Comments on: it’s time for the pastors to stop cheating

By: Pastor Mike

Pastor Mike — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:14:26 +0000

It’s definitely “easy to let other people do your thinking, studying, praying and discerning for you.” That has been a frequent temptation for me. I was actually taught to do that in my younger days as a pastor when I was taught to be a loyal, faithful sheep to the shepherds, whoever they may have been at that time.

I would like to hear more from pastors about the ordeals you’ve experienced in this regard, in order to understand the grappling you’ve done with your consciences versus those NAE shepherds and others.

By: ken

ken — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:09:40 +0000

any other pastors out there felt what daryl has?

By: daryl underwood

daryl underwood — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:41:27 +0000

Ken…I’ve experienced the ‘ordeal’ you speak of…and it takes the life out of you.

By: john

john — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:16:53 +0000

excellent! a most powerful post, kenny!

By: ken

ken — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:05:59 +0000

Mark, Yes it is possible–that was the only point I was trying to make. If Jesus was a real rather than a legendary person in history and If Jesus is currently alive and all the other individuals you mentioned are dead, then that would give him a communication advantage. It would be his responsibility to make himself known in ways that humans like us can know and it would be our responsibility to respond to his making himself known.

By: steven hamilton

steven hamilton — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:58:18 +0000

this is really encouraging ken…and makes me think of the right reverend henry duncan, who, while pastoring his church, was not satisfied with the “successful” revival taking place in his midst and took an idea to his parishioners to establish a bank to help the poor and establish a newspaper to speak out on issues of biblical justice. this was the first savings bank in history (that’s right, the first savings bank was established by a church, whose pastor lead them in the endeavour to help the poor…it was a social institution not just a financial institution)…now that is what i call leadership (in fact, it began the “savings bank” movement in the UK and the idea spread faster than “celebrate recovery” ministries nowadays)…

lead on pastors!!

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:01:31 +0000

Ken, let’s assume for the sake of argument that what you just wrote is true:

“If there were a God, and it was his or her or its desire to communicate to organisms such as we are with brains such as we have and an unavoidable drive to draw meaning by discerning or telling or forming stories, isn’t it possible that such a God would seek to communicate to the likes of us through such a medium?”

Yes, it is possible. I think, therefore, that the following conclusions must logically follow from your argument:

[1] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Zoroaster of Persia.

[2] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Quetzalcoatl of Mexico.

[3] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Krishna of India.

[4] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Mithras of Persia.

[5] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Buddha of India.

[6] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Muhammad and the Qur’an.

[7] It is possible that God sought to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of the story of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, it is possible that God has sought and is still seeking to communicate to the likes of us through the medium of stories about ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANYTIME.

Jesus of Nazareth was a human being. The worship of a human being who is not the Absolute Creator is a most serious sin, the sin of Idolatry. In my opinion, anyone who truly wants to be completely honest with himself will be forced by his own conscience to admit to himself that stories alone cannot provide the evidence necessary to justify one’s worship of a human being. I have admitted that to myself, have you?

By: ken

ken — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:33:01 +0000

Mark, I’m not sure the distinction you draw between story and reality is so sharp as you suggest. Story is what we do to make sense of a reality that streams chaotically over us without any editing. We come home and our roomate or spouse or lover or whomever asks, “What happened to you today?” and we tell a story about what happened. Imagine that we did so and our roomate spouse, lover of whomever says,incredulously, “Really!?” We select pertinent events and impressions of events–we edit the chaotic stream of reality coming our way–into a story. Because we have brains and brains are story generating units. If there were a God, and it was his or her or its desire to communicate to organisms such as we are with brains such as we have and an unavoidable drive to draw meaning by discerning or telling or forming stories, isn’t it possible that such a God would seek to communicate to the likes of us through such a medium?

By: ken

ken — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:24:59 +0000

Well, we’re on to something aren’t we? When the early church declared Jesus is Lord, the surrounding culture heard what they also meant: “Jesus is Lord (and Ceasar is not.) Because the so called authorities of the world often viewed themselves as representing or embodying gods or goddesses or transcendent powers of some kind. Jesus referred to money with such a name, Mammon. Was that true then, but not now? By de-materializing and spiritualizing the powers, have we simply blinded ourselves to them?

By: Pastor Mike

Pastor Mike — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:45:55 +0000

“Every system other than the kingdom of God is grounded in what the bible calls powers and principalities as was the Roman Empire. Jesus has disarmed these powers and principalities.”

Amen, Ken, and Praise be to Our Redeemer! It is striking how many names the New Testament writers invent to designate these ambiguous entities. They may be called powers “of this world,” then on the other hand “celestial powers,” as well as “sovereignties,” “thrones,” “dominions,” “princes of the kingdom of the air,” “elements of the world,” “archons,” “kings,” “princes of this world,” etc. Why such a vast vocabulary, made up apparently of such dissimilar elements? These titles can be divided into two groups. Expressions like “powers of this world,” “kings of the earth,” “principalities,” etc. assert the earthly character of these powers, their concrete reality here below in our world. On the other hand, expressions like “princes of the kingdom of the air,” celestial powers,” etc. emphasize the extraterrestrial, “spiritual” nature of these entities.

Ken, are we talking about the same entities in both instances? Are the powers called “celestial” different at all from the powers “of this world,” or are they the same? Enquiring minds want to know!