| Page 6 ----- Original Message ----- From: James To: Curtis Kekoa Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:42 AM Subject: Re: Flood of info... Curtis, Thanks for the reply and the time you earnestly must have put into it. I must confess that in my hurried view of my average day I tend to spend less time in my responses than I should. Therefore, I can understand how you might feel they are scattered. However, through experience I've found a consistency of little success trading long theologies over detail examinations. I find much more success in planting many small seeds which the Spirit can nurture at the appropriate time. But out of respect for you, I'll give some brief answers to your feedback and let you know that I did read it, ponder it, and pray about it. I'll add in some quick replies in blue. [Curtis' original in orange, italicized, underlined.] ------- A man once wrote - in fact it was you - "CONTEXT - When you try to understand scripture, make sure you evaluate it from the whole." Okay then, here goes: You did some great research in the following text but I still see a few assumptions based on a previous bias on how you want the text to read. When I think of Context I try to start from the widest and gradually focus down to the narrow. In this Christ has given us the structure (Matt. 22:34-40). The Pharisees who had grown to a focus of law only, asked Christ what the greatest commandment was on which you could base context of scripture upon. Christ who came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17) didn't quote one of the ten written commandments but rather turned their attention to the highest context of scripture. A focus they had missed as they had turned to the law and how it could benefit their appetites. Christ told them to "Love" your God with all your heart, sould, and mind. And second, "Love" your neighbor as yourself. When you start with this as your highest governing context it's harder to be critical and easier to sympathize. ------- We conclude, then, that Paul knew Ananias was "judge" because Ananias could "judge" guilty or not and "commandest" punishment, duties reserved for the high priest (Duhmag seems to judge Bush but I would venture to guess they are not high priests). Further, Paul had been in the temple for the last seven days purifying himself (Acts 21:27) - highly improbable, then, that Paul would not know who the high priest was. Paul also states that "the high priest and all the Council of elders" knew of Paul and could testify of Paul's persecution of the "Way" (Acts 22:5). Therefore, Ananias was a judge according to Paul (Acts 23:3) and a "ruler" in Acts 23:5. A ruler, then, is also a judge is also the high priest. (It seems that you are saying ruler means judge. If so you might want to look in Strong's at all the uses of the word "ruler" in scripture. Are they all referring to judge?) ------- I find it fascinating that Paul was preaching to Jews not to follow the Law (when I studied Acts I found Paul preaching Christ as a fulfillment of the law, not to blatently abolish it. Concerning the circumcision issue, I didn't find Paul telling the Jews they were no longer to be circumcized but rather they shouldn't enforce their practices upon the Gentiles who had no direct heritage with it. As a matter of fact the resolution Paul and friends took back to Antioch was to restrict the Gentiles to a law of not eating meat given to idols. An interesting note to this is to study how he later in 1 Corinthians addressed this issue of eating meat given to idols. It seems he was more interested on peoples hearts than he was their law or reason.), something Jews were supposed to do and had been trained to do since childhood. ------- "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law [...] I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (1 Co 9:20,22; ). (Excellent!! I agree...) So why, then, did Paul say such mean and nasty - and dare I say judgmental (ahhh!!!!) - things about Ananias? Because they were true (Yes. But if the motives of Paul were as deceitful as you claim then would not Paul's heart and intentions be considered unrighteous. Wouldn't it be more in context of Christ's teaching that Paul was telling the truth of Ananias' actions while truly, as he claimed, didn't know that he was high priest?) ------- Paul, then, was discerning, unlike the President's dishonoring wife or those who foolishly think she's a "good" lady (is it not a fallacy of all of us to believe the lie that there is some good in each of us - opposed to the truth we find in Romans) and is human (as my grandmother put it) and that her husband and his administration are "good" as well, and that no one should speak their evils against them. Is it wrong, then, to speak against one's rulers, especially ones as abhorrent as the Clintons or the Bushes? No, just be discerning, which brings us to our next topic: when is it okay to speak against rulers? Use discernment, or basically when anyone, including "rulers," is committing evil. (This sounds sensible at face value, but let's role play a little. Is your ministry to perpetually criticize our rulers because they are not up to your standards of what a ruler should be? What if Petrouka was to get into office? Are you certain he could withstand all the pressures and temptations the office brings with it? Look at history and give me one human ruler who has? My point is that the wisdom of Christ wasn't to focus on the rulers of the nation to change the nation, but rather the people of the nation to change it. Wouldn't Duhmag be more in tune with Christ's teaching to preach the gospel [good news] of Christ as opposed to the slander of the local rulers? I'm not opposed to making the people aware of their responsibilities to God, but I have to wonder about the intent and placement of the heart when I read about accusations made with sometimes questionable sources. When the sources are from questionable web sites then how can Duhmag and it's writers claim righteous intent?) ------- Answer (1): I correct, rebuke (not reveal - it's not Sunday school) my children with the intent they will repent and seek forgiveness from me. This is a prerequisite for them to receive forgiveness from the Father. (This is probably the response with which I found the most disagreement. When I read it I sensed you were putting yourself at the same level as God. Only God is perfect in His judgment and can require absolute repentance from all those who sin against Him. When I look back over the years of my fatherly decisions over my children, I distinctly remember many times when my judgment was in error or just wrong. After much agony over this I have found the best solution is to explain to my children that I am no tyrant who simply wishes to impose my desires on them. But rather, I truly wish the best for them and when I reprimand them it is because I don't desire their future to be filled with such sin and rebellion [as I understand it]. It has helped to explain to them that I am not perfect and will fail at times, but it will always be done because I wanted the best for them. In contrast to this I remember the days when I took a more righteous tyrant approach and received a strongly rebellious son. I do ask of respect from them [God's wisdom, not mine], but I also explain it as I require it.) Answer (2): When I argue with my wife, I want to stop arguing. To argue is not biblical. I am her "head"; I should lead her, love her like Christ. Thus, I should be more like Christ and stop arguing. Arguing doesn't show love to her and certainly doesn't lead her correctly, and arguing with me doesn't show that she's an honoring wife. Now, if I'm CORRECTING her, I wish that she repent and seek forgiveness from God. (I don't see hiding from the inevitable a sufficient solution. Can you find a person [excluding Christ] who went through life without their pride clouding their actions? This was another one I learned over time. When my wife and I used to disagree I used to simply shut up for a sufficient time to allow my temper to calm. The only problem was that my nature never opened up to see the wisdom from her point of view. Scripture states we are "one" for a very good reason. When the two come together in thought it is a much more balanced and complete thought than just the one-sided. We both understand the "headship" and "submission" described in scripture, but we also understand we each contribute to the whole. This understanding of "unity" has risen our marriage to heights we never before imagined. One designed by God.) I think you have to figure out who I'm rebuking, Russ. Is it BushCo? Or is it those who make excuses for BushCo? Let me know. Both. And I think neither one will fulfill God's will as He has given it. Your perspective is still that a change in our legal leadership will solve our problems. Scripture states our problem is that we don't submit to the example our Shepherd has left. As followers of Christ, we are not of this world and need to turn our focus to His Kingdom. ------- "The context is that God wishes no one be lost. As you study scripture in it's entirety you'll find God to be a loving Father to ALL His children. But as I write this I remembered your Calvinistic tendencies. I forgot about their view of only the elect (Oops)." AAAHHH! A little below the belt with this one, doncha think? I could feel the wind just zoom out of my lungs! (Sorry. Certainly didn't mean to offend you. I just had flashbacks of you in Joel's class passionately asking everyone "if a dead man could make a choice?" And ever after that day, Joel seeking you for Calvinistic support in a class filled with more Arminian tendencies.) ------- "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13,14). (This passage should frighten each one of us into some serious heart and soul searching. It is the greatest victory of Satan when he is able to keep us from prayer and deceive us into a comfort that we are definitely one of the few.) ------- Marketing for members is based off a worldly, business model. Its design, basically, takes samples of the market area to find out what people scoff at as well as what appeals to them, and the church reacts accordingly to "reel them in." (I agree with the observation, but maybe not the reaction. We MUST be rooted in God's word but also intelligent concerning reaching different people. When Peter spoke to the Jews he could use terms like 'Messiah' which they were familiar with. He could even convict their conscience as those who rejected the Messiah. However, when Philip spoke to the Gentiles he used terms like 'savior' and 'Lord' and did not try to convict their conscience as those who crucified Christ. There must be some thought and action concerning how do we convey Christ's word in a manner which those receiving can understand.) Here's a sample from the article: "Hybel's consumer-driven approach is evident at Willow Creek, where he shunned stained glass, Bibles, or even a cross for the 7,200-seat, $72 million sanctuary he recently built. The reason? Market research suggested that such traditional symbols would scare away non- churchgoers." (Are you absolutely sure that's the only reason? What about the concern of not becoming attached to worldly things [relics]? Review the opposite side of this and find the Catholic church which instituted a policy to never sell [or give away] a relic. While thousands are starving in the streets, the church has grown so attached to these worldly things she will NEVER sell them. Instead they would take the last coin from a dying beggar to acquire more. Our best and foremost example of a correct Christian church is the ones of the first century where they met in simple homes breaking bread and reading the "Word". I'm afraid our Catholic friends have influenced us to the belief that we can better glorify God with pretty windows and symbols which our physical nature can easily grasp. In contrast to this, I think we'll find God's word stating our actions and our prayers are that which glorify Him.) ------- And be careful of this "All His children" stuff. God's not loving to every human being, particularly the unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, molesters, etcetera. (What about Paul? Was he an unrepentant murderer when he received the graceful vision on the road to Damascus?) To say that God is loving to everyone achieves a level of gnosis not found within Scripture, and in fact finds itself in the abode of Pagan philosophy. In fact: "Thou dost hate all who do iniquity. Those dost destroy those who speak falsehood; the Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit" (Psalm 5:5,6). (Well, it's getting very late for me and I better sign off for now. I've probably responded more than I should have anyway. Although, I don't want to sign off without clarifying my statement about God's purpose for you. I was referring to the details and manner in which He is going to use you. God used James (son of Thunder and brother of John) as the overtly zealous apostle who was the first to be martyred. He also used Andrew who typically and quietly brought people to Christ. And then their is John (whom Jesus loved) who was assigned the care of Mary. In this respect I don't know the details of how God plans to use you and I absolutely don't want to interfere with His plans, but instead I only want to share with you that which He has revealed to me, that it might be of some help to you also. In closing I want to thank you again for all your time and concern. I truly think of you as my brother and desire the best for you and your family. Take care and God bless... May the presence of Christ be overwhelming and eternal with you and all your family.) [end of email] ------- DuhMag.com Note: James’ response ends abruptly, and he does not attempt at responding to the rest of my previous email. In fact, quite a few points in my last email were left unheeded. But at least James gave it a better try than most Christians who’d rather never attempt at stretching themselves like James. Because James did not send an additional email to sum up his last response, I found it unnecessary to continue this debate. I did, however, comment upon a few of his last remarks for the sakes of you who have read this debate. You can read these by clicking here. Additionally, if you have any remarks or questions for me, then please email me. I will answer your questions, but check out the comments page first. I might have already answered your questions there. Of course, I always love answering questions. It is of interest to note that shortly after receiving his last response, James distributed another email, this time to me and several other men, presumably Christians, concerning “American Christian Syncretism.” After reading his email, I concluded that the “syncretism” referred to was no more than hypocrisy. Of course, I responded to James with a question. You can read the dialogue by clicking here. |