Perspective

Redeem the Time

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:27:00 +0000

Life for me the past 6 months has been a steady diet of brokenness and revelation. The situation I've found myself in is one that is possibly the result of building a beautiful house of cards, making sure every piece is in place, and decorating it in such a way that it looks secure without doing the hard work of building on a secure foundation. As I've analyzed every aspect of life one thing is apparent: I haven't been as strong or stable as I thought I was, and I've been that way for a long time. I'm not necessarily blaming myself for my current struggles, because I can't and shouldn't, but I can attribute a lot of this to the simple truth that faking is bound to produce failing. I've failed in many areas for a long time, at least personally, but have continued to project outwardly that everything is under control and that everything is exactly the way it should be...and what that has produced is a man that is forced to start over from the beginning. There is no short cuts to becoming who God wants you to be and that is a lesson I forgot a long time ago, possibly even as far back as my time at Central Bible College. The path that has led me now to being out of ministry and divorced is one that I wouldn't wish on anyone. What I have learned, and am still learning, is that I can't rely on anything but God's grace and I can't "make" myself into anything by taking easy shortcuts and pretending that everything is ok. What I can do now is take the time to do the hard work of recovery, both spiritual and mentally, and pray that God will indeed redeem the time.

Sanctification or Manipulation?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:31:00 +0000

This will be more of a rant than anything else. One of the biggest things I've learned during my first year of seminary is just how much I have been taking scripture out of context in order to fit theology, or whatever other agenda I needed it to serve. I have been forced to work through a logical and methodological approach to finding meaning without laying a theological framework on top of the scripture I am determined to understand. This approach allows the text to speak in context. I know how simple it may sound, and many of you might think that you already find meaning in context, but I would humbly pressure you to re-examine your approach to understanding scripture. How well do you understand the meaning cohesively within the text itself, ie. verse to verse and chapter to chapter? One thing that is easy to do, for instance, is to use the writings of Paul to "figure out" other writings of Paul, but while that may prove effective generally, it's dangerous to use that as the first step in understanding a certain passage. That is what I mean by laying theology on top of scripture to understand it! Paul's theology in Romans might not have anything to do with a certain scripture in 2 Corinthians! Determine the argument, follow the logic, and let the text speak. This is really the point of this post: I have discovered too many scriptures that can be used to "force" believers into a false sense of guilt, which borders on a legalistic works based religious system, and all in the name of sanctification. We apply Romans 12:1-2 to personal sanctification when it is, in context, talking about two distinct groups (Jew and Gentile believers) coming together in worship, and the command to not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind isn't talking about a private "thought-life" battle, but simply changing the mindset of disunity that was pervasive in that context that prohibited them to accept each other! Now, should we offer our lives to Christ as a living sacrifice...YES! Should we think holy thoughts....YES! But we should use the right scriptures to teach it and not manipulate the text to say something it isn't saying, even though it may be right theologically. What about the often quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 scripture that says, "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (or freedom)." That is a great scripture! But, I have always heard it used to say that we can freedom from sin, freedom from pain, freedom from this and that, and that we can overcome!!!! I would almost bet that you wouldn't agree, at least at first, that this scripture is intended to be an encouragement to boldly proclaim the gospel even in the midst of trails and persecutions. Show me in the context of chapters 2-5 where Paul is trying to develop an argument for triumphilism in this age, or that he's talking about sanctification. What you'll find is Paul defending his apostleship, and in doing so he has to prove that the ministry of the "new covenant" is one where afflictions, trials, and persecution are all part of it, and in the midst of it believers have confidence that God will prove faithful to give us glory in the next age...and because of that confidence we have the freedom to boldly proclaim the truth. It follows the logic. I wasn't even aware of how badly we abuse scripture until it was pointed out to me that, above anything else, I need to understand the text within itself as it relates in the first century, and I need to stop sytematizing scripture to death. Simple Application: Don't allow scripture to be used as your weapon to overwhelm people with a sense of guilt by applying sanctification to texts that don't have anything to do with sanctification!

The Purpose of Romans Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:48:00 +0000

...continued from part 2 and part 3

Hopefully it isn’t impossible to ascertain that the difficulty in developing a

singular unifying theme for the letter to the Romans proves that there

are at least certain elements of truth to each of the competing theories.

Paul definitely provides a heavy amount of theology throughout the book;

no doubt the impending trip to Rome could have been fresh in Paul’s mind;

certainly Paul would be seeking to at least make the Romans aware of an

opportunity to help pioneer a work in Spain; perhaps Paul did think

it necessary to provide an apostolic foundation for the church in Rome;

there was, more than likely, some tension between Gentile and Jewish

Christians; but, are any of these theories worthy of being called the purpose

of Romans? It would be too easy to simply combine them all and give the

“all-purpose” purpose statement and consider the work in Romans complete;

that is why there are always new theories and advancements in Romans

as scholars search for consensus.

Attention must now be turned to provide support for the guiding purpose

statement of this paper in two parts: (Part 1) To show that "no distinction"

exists in the "impartial" judicial administration of God-all believing ones,

whether Jew or Gentile, are justified by faith through the Gospel (Romans 1-11).

(Part 2) This lack of distinction should provoke in us an acceptance of one another,

Jew and Gentile believers in the church (Romans 12-16). There are notable elements

missing in the purpose statement that are presupposed (i.e. audience and occasion)15

in order to focus primarily on proving the overall argument of Romans for

“no distinction” between, and “unity” of, Jewish and Gentile believers.

In order to provide a defense of the statement (Part 1) that “no distinction” exists

in the “impartial” judicial administration of God (Romans 1-11), attention must be given

to the use of the word “all”16 throughout the book of Romans. The “all” theme is set on

backdrop of the “courtroom” language setting up the “impartial” judicial administration

of God, beginning in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible

attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood

through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”17 Here, Paul is

establishing the truth that at God’s court the unrighteous will have no defense. Romans

2:6 reveals that the righteous judgment of God will “render to each person according to

his deeds,”18 creating a dichotomy between those who persevere in doing good and those

who do not obey the truth, storing up their own judgments respectively.

In Romans 3:9, Paul shows that every man is held to the same standard, and is

even in the same condition, regardless of whether he is Jew or Gentile, “Both Jews and

Greeks are all under sin.”19 The “no defense” before the judgment bench of God

language continues in Romans 3:19-20, and condemns both Jews and Gentiles alike,

“every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God.”20 The

accountability before God’s judgment bench is something that cannot be manufactured

through rhetoric and clever defense and any attempt to be proven innocent through the

devices of man, whether through religion, good deeds, or even ignorance, will be

defeated.

The only defense God will hear is the defense of the believer (Jew or Gentile)

who is justified through Christ, as Paul demonstrates in 3:21-31.21 Just as “all” have

sinned and deserve penalty without distinction, the believer’s defense and subsequent

justification is free from distinction, depending solely on trusting the work of Jesus

Christ. In Romans 5:12-2122, Paul extends the jurisdiction of the “impartial” judicial

administration of God into the realm of life and death, as it relates to the results of

justification. In these verses, sin is personified as ruling over all, entering through the

disobedience of one man, spreading to all men, and allowing death to enter the world to

join sin as co-ruler. The realm of death is therefore ruled by sin. Through the

righteous act of one, Jesus Christ, the free gift of grace abounds to many. The realm of

life is therefore ruled by grace. By personifying sin/death and grace/life as rulers, the

arguments for “no distinction” in the “impartial” judicial administration of God become

perfectly clear. Paul is able to depict the utter hopelessness of those trapped under the

reign of sin and death while contrasting the incomprehensible worth of justification by

faith in Christ into the reign of grace and life.

The high point of the argument, and even the book of Romans, rests in Romans

11:32, “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”23

Leander E. Keck writes concerning this verse, “God’s mercy (like God’s impartial

justice) treats Gentiles and Jews in the same way (all are “imprisoned” in disobedience),

but not at the same time. God’s mercy is treated here not as a timeless attribute or as an

undifferentiated disposition, but rather as a mode of activity that uses specific, historical

forms of human disobedience to achieve God’s goal.”24 Keck provides a table to

clarify:

Past ----------------------------------------Agency----------------------------------------- Now

As with Gentiles

Disobeyed--------------------------------Israel’s disobedience---------------------received mercy

So also with Israel

Disobeyed------------------------------- Gentiles’ (received) mercy -----------------received mercy25

Paul rightly celebrates the display of God’s “impartial” mercy to all who believe

in verses 11:32-36, for it is the depth of the mind of God to know how to save “all”

without distinction that stupefies the mind of man; it is impossible to sway the mind of

God with man’s counsel; man cannot purchase favor through deeds or bribes; and man

ultimately belongs to God.

The demonstration of God’s “impartial” mercy should (part 2) provoke in us an

acceptance of one another, Jew and Gentile believers in the church (Romans 12-16).

The “therefore” in Romans 12:1 is loaded with the power of the incredible “impartial”

mercy that was developed throughout Romans 1-11, and causes the audience to view the

text that follows it in the light of that undeserved and “impartial” mercy. In Romans

12:1 Paul urges the brethren to, “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice,

acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” The significant and

somewhat misunderstood element of the admonition to “present your bodies a living and

holy sacrifice” is that it has nothing to do with personal sanctification. Paul is not

urging a body of believers into corporate personal piety, where each member individually

is to present his own body as a living and holy sacrifice. Paul spent eleven chapters

developing God’s “impartial” mercy to all (both Jew and Gentile), in order to arrive at the

point in chapter twelve where he can begin stressing the importance for Jew and Gentile

believers accept one other. It is easy to see in the Greek that Paul uses “bodies” in the

plural and “sacrifice” in the singular. The point is that he is urging both Jew and Gentile

believers to come together and offer the most pleasing sacrifice to God: the unified

corporate worship of Jew and Gentile believers.

Paul urges the believers (Jew and Gentile) in Romans 12:2 to, “not be conformed

to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove

what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” The believers

need a renewing of the mind. They need to have the mind of Christ, specifically

concerning how they view each other, in order to be completely unified as a living

sacrifice to God, not thinking more highly about themselves than they ought. Paul

captures the essence of the purpose statement of Romans in chapter 15:5-7, “Now may

the God who give perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind

with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one

voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, accept one

another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.”

The purpose statement, “to show that "no distinction" exists in the "impartial"

judicial administration of God-all believing ones, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified by

faith through the Gospel (Romans 1-11). This lack of distinction should provoke in us an

acceptance of one another, Jew and Gentile believers in the church (Romans 12-16),” is

one that has tremendous implications for the church today. In the midst of the culture of

the church, where church-splits are commonplace, cliques wreak havoc in the life of the

church, and faith has become only a personal, isolated, and individual thing void of true

fellowship within a community of believers, it is obvious that the church desperately

needs to understand the “pulse” of Romans to glorify Christ for His gift of grace to “all”

who believe as a unified body of believers functioning in Biblical community with one

another.

Endnotes:

1 Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977), x.

(an enlarged and updated version was printed in 1991, with Donfried’s basic theological conclusions

remaining mostly the same.

2 A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 9. (While I think

there has been some good discussion on Romans here, to say that one has solved the debate on Romans is

somewhat difficult to swallow)

3 Das, Solving, 26-52. The material in the section entitled The Occasion and Purpose of Romans provides

the catalyst for the bulk of the overview material provided here.

4 As an undergrad Bible College student, this was exactly the position taught to me. I, in turn, even

taught it as such.

5 Changwon Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004), 8. (Song

makes good use of the language in Romans, connecting it to that which reflects the style of the Greek

diatribe, but makes the case that Paul intended to use the whole of Romans in the genre of diatribe, which

goes a step further from Bultmann who asserted that Paul, at least, depended on the diatribe for style. He

lands securely on the side of those scholars who believe that Paul couldn’t have intended to address any

specific, concrete situation. He also believes that the letter to the Romans began as part of Paul’s general

theological teaching, and eventually took the form of a letter sent to the Romans. His hope is that Romans

will in turn become that much more powerful to us because it is has always been meant to be applied

universally.

6 Donfried, Romans Debate, 122. To see how Donfried deals with objections to what he perceived as the

founding principles for beginning a study on Romans, see pages 122-143.

7 Das, Solving, 29.

8 Das, Solving, 29. It would seem to only strengthen the possibility that Paul could have written his letter

to the Romans solely with the trip to Jerusalem to face opposition in mind had a request for prayer for the

gospel to be upheld against opposition in Jerusalem been offered. The fact that such a simple element is

missing might mean that the purpose is something else entirely.

9 Das, Solving, 32.

10 Donfried, Romans Debate, 37. (Gunter Klein’s essay Paul’s Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the

Romans)

11 Das provides a quality critique of this theory in Solving the Romans Debate, pages 34-36.

12 Donfried, Romans Debate, 49.

13 Das, Solving, 49.

14 Das, Solving, 51. Perhaps this provides some context for the tension: “The record of an Edict of

Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome because of a squabble over “Chrestus” has inspired perhaps the

most popular theory for the situation behind Romans. If “Chrestus” refers to Christ, then Christians were

present in Roman synagogues in the late 40’s. After Claudius’s harsh edict of expulsion, usually placed in

the year 49 CE, the Jews and Jewish Christians were forced to leave Rome. The gentiles, who had learned

of Christ from the Jewish communities, had to form their own assemblies. When Nero acceded to the

throne in 54, the expelled Jews and Jewish Christians were able to return to Rome only to find Christianity

thriving in gentile house churches. These gentile converts would not have had the same appreciation for

Judaism as the Christians from the synagogues would have had. The gentile “strong” found themselves in

conflict with the returning Jewish Christian “weak.”

15 The audience should be viewed as mixed, representing Gentile and Jewish Christians respectively, and

Romans should be viewed as dealing with a concrete issue.

16 1:5, 16, 18; 2:1,9,10; 3:4, 9, 12, 19, 20, 22; 4:11,16; 5:12, 18; 8:32; 10:4, 11-13; 11:32; 12:3; 14:10;

15:11, 33; 16:26

17 NASB, Zondervan

18 NASB, Zondervan

19 NASB, Zondervan

20 NASB, Zondervan

21 NASB, Zondervan. “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested,

being witnessed by the Law and even the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus

Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of

God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God

displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His

righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the

demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of

the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of

works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of

the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by faith is one. Do we

then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

22 NASB, Zondervan. Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we (let us) have peace

with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

23 NASB, Zondervan. Understanding verses 30-31 provides clarity for verse 32

24 Leander E. Keck, Romans, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press,

2005), 283.

25 Keck, Romans, 284.

Bibliography

Das, A. Andrew. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing

House, 1977.

Keck, Leander E. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Romans. Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 2005.

Song, Changwon. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. New York: Peter Lang

Publishing, Inc., 2004.

The Purpose of Romans Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:47:00 +0000

....continued from part 2

Changwon Song quotes Donfried in his book, Reading Romans as a Diatribe,

“Donfried states that there are basically two major opposing viewpoints

in the scholarship on Romans: ‘(1) those scholars who believe that Paul

directed this letter to deal with a specific, concrete situation in Rome;

and (2) those interpreters who hold that it is primarily directed to a situation

other than Rome.’”5 For Donfried, the latter group is the intended target for

correction in his essay False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans,

as he overcomes objections to two methodological principles in the study of

Romans: (1) That Paul wrote the letter addressing a concrete situation, and

(2) that Romans 16 is an integral part of the original letter.6

The first step away from the traditional understanding of

Romans is M. Jack Suggs’s theory, in line with Bornkamm and Jervell,

that Paul must be writing Romans with the opposition of non-Christian Jews

at Jerusalem in mind, and in order to diminish the effect of their

opposition upon his arrival at Jerusalem, Paul sought to provide a

“letter to the strategic and powerful Roman church…which outlines a ‘partially’

moderated position…in advance of the delivery.”7 To Suggs, there can’t be any

concrete situation in Rome demanding an address from Paul, since the letter is

essentially nothing more than a practice round before he faces his detractors.

Any evidence of a specific situation as the impetus for Paul’s writing the

letter dismantles Suggs argument. Das provides another solid counter

to this position in that, “Paul never asks that the Romans pray that the

truth of the gospel be upheld against opponents at Jerusalem.”8

Following in the same pattern as the theory for a Jerusalem trip being the

purpose of Romans is the theory that Romans is nothing more than Paul’s

way of introducing himself to the Romans in preparation for the

Spanish mission. Dieter Zeller and Robert Jewett agreed that,

“the entire letter to the Romans was Paul’s means of enlisting their

support for the Spanish project.”9 It seems difficult to propose that Paul

would be writing such a lengthy letter to a church in Rome, with

whom he had little, or no, previous contact solely with the purpose of

securing support for missionary work, and while doing so, waiting until

the very end of the letter to even allude to the work in Spain. In order

for this theory to be validated it would be fitting to see some mention,

even briefly, prior to the conclusion of the letter. It would also be

obvious that the incredible theology and depth of spiritual truth Paul

develops in Romans would be, as Gunter Klein critiqued, “reduced

to merely a means to an end…no matter how pure his motives, Paul

would have to be viewed as having only ulterior motives.”10

Klein’s own essay on the topic provided the theory that Paul believed

the Roman church needed a proper apostolic foundation.11 By considering the

absence of the word ecclesia in Romans 1-15 proof that the Romans lacked a

proper apostolic foundation as a church, Klein essentially believed that Paul’s

desire to visit the believers in Rome was motivated by the perceived need

to provide for the church a true apostolic foundation. For Klein,

“the primary content of Romans-the justification of the godless-also

constitutes the center of Pauline theology, and that this doctrine must be

the exclusive topic wherever it becomes a matter of establishing the correct

foundations for the church.”12 Klein and L. Ann Jervis believed that by

providing a strong theological discourse, Paul would have been successful in

proving himself not only able to offer the church its “necessary”

apostolic foundation, but also in showing that he indeed possessed

a general apostolic authority over them. The last of the competing theories

as to the purpose of Romans (and one that flows nicely into the purpose

statement provided by Dr. Tomlinson) that will receive attention in this general

overview will be the theory of Francis Watson that seeks to prove

that Paul wished to compel separate Jewish Christian and gentile

Christian assemblies to worship together. For Watson, “Paul is writing

primarily to unite divided communities.

The Roman Jewish Christians are meeting for worship separately

from the gentile Christians, and Paul wants both groups to come together.”13

The separation is due to gentile arrogance toward the minority of Jewish

believers and the insistence of the Jews that the observation of the law as a

necessary element in the church. Das writes, “Paul is therefore writing to

resolve the tensions between the gentile non-Law-observant strong and the

Jewish, Law-observant weak.”14

Keep reading...part 4

The Purpose of Romans Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:51:00 +0000

The platform on which this paper will be built is the

purpose statement of Romans given in class by Dr. Tomlinson,

which is to show that "no distinction" exists in the

"impartial" judicial administration of God-all believing

ones, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified by faith through

the Gospel (Romans 1-11). This lack of distinction should

provoke in us an acceptance of one another, Jew and Gentile

believers in the church (Romans 12-16).

In order to adequately support any purpose statement for

Romans it is necessary to at least survey the vast and varying

approaches by scholars over the years to this subject.

Karl P. Donfried suggests that for centuries, “virtually all scholars

would have agreed with Melanchthon’s evaluation of Romans

as a christianae religionis compendium,”1 but in the realm of

recent scholarship there can be as many purpose statements for

Romans as there are serious readers of Romans, so the task is not

an easy one. In his book, Solving the Romans Debate, A. Andrew Das

appropriately quotes A.J.M. Wedderburn concerning the contention

over the purpose of Romans, “that there should be so

much disagreement over the purpose of Romans is disconcerting

in a letter that has perhaps received more learned attention and

research than almost any other piece of literature in human history.”2

Das, in Solving the Romans Debate3, does a remarkable

job of providing a quick overview of the major theories about

the purpose of Romans that depart from the standard

“Romans as a theological treatise” position mentioned earlier,

which many continue to firmly believe.4

Before moving too quickly from the “standard” understanding of

Romans and into other theories for its purpose, two critical questions

must be asked: Did Paul intend to summarize his theological positions

and, if so, why did he leave out so many important theological

points of interest? More importantly, does an understanding of Romans

as a summary of Paul’s theology answer the question of

whether or not there was a concrete situation that required Paul to

provide such a summary? For any debate on Romans, how one answers

the latter will determine greatly their conclusions as to the purpose of

Romans.

See the remaining Posts: Romans part 3 and Romans part 4

Purpose of Romans

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:18:00 +0000

In the next few weeks I have the tremendous honor of writing a paper on the purpose statement of Romans. The trouble is that there isn't any consensus among scholars as to the purpose of Romans. It has been widely accepted for Centuries that perhaps Paul intended to write a summary of his theology, or a compendium. I even remember my days at Central Bible College where this is exactly what I was taught. More recently scholars have diverted their attention away from a compendium of Paul's theology to other purposes as primary for Romans. Some have asserted that Paul's purpose in writing Romans is found in the upcoming trip to Jerusalem. Perhaps Paul was "practicing" on the Romans what he would say to the church in Jerusalem. Others have stated that Paul was eliciting support from the church at Rome for his Spanish Mission, either through financial support, or fellow missionaries to partner with him, or both. There have also been claims that Paul insisted on providing the church at Rome an Apostolic Foundation, to make it a "true church" since it was likely founded not by any apostle, but by believing Jews who brought the message to Rome. Some say Paul wanted to exert his apostolic muscles and prove to that he truly was the apostle to the gentiles, and unless he addressed, either in person or through letter, the center of the gentile world, he would have difficulty proving his resume to both gentiles, and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Most scholars have had a difficult time pinpointing a specific situation that would necessitate a letter from Paul, like is the case with Galatians, Corinthians, etc, leaving them gravitate toward the theological treatise theory. Still, there is another thought that supposed Paul was urging two separate communities of faith, the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers, to stop segregating their worship and meet together. Honestly, this one is close, but there are still issues with this theory. Lastly, there is a major group that outlines the tension between the "strong" and the "weak" over Mosaic customs. Hopefully, you can see how difficult it is to find a specific and unifying theme to the book of Romans. I hope to discover weaknesses in each of the purported purpose statements of Romans, piggybacking off of the hard work of many scholars, and through that effort develop a purpose statement that I can defend. The purpose statement that I will use as a launching point is as follows: To show that "no distinction" exists in the "impartial" judicial administration of God-all believing ones (whether Jew or Gentile) are justified by faith through the Gospel (Romans 1-11). This lack of distinction should provoke in us an acceptance of one another-Jew and Gentile believer-in the church (Romans 12-16), care of Dr. Tomlinson, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Faking and Fixing

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:49:00 +0000

I've found myself without a true sense of the divine for some time now. I think the pressures of life and the reality of the harshness of it have given a sobering glimpse into the secrets of what remains in my heart when all the faking has been given in the offering of saving face. I'm amazed again at the ease in which repentance gives way to pretending, exposing the pride of self-vindication to be nothing more than failed attempts to prove to others that redemption happened. Honesty is the enemy when the truth doesn't line up with the image and the lie becomes the closest companion. Appearance is the cousin to first impressions and must be maintained with spotless perfection, in order to stay strong. I'm finding that people work harder at looking right than being right, when being right is a free gift of grace that can't be earned no matter how hard it's worked for. The path to right standing with God isn't something that needs our legalistic and guilt-ridden practices to be maintained, and by thinking righteousness needs our help we only perpetuate the cycle of guilt and legalism that lead to faking. I'm not saying that righteousness doesn't produce righteous actions, because obviously right actions will be birthed from righteousness. What I am saying is that righteous acts don't guarantee righteousness. There is only one righteous deed that matters: Christ offering his sinless life in our place to make us righteous. I think I'm getting closer to the point in my life with Christ that I'm beginning to trust His righteousness given to me more than I am my ability to work for it, or even maintain it. I'm tired of guilt being used as a motivation for righteousness. I want Christ's unbelievable love that was displayed to us while we were still sinners to be the motivation for accepting his grace and living a life pleasing to Him. I'm tired of legalism being pushed on people more than people being taught to accept Christ's work for their righteousness. I want to experience all that God has for me, and in that desire I have no problem sacrificing certain things, to focus my attention and my affections. If I feel God leading me to not watch television and instead devote myself to prayer or Bible reading, I'll do it to His glory, but I won't dare criticize someone for watching TV. Get my point? It's my opinion that God doesn't receive any glory from a hard-legalist. Their "righteousness" is their reward and God is left somewhere out of the equation. The whole point I wanted to make with this rant is that I'm tired of being forced into pretending when all I want to do is repent! I blame the system that makes us think we have to earn favor with God for giving us the false sense that we have to choose between faking and fixing. As Christ followers, we must trust His work and quit adding things that make our salvation conditional and weak. Simple Application: Are you working too hard on your image, rather than trusting in Christ's gift of righteousness to you?

two months away

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:02:00 +0000

Here are some updates from my life in the past two months of hiatus from the wonderful world of blogging. 1. Shannon's great-grandma, after suffering heart-failure in the living room and a subsequent 2 month stay in the hospital, was released and is now home. 2. We purchased a Dodge Durango. Why? I don't know. We like to buy gas I suppose. 3. We moved into a loft downtown for approximately 7 days, and then moved back in with the in-laws. Explanation to follow. 4. I lost my job. 5. I had an interview at Target. I "wasn't what they were looking for." Really? What exactly are they looking for, incompetency? 6. I'm considering Chaplaincy in the Air Force, and have talked to a recruiter. 7. Adulthood has officially lost its "cool" factor and I wish I was a kid again. 8. I found out that I'm partially color blind. 9. I bought new Phat Farm glasses without realizing it, and I look good! 10. I'm probably going to lose my mind in the next few days.

$1.35

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:47:00 +0000

I've learned some important things in the past few days, but one of the most profound realizations that I've had is just how much God cares about $1.35. Let me explain: We've had family staying with us since December 23, visiting for the holidays. My wife's grandma, grandpa, and great-grandma made the trip from Georgia to share Christmas and New Years with us. Her great-grandma, everyone calls her Big Mama...she's the head of 5 generations, she's 90 and in failing health, but the doctors gave her the ok to make the trip. This past Saturday while she was sitting in the living room, her heart stopped. Everyone acted heroically, calling 911 and performing CPR until the EMT's arrived. They had to shock her heart three times and were finally able to revive her. She has been on the ventilator since that time, and has steadily showed signs of improvement. Whether she's able to recover from this point on or not is still very much a concern, but the circumstances leading up to this present state are what I want to focus on. In tragedy it's easy to focus on the negative, blaming God or someone else for the misfortune, and asking the tough, "Why God," questions seems to be natural in the greiving process. I can't help but see the hand of God in almost every facet of these circumstances. I think about how they were supposed to be heading to a remote part of Oklahoma to visit more family, but stayed and were able to have almost instant access to EMT's and the best hospitals in the area. I think about how Shannon and I made a "random" trip to Target with her little brothers just before the event, which I believe protected them from seeing the chaos and helped eliminate the possibility of added confusion. I think about how the EMT's were even able to resisitate her, allowing family more time to process the events and cope, rather than have the tragic end right there in the living room. There are so many little things that seemingly "fell" into place. Even if she isn't able to recover, I can still see God's goodness through all of the chaos. The most profound thing to me, again, is found in the tiny details. Shannon's grandma has been at the hospital day and night, not even leaving once. The first night we were at the hospital we hadn't had the opportunity yet to get any dollars for the vending machines, and she really wanted a soda to drink. None of us had any dollars or change, but she looked in her coin purse and she found exatly the $1.35 in change she needed for the vending machine. That spoke to me of the immense concern that God has for us, even in the details. His hand was so in control of the situation that He knew she'd need a drink, and it would cost $1.35, so He made sure she had it. Simple Application: Are you trusting God for the details? He is faithful and active in our lives, and many times we miss his loving care over us because we don't pay attention to the details!

Spin Carousel, Spin

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:36:00 +0000

I can’t write with empty mind the thoughts you steal with joy and hope. I find the best is gone when you leave and the same is true when you return. This is happy and go lucky went to bed a long time ago. What are we doing if not acting like fools to claim the innocence before our betrayals? Your love is wasted on the things defined by subtle hints of preferring this over that. Come to the truth and let it feast on the fatness of your pride. Eat away the lies and the bitterness, and kill the devilish force of self that robs pose of all its beauty. Weak is new and it needs expression in simplicity; the vulnerable are not much for the show. The lights blind and break the puffed up into pathetic pieces. Forgiveness isn’t offered to the perfect but to those willing to accept their need for it. Your mistakes aren’t so important as to defeat grace with all their complexities. Some choose to relinquish control, while others wallow in pity, because of this: You can never rightly deserve anything. If I can convince myself that my failures are too great for the forgiver to forgive then I can convince myself that maybe I, too, am great, and either way pride becomes the winner. Will the carousel of trying to usurp Creator ever end? This thing spins a thousand different ways, each one fighting the constant battle of placing self as supreme, only manifesting the counterfeit truth in different ways: Forgiveness, Future, Right and Wrong, Church Life, Education, Experience, Holiness, Sinners, Money, Happiness, Love, and on in to eternity.

Jesus Needed A Do-Over?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:59:00 +0000

Has anyone read that story in Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus encounters a blind man who was in need of healing? The story goes that Jesus spit on his eyes..that's an interesting component in itself...and then asked if he could see. The man said, "I see men, for I am seeing them like trees, walking about." Apparently Jesus' miracle didn't work on the first try, so he again laid his hands on him and, this time, he could see. What is the point of this story? Why would Mark seek to include it in his gospel. Especially in a gospel that emphasizes the "events" of Jesus' life rather than extensive depth in his teachings. Wouldn't this second attempt at a miracle undermine the purpose of Mark to show that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, with all authority to not only perfrom miracles, but also to save? If you know anything of the structure of Mark, you'll notice all throughout the book certain "bookends" that sandwich truth. There's an opening event or theme followed by some "unpacking" and then closed with something similar to the opening. In this case we have the opening being the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida (8:22-26) followed by some teaching and closed again with another healing of a blind man in 10:46-52. So, what's the point? In the opening healing, you have a blind man who is "healed" but still can't see clearly, requiring Jesus to do it again. Jesus was giving his disciples an object lesson, one that they obviously didn't understand. He was trying to relate to them the truth of how they aren't seeing things "clearly". Immediately after this "unclear" healing, Jesus begins telling his disciples about his death, and what does Peter do? He protests! The Bible says that Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him! In Peter's mind, how could their conquering king restore the kingdom if he was dead? They didn't see clearly. So Jesus again predicts his death in 9:30-32, and this time the disciples argue over who's the greatest in the kingdom. They didn't see clearly. Again for a third time Jesus predicts his death in 10:32-45, and this time James and John are playing politics, asking Jesus to give them the highest status! They still don't see clearly! Jesus ends this section saying, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." Apparently the object lesson was over, or maybe Jesus just got tired of his disciples not getting it, so the next blind man he came across was healed on the "first try", which I think is not a coincidence. Simple Application: Are you seeing Jesus like a tree? Understanding is the marker of a disciple. Do you have understanding? Do you "perceive" the things that God is doing in your life, or the things He wants to do through your life? If it's as clear as mud, ask Jesus to help to help you see clearly!

Shallow Waters Daily Devotional of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:47:00 +0000

If you guys haven't heard of the new revolution that is called Shallow Waters Daily Devotional of the Week, you seriously need to check them out. They will prove not only to inspire you in your walk with the Lord, but will also make you laugh. Please joing the revolution and see this link. Go to www.jessewatson.org and look for the installments of Shallow Waters Daily Devotional of the Week.

Stop pretending, Start living

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:36:00 +0000

When will the truth that it's all about the heart ever settle into our hearts? When will we stop taking the truth of the heart to our heads to puff it up and make it seem more secure to outside observers? When will we be satisfied that grace really does cover us and stop working so hard for it? When will we be able to simply live in front of people without postulating the perfection that we think they expect from us? When we stop pretending and start living. Let's stop using the standards of self to determine what is right and wrong. Let's stop forcing agendas on to morality. Let's stop giving preferencial treatment to the things that are easily followed. Let's stop twisting words. Let's stop brutalizing context. Let's stop justifying death as another expression of life. Let's stop making fools of faith. Let's stop following the lead of those with the loudest voices. Let's stop searching for ways around a life submitted. Let's stop inventing a beautiful substitute experience. Let's stop focusing efforts on a presentable outside and replace the disgust of ruined life on the inside. Let's stop pretending, stop lying, stop faking, losing, dying, and start living.

Strong and Weak

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:52:00 +0000

The crippled nature of my existence is emersed in the subleties of my addictions. Every person, strong and weak, exists to defeat at least one divinely inspired test; and each person has developed an efficient ability to defeat in the strength of humanity. Both strong and weak make lists of victories and the occasional failure. The strong boast in their accolades and justify their greatness to be the resounding force of a righteousness achieved. The strong are proud and their names ring truer in their own minds than a thousand amens. The weak forge lists in the shame of failure and the disapproving glances of the sanctified. Victories one and two, but failures ten and a hundred dominate the verdict; apparent lack of power consumes the honesty of the weak, while the strong drown in the wake of their own beauty. Failures one and two, with victories ten and a hundred still deserve death. The standards of sucessfully producing a virtuous life are set on the system of a sin-sick society. The strong can justify life by the failures of the weak and the meritous exploits of achieving perfection, but the death will still come. Even though now I am strong...I am being crippled by the subleties of my addiction, and so this is my prayer...Inspire me to something of reality. Reach into me like you created the universe to do. Give to me the force that raised death to life. Let me be the creation that embraces the purpose of existence, but let me be pure in my pursuits. Callosed hearts don't happen by accident, and neither do passionate pursuits and encounters with you. Give death to the past, even the comforting thoughts of grace given. Let the life of your present presence grow in me until experience is equal to the life of concecration I die to you.

Innoccuous Details

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:44:00 +0000

Some things aren't easily understood, like how we all think that we are infallible in our associations with others. Mostly, our lives, as applied socially, amount to nothing more than a collaboration of double standards that we selfishly ignore. Each man searches the path for an easier route, sometimes approaching dangerously close to the flames for a season to secure more ability to control some other person doing the exact same things, each of course suited with an impregnable amount of righteous determination. Rather than assume that most people are calculating and scheming to advance their allotted pawns, I'll merely state that it's the details magnified and mutliplied that pose the biggest threat; the small things, easily forgotten, but easily the foundational elements to any relationship. How someone handles and respects the details is how they endure the entirety of life. It's amusing to think that we can escape the mound of disrespected and mishandled details in our lives; to do so would require nothing less than death. Know that life is detail and the details of your life are not perfect, so don't expect perfection from others, or you will live a life of constant disappointment.

Some old thoughts revived

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:21:00 +0000

The cycle is the same as it has always been: a momentary grief of continued disobedience and the lack of a true desire to be real. Devotion has been in the context of fear of the supernatural, and emphasizing on the ability to reason and grow in knowledge. But, knowledge of divine things can only create a cynic when that knowledge is void of experience. Continued efforts of the same fabric hopefully won't hurt more than help. Why does experience evoke a response of indifference in a hesitant pursuer? Experience is one of teh most irrational and subjective abilities we have of testifying about divine things. People can convince their minds of all kinds of testimony that would prove the existence of even the most unreasonable entities ie. bigfoot and the lock-ness monster. But, there has to be a place for experience; we can't just eliminate all experience just because some experience is taken too far beyond the accepted limits of reason. It has to be valid for some things and maybe simply not more so than within the context of those who already share certain belief systems. Experience, however, cannot prove the existence of God and we really shouldn't ask it to. Experience can prove only the existence of faith, or belief, in God, and we should allow experience to grow in that arena, and not in the realm of proving or disproving God. Testimony might, however, be able to stand strong if it is a consistent chronicle of percieved divine interaction; afer all, we overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony. But, experience cannot only be wrapped in the context of feeling better after a long bout with sin. It cannot be returning home after being deployed by self into the realms of a nature that at its very core stands opposed to divine things. There is a battle that is more fiercely contested than any mere loss of human life can comprehend and its casualties are all found in the soul of man, in the form of his sinful and spiritual nature. Experience must thrive in the light of the what is good, holy, and pleasing, otherwise it will not build a foundation of faith, but a foundation cracked with the subtleties of sin, which leads to death. This war is not like other wars; we fight eventhough it's already won. The enemy of our soul gives us the impression that somehow it's worth forfeiting victory to toil in the trenches. Why do we believe his lies so consistently? My prayer is simple: to allow my mind, my battlefield, to conquer the enemy's power to distort my ability to perceive, and thus experience, spiritual things.

Christian Arrogance?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:16:00 +0000

You all know "that guy". The guy from high school who was just drenched in arrogance, almost to the point of it being a caricature. This guy was the epitome of perfection, in his own mind. I've made this point in the past when reflecting on life, but to me, I see life as a really good balancing act. Most of the time, as life goes on, you see the hard edges of arrogance begin to be softened as the "reality of life" sets in. The subtle ways that life deals trouble and difficulties, even to the most proud and arrogant, serve as incredible humbling agents. I'm sure if I was to encounter some people from the "old days" I would see them in a completely different light, tested by the circumstances of life and hopefully a little better, and humble, because of it. It's those that continue to live their lives exhibiting incredible pride and arrogance that trouble me the most, primarily because either life hasn't dealt them the same kind of testing moments it has the rest of us, or they just go out of their way to avoid it. Either way they are missing something. Today, while contemplating, I applied this scenario to Christianity. Did you know that there can be some rather arrogant Christians? Surprising I know. How do they get to that point of being calloused, critical, cynical, and judgmental? I think it's not unlike the person who carries over their youthful arrogance into adulthood, they simply either haven't been tested or go out of their way to avoid it. Think about it, Christianity is supposed to be an active faith that should be shared as a light into darkness, not simply the fulfilling chapter in a personal journey to God. Trials and perscecution are built-in features to Christian faith, but for some reason we do everything to avoid them, not realizing that they are vital in keeping us fresh, relevant, and humble. Isolate your faith to where it is all about you, and you will be arrogant. You will judge people. You will criticize the faith of other believers. You will hold your "efforts" for the work of the Lord above all others. You will lose your ability to identify with sinners. You will become detached from ever personally leading anyone to Christ. You will slowly begin to think that you actually do deserve grace, maybe even that you've earned it. Just some thoughts to ponder. Simple Application: Are you suffering from Christian Arrogance? Probably the simpliest test is this: Are you experiencing any level of persectution in your life? How you answer that question will reveal if you are living a Christian life void of the trials and persectutions, because of the name of Jesus, that are guaranteed to come your way. If you are living void of those trials and persecutions, you are in danger of Christian Arrogance.

Don't Forget the Armor

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:21:00 +0000

I was reminded again this week of the need for the Armor of God. It's easy to forget about the reality of the spiritual battle that is taking place right in the middle of our lives, and sometimes without us even thinking about it. I think the only time we actually think about it is when we are feeling the obvious effects of some kind of spiritual warfare taking place, otherwise we live our lives like there has been some kind of peace treaty. I doubt seriously that the enemy of our souls is actively persuaded into signing a peace treaty, leaving us alone. We are in constant battle. I don't want to sound the alarm of paranoia, but some effects of the battle can be so subtle that they don't even register as attacks. Not every tactic of the enemy is catastrophic. I think the simplist and most effective devices are those that are consistent in chipping away at the foundation of our faith, which opens the door to the utlimate collapse that the enemy is surely hoping to accomplish. The admonition in Ephesians 6:13 to, "Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground," is a significant indicator that we are in a battle! The fact that we need to put on armor should be a clear indicator that we will need to use it! Simple Application: Don't wait until the obvious "attacks" of the enemy to clothe yourself with the armor of God. It is possible to guard yourself from the enemy's schemes without looking for a "devil behind every corner." Be aware and actively solidify your relationship with Christ.

The Desire for Signs

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:27:00 +0000

What can we learn from the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus called an "evil and adulterous generation?" Jesus had been performing incredible miracles: healing lepers, raising the dead, healing the mute and blind, and casting out demons. He was doing things and saying things with unbelievable authority, an authority that the Pharisees attributed to Satan! In fact they even said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." Their judgment against Jesus was wrapped in so much hypocrisy that Jesus immediately called their bluff...answering back, "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" There were those from within their ranks who made a profession out of performing exorcisms. Jesus made a strong argument that a house divided against itself will not stand, and if they had any ability to claim Jesus was using the power of darkness to defeat darkness, then they would need to seriously examine their own sons! The point Jesus was making was this: Messiah had come with all authority! These signs that Jesus was performing were fulfilling prophecy. Jesus was living Isaiah 35 and 61! The time to recognize that Messiah had come was now upon them and they couldn't see it! An often misunderstood idea in scripture is this: The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What does it mean? It means exactly this: It is an indictment against the Pharisees for their rejection of Messiah. Jesus tells them that they will not be forgiven, yet after their indictment, they still desire signs! They say, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." Incredible. After they attributed Messiah's earlier signs to Satan and officially begin rejecting Him, they ask for a sign! They were wanting Jesus to perform more spectacular healings and miracles, but Jesus gives the first allusion to his death saying, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." There seems to be every indication that a desire for signs when the Messiah is so obviously already providing them is an expression of rejection in itself. What does a request for Jesus to constantly "prove" himself mean other than to bear witness to overwhelming doubt? Jesus' response is clear: He will meet constant desires for signs with a single act, the resurrection from the grave! The choice to accept or deny that particular sign will be the deciding factor as to whether a person experiences forgiveness or not! Simple Application: What thing are you doubting? What thing is God doing that you are asking for sign after sign after sign for Him to "confirm"? I'm by no means throwing you in the same category as the Pharisees...just some things to think about.

What are you doing at the well?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:19:00 +0000

Look at the similarity of the following passages. I wonder what the impact of those similarities really reveals. Abraham's servant addresses Rebekah in Genesis 24:17, "Please let me drink a little water water from your jar." He then reveals the intended plan of offering Isaac in marraige... Elijah and the Widow from Zarephath in 1 Kings 17:10, "please give me a little water in a jar, that I may drink." He then reveals a miraculous provision from God during a time of drought. Jesus and the woman at the well in John 4:7, "Give me a drink." He then reveals His plan of salvation, leading many to beleive. What an incredible use of an ordinary situation, turning it into a life changing moment. I suppose every person that walked to the well, in each instance, wasn't expecting their life to be completely turned upside down. There can be power in the ordinary. There can be life change in an instant. The important thing is to see beyond the routine of ordinary situations, and look for the moment when God can use you to change a life. Simple Application: What are you doing at the well?

Break Stuff Video

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:32:00 +0000

Good Books?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:41:00 +0000

I was interested to see what everyone is reading. I find that when I'm pouring into my life through consistent devotions, prayer, scripture, and good books-I'm usually functioning at a higher rate than if I am not intentionally pouring in! What recommendations can anyone make? Let me know!

Evangelism Hindered?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:00:00 +0000

I am being challenged daily by my Basic Evangelism class at the seminary. I had taken evangelism classes in my undergrad at Central Bible College, so I figured I had a fairly easy grasp of the subject matter. The problem doesn't lie with knowing about evangelism, the problem, I'm realizing, is that actually doing the work of evangelism is something that is seriously missing from most Christian people's experience. For a long time I have bought in to the model of "be a witness and speak if you have to," which I'm realizing has more to do with character than evangelism. The Great Commission is lacking the phrase, "Go into all the world and live rightly before men," or, "Go into all the world and slowly build relationships in order to share the Gospel." There is a time for "lifestyle evangelism" and "friendship evangelism", but there is also a time to proclaim! It seems to me that too many people have forsaken the proclamation of the wonders of who God is and His plan for salvation for the easier "lifestyle" versions of evangelism. What have we done to evangelism that we make it a mute, cowardly, and neglected mandate! We have taken the power out of winning disciples because we have taken the proclamation out of evangelism, and until we put it back we will continue to see decline in our churches because the work of evangelism was meant to be a staple of every believer's life, not simply a thing the church does as an organization through bi-annual events. I've often wondered why people in our churches struggle so much to find the depth of experience with God that they so desperately seek after: I think it is in direct connection with a lack of personal evangelism-telling people about Jesus and offering them hope. I think I can trace my own lack of personal evangelism over the years to one event while I was at Bible College learning the ways to become a Pastor and what it meant to be in "full-time" ministry. I was involved in various ministries throughout my time in Springfield and for the most part felt like I was doing my best to serve God, mostly through those ministries and most always in a "church" environment. I remember one night walking through the neighborhoods close to the campus and distinctly hearing God's voice to knock on a door and share Christ. I had never before heard God speak so clearly. I knew without a doubt that God was leading me to that door, but I said no. I fought against it and just kept walking. I think back to that night often and wonder what might have happened had I listened, had I not justified my "ministry" inolvement in the local church and on ministry teams as a reason why I was excluded from evangelism. I think that night was the beginning of me throwing myself into the "work of the church" as a way to justify my own lack of "proclaiming" to lost people, in season and out. I am so thankful that God is stirring my heart again to snap out of the rut of justifying a lack of personal evangelism! Simple Application: Be sensitive to God's leading and proclaim the Good News! Don't fall into the trap of simply living for God in front of others and think that it's enough....it's only a beginning. Be a witness and speak if you have to...well...at some point...you'll have to!

Break Stuff Night

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:57:00 +0000

I am getting really excited about our first Break Stuff Night! It's an elaborate sermon illustration where I've asked the students to bring anything they want to destroy: computer monitors, stereos, old Nintendos, TV's-anything that will be completely awesome to watch get destroyed. Don't be alarmed...there is a point...Matthew 21:44, "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." I'll have to post the video!

The Pulse

noreply@blogger.com (Mike James) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:14:00 +0000

How many of you have ever sat through a sermon and the whole time wondered, "what is the point of all of this?" Or maybe you've been the one preaching and thought, "man, I should just go sit down and let someone else finish...". I think it's always a good idea to remind ourselves that we aren't immune to "missing it." Face it, you aren't the most dynamic speaker in the world. People are not lined up for miles to hear the latest "nugget" that descends straight from heaven and out of your mouth. CNN and Fox News are not simulcasting your services for the masses. And occassionally, just every once in a while you will deliver a "dud". You will be so far form the "pulse" of what your people need to hear that you end up just giving a very well thought out lecture, that on the surface seems to hit all the right buttons, but leaves no lasting change. Here is a very important piece of information-you can assemble a great series, with incredible illustrations and really drive home each point with power, but still lack the necessary element that will see results. That element is the "pulse". What is the pulse of your group? What is God's heart for those particular people at that particular time? And I'm not talking about preaching on gossip because you just found out that there's a bunch of gossips in your church! Look at this passage in Jeremiah 23: 21-22, "I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds. To me, that is an incredible passage and it places an incredible burden upon the messenger to stand in the council of God and hear His message so that we can proclaim it, in order that we might see people changed! Again I ask-what is the "pulse" of your church? What is it that God is telling you when you stand in His council? What message is He giving you to proclaim? Simple Application: Before you start your next series...get the "pulse". I'm interested in hearing from you all...what do you do to ensure that you are getting the pulse? How do you pray and prepare for messages? Give me some feedback!