LET'S GIVE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SOME CREDIT

I haven't written here in so long that I know I must write something, in case someone's passing by.

First, it was by the means of some old J.W. literature that the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin; and I came to have a saving relationship with Jesus- or at least I came to understand my need for a "savior" and to accept Jesus' and God's gift of Jesus' sacrifice be the punishment for my sins. (I talked to God from time before that. I really do think I had some kind of relationship with Him based on that.)

It happened thus: I was raised in a Christian home; but if my parents or my church ever spoke of an need for a savior, it did not sink in for me. I had an estimation of myself as "ok" and even a goodie-two-shoes. And since I thought I was "ok", there was no need for a savior.

When I say "ok" , I was pretty uncritical of myself, really. There were lots of ways in which I went against God's way.

Well, this J.W. literature was about the LORD'S PRAYER. IN explaining and teaching on "Thy kingdom come" the anonymous writer(s) made note of the fact that the governments of the world-yes, even the old U, S of A- were not the same thing as the kingdom of God. The laws of the land are not the same as God's laws. One can obey every law of the land and still sin against God. Wow!

WOW!

I had something on my conscience at that timethat was not against the law. That teaching nailed me. I was convicted. Then, I understood why we all need Jesus to take the punishment for all our sins. And I was filled with love for Jesus for doing that.

YE

In sunday school last sunday, we studied JOHN 4:19 and 20 as well as most of JOHN 4.
In this exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, she speaks to him personally
("you") and speaks about the jews as a national group ("you"). In all moderns translations that I know of , the distinction between you singular and you plural is not made, although I believe that the bible greek as well as the old testament hebrew do have those distinctions.
This may be a little thing; but it seems when new english translations are made with frantic frequency, trying to squeeze every drop of meaning out of these texts, it is a little blind to ignore a meaning clue which is so easy to include, the you vs. "you-all" differentiation.
We, at least english speakers, have become so used to using "you" for all of those meanings. We think of "thou", and related words quaint relics of the past, not additional meaning.
I sure would like to change that mind-set. What can I do about this narrowness?

The reason that I am sensitive to this loss of meaning in translation, is that I, because of my own shortcomings and experiences, have come to wonder if "being christians together" is an essential part of God's plan for individual believers, His Church and the world. For example, one passage says , "Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." (That is either Paul or James talking.) That could mean simply that he was giving that admonition to a group of people. I posit that the passage could also mean :
Together, become whole, complete and perfect as you-all's father is whole and complete (and perfect.) Could it also mean : "By being an organism together-the Body of Christ, the Church-you-all CAN become perfect. " ? Maybe that's too much interpolation.

WHAT IS THE RIGHT QUESTION?

As I listened to a panel of Christian experts on the radio today talking about "Is Christ the only way to God?", my mind went back to Sunday afternoon when some friends and I were visiting with some muslims who were open and interested in talking about spiritual things and some of whom had visited Christian churches. The radio people quoted the words of Jesus (from John 13 or 14?), "Whoever comes to the Father must come through me." The radio experts pulled up the reasoning that whoever does not believe in Jesus as the way to God, must think of Jesus as either liar, lunatic.

As these radio people were talking, I could not reconcile the strong words of distinguishing believer from unbeliever with the open-ness of the muslims I had met. I believe Christ is the way. I know that I will eventually have to tell these muslims that that is what I believe. But, I did not think that was the way to draw them to Christ initially.

My reaction to the radio experts' discussion became : That is the wrong question when believers and unbelievers meet. The question is : Is the Church and are individual Christians representing Christ and the Gospel adequately to where these unbelievers can be said to have HEARD the Gospel? I believe that the answer is often no. Let me tell you why. If a person or organization explains the Gospel and the evidence for Jesus' claims out of the Bible and does a perfect job of it, but does not show forth love to the hearer, the hearer may not be able to receive the message because of the lack of the love of the speaker. The message may not seem authentic because the speaker doesn't show love.( I do believe Jesus and others spoke about this.) For example, the Spanish conquerors who tried to convert the natives of South America did not show forth love- they gave the conquered ones the choice of death or "conversion". Some of the conquered ones were able, I think, to receive the message, though it was harshly given, but I believe God, in His mercy, judges those who reject the message under such circumstances accordingly. (Also, I believe that God doth judge those who offend the "little ones" -that is, anyone who does not yet know God, and has the possibility of receiving Him.)

The answer to above question is further complicated in that the hearers have made an evaluation of Christianity and therefore on the Gospel based on the expresssion of love or otherwise of perhaps many individuals or organizations whom these unbelievers have encountered before you came along.

So, a FIRST TASK in talking to unbelievers is, I believe to help the hearer to separate the message of God, the Gospel, from the messangers that have spoken the Gospel down through time in imperfect manner.

This reminds me of Phillip Yancey's book, SOUL SURVIVORS, about individuals who could be said to be "open" and "seekers" and some of whom had troubled relationships with organized Christianity due the less-than-stellar lives and attitudes of the nominal christians that they had encountered.

(Gandhi's observations of Christians is one example.)

A second topic for discussion that might be helpful with seekers is: Did Jesus indicate that He knew that the Church and the telling of Gospel were going to imperfect things or did all this (mess) take Him by surprise?

I know that for myself, when I learned that Jesus did prophesy that the Church was going to be an imperfect thing, filled with people with clay feet as well as people who have no interest in God and Jesus at all and as well as some people led astray by unscriptural doctrine some more some less, I felt much more sure of Jesus being all-knowing. The place that I first learned about Jesus' prophecy was MATTHEW 13, which I wrote about earlier.

ONE SILLY LITTLE PREPOSITION

coming soon: discussion of the new testament scripture " IN CHRIST, there is neither slave nor free, greek nor jew, male nor female."

BEWARE WHAT STAR YOU HITCH YOUR WAGON TO

BEWARE WHAT STAR YOU HITCH YOUR WAGON TO
or
EARLY WARNING FOR THE STRATEGIES OF THE ANTICHRIST

When I had heard about the PBS FRONTLINE program on the Jonestown tragedy and Jim Jones, I knew I must watch it, because I want to know how nominally Christian organizations go wrong and be able to tell others how such an organization can stray from Jesus' teachings and allow such tragedy to occur.

The program was heartrending. The people who followed this fox (Jones) were mainly earnest people who knew that the racist biases of those days were not right. They joined and supported the church because they saw something there that was good. They stayed because of the love and joy they felt in worshipping God (they thought) in a blessed way and partaking of the fellowship experienced during the worship service.

It was not until Jones saw that he had a grip on his flock that he boldly, from the pulpit, proclaimed "articles of faith" that were in direct opposition to the Bible. But proclaim he did. The statements Jones made (shown on the PBS show) that stand out in my mind were 1)that there was no heaven or hell and that they, that church, must make heaven on earth and 2)that Jones could be their friend, father, or even their god. Did you see this program? Or did you see this story another time? Jones dramatically pauses and says (something like) "If I'm wrong, where is the lightning bolt out of the sky to strike me dead?
Let's just see how much power the Bible has," with which he hauled off and threw the Bible across the room where it fell to the floor.

This PBS FRONTLINE program demonstrated by means of interviews of former members, that Jones was a hypocrite whose morals were far from the Bible's standards even early in the history of his cult. Some members expressed that they were shocked when they found out about Jones' sexual practices that were perverted, but the ones interviewed had put him on such a pedestal by the time that they heard of these things, that they gave Jones the benfit of the doubt, thinking (I guess) that if he did it, it was OK.

The purpose of my writing here is not to recount what that program showed or what Jones did or said, but rather to give you and me some markers, some guidelines that God gave in the Bible, to keep us from error.

(I grieve that there many places that we Christians have gone away from God's will on things. I wonder if we can get back to Him before . . .)

John said in 1JOHN 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

The first verse of this passage has been an anchor for me. I interpret it as saying that God will not speak anything that is against His nature meaning that if a spirit or a teacher who claims to be Christian says something against what is in the Bible, THAT IS NOT FROM GOD. In order for us to have the protection that this verse could give, though, we must familiarize ourselves with what the Bible does say. Also, we must not shrug off our reservations about what someone is teaching.

The second verse, I do have difficulty with. It seems that someone could pretend to embrace Jesus as savior, and sway other into heresy. Is God saying that eventually, one will not be able to lie and say he believes in Jesus if he doesn't? That is a real question to me. (If you stumble upon my writing here and have anything to share, please feel free to say it.)

In MATTHEW 7:15-23, Jesus gives teaching that is the most helpful to me concerning the false teachers that arise in Christianity. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. (He continues in similar vein.)
So Jesus is telling us to look beyond the words of one coming in His name, to the life and actions that that one displays.

[Just as an aside here, I see where Jesus in many places tries to get the people to put more weight in the unseen things of the world than in the seen. The 'seen' are the surface, what others see of us and what we see of them. The 'unseen' is what God sees. (Look at JOHN 5:44). I can't think of others right now.]

This leads me into another passage where Jesus, in my opinion, prophesies that there will be those who will see the opportunity that the established Christian faith and churches can give to an opportunist, and will 'feed' on the unsuspecting church members. Jesus says in MATTHEW 13:31-32, (in a parable), "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seed, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becames a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

Peter said in 2PETER 2:1-2 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-- bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many wil follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute."

One really powerful principle that Jesus gave is:
"But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have only one
Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone
on earth 'father' for you have one Father, and he is in
heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have
one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be
your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
(MATTHEW 23:8-12)

This passage has come to my mind when I think of the young people who have been molested by priests in the Catholic church. I thought "If only the Catholic church had abided by that commandment of Jesus, those young people would perhaps have been spared that trauma. My thinking is that calling the priests 'father' instill a sense of awe in the church-people. But, as you can see, Jesus said 'no' not just to 'father', but also to 'rabbi', and 'teacher', and by extention, pastor, reverend and doctor. I'm having a hard time with this. It is so ingrained in our church culture to use those terms of respect. But seeing where this giving of respect to certain ones has led to some really bad stuff, I'm going to keep trying to change that in myself. (Should I also try to get this truth out?)

Of course, a balancing scripture is the one where Paul says prefer one another. You don't want to be selfish and rude to one another. Only, follow God first.

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).