'. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. (I remember the preacher's wife was teaching the music to the children; and she was teaching them hand movements to go with the song. It was so sweet to see her working with the little ones.) So when I read Hillel's summary, I really felt the void.

I tried to research Hillel more-his theology. I haven't found a source yet that can give me a more complete picture of his teachings. I need to go ahead and ASK a rabbi, I guess. Anyway, am I wrong? Did Hillel leave God out of his summary of the Torah? I suppose you could say that honoring God, putting God first, not taking His name in vain COULD fall under the catagory of "not doing to others what you yourself find oppressive", but I think we need to put God above others.
When I was reading all the places that Jesus said something similar to Hillel's summary and the "golden rule", I noted:
MARK 12:30(THE TWO, WITH THE SH'MAH)
MATTHEW 22:35-40(THE TWO)--------------------------------
LUKE 10:27 is different. This is where the story (parable) of the "Good Samaritan" is. It is actually a jewish expert in the law that is questioning Jesus who gives the summary in this scene. I will put the whole story up to the beginning of the parable here.
MATTHEW 19:16-26(RICH YOUNG MAN)--------

DEUTERONOMY6:5 and LEVITICUS19:18 are the two Old Testament verses that are the basis of Jesus' summary of the Torah into two commandments.

When I was comparing Hillel's summary with Jesus' summary, and comparing them both to the Ten Commandments, I noted in the Matthew19:16-26 passage that Jesus left out all four of the commandments about God (as well as the commandment about honoring our parents). I had always thought that Jesus just listed a few of the ten as a time-saving thing. But since I was pondering the difference between what Jesus said and Hillel said, I wanted to find a reason for Jesus leaving out the first 5 of the Ten Commandments. I kept reading that passage and came to the place where the young man Had to say "No. I can't make that level of commitment." and walked away sad. Jesus said (something like) "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus' disciples asked "Who, then, can enter?" Jesus answered, "With man it is impossible. But with God all things are possible."

I think Jesus there was emphasizing that we need to make God the center, and that only by making God the center are we able to fulfill these other commandments.
I also think that Hillel's teachings of 100 years previously (or less) were still being discussed and He, Jesus, was pointing out that weakness or omission of Hillel's Torah summary.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: PART 2

There are two areas that I want to recognize this organization in.
First, they have tried to make sense of the whole Bible. Yes, I know that they have bent the meaning of some passages and ignored others. (Be truthful. Many denominations and part of the Christian Church have done that.) The particular belief that the J.W.s have brought out and tried to make sense of that others for many years ignored was what the Bible says about the 'end times'. The J.W.s speak of a new earth, a renewed earth which will be the paradise that God always wanted for mankind. The honest inquiry into the passages about God's plans for the Earth in the future, I believe, forced mainstream denominations to address this part of the Bible. The second thing I want to recognize this organization for is the reasoned way that they address congregation size and plan for growth. It is my understanding that when a congregation gets to a certain number, the rules of the organization require that the congregation split into two congregations. I studied the 'life cycle' of organizations in college and learned that there is a time (size) in the life of an org. when it is prone to split because of fighting factions or to lose steam. It seems that the Jehovah's Witnesses org. has at least tried to address this difficulty with organiztions.
That's all for now.
One more thing: Someone asked if I believe in the trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, and why.
(I guess they asked because I was recognizing the J.W.'s.) Yes, I do believe that Jesus is God.