We offer our prayers up for Neil's wife, Major Maureen Voce (former TSA Officers in Nipawin here)and their family.
The service will be held at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Wingham, Ontario ay 10:30 on this Wednesday. Lt. Col. David Hiscock will be Officiating.
He will be missed by many here.
He has been promoted to Glory;
may the next thing he hears be, "Well done my good and faithful servant."
---
View the obituary on-line: http://mcburneyfuneralhome.com/obituaries.htm
Leave Condolences : voce_condolences@mcburneyfuneralhome.com
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Dr Was
reference: 1Kings 15, 20; 2 Kings 6, 8, 13; 2 Chronicles 26:2The original (as far as we know) comic liturgy: http://www.sheepspeak.com/ (click the red sheep for more comics and on-line scripture reading)
Friday, August 29, 2008
In Christ Alone...
God and Stephane Dion
Michael Coren, National Post
Published: Monday, August 25, 2008
Last week, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition -- Liberal chief Stephane Dion -- sat down ...for a one-hour interview on [the] TV program, The Michael Coren Show. Within the first 10 minutes of the discussion he made several mentions of God. These weren't passing phrases or clumsy slang but obvious, absolute references to the entity so fashionably unfashionable...
...He was, for example, anxious to "reconcile people with God's environment" and was committed to the planet "given to us by God."...
...Is this God of whom you speak an important factor in your life? "It is part of the hope I have" was the reply. "A creator who is full of love. I hope this is true. I am a man of hope. I will play hope ..."
An interesting article about an interesting man...
REMINDER: our hope is not in the leaders of this world but in Jesus who is coming back. Let us not be mistaken: Layton, Harper, Dion (here); McCain, and Obama (there) - none of them are our delivers and we (and they) must put our hope in Christ alone.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Mac and cheese study reveals Canada's social inequality
Last Updated: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:14 PM MT
CBC News
"For many of us, Kraft Dinner is a comfort food, but what we heard very clearly from low-income Canadians is that Kraft Dinner is not comforting when you cannot always afford basics like milk and butter," said Rock.
Some single mothers told the study authors that their children often refused to eat Kraft Dinner because they had to consume it so often.
Rock said it's unacceptable that nearly 10 per cent of Canadian households don't have enough money to buy food.
She suggested that people donate cash instead of food items to food banks and social agencies so they can buy nutritional food for clients.
read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/08/28/food-insecurity-study.html
Related CBC Stories:
Food banks provide low nutritional value: study
More working poor using food banks: study
Other Related Links:
Discomforting comfort foods: stirring the pot on Kraft Dinner and social inequality in Canada
Calgary Inter-Faith Food Bank most needed food donations
Income-related household food security in Canada
See previous blog links as well including the link to The Salvation Army's Canadian poistion statement on poverty, etc.
CBC News
"For many of us, Kraft Dinner is a comfort food, but what we heard very clearly from low-income Canadians is that Kraft Dinner is not comforting when you cannot always afford basics like milk and butter," said Rock.
Some single mothers told the study authors that their children often refused to eat Kraft Dinner because they had to consume it so often.
Rock said it's unacceptable that nearly 10 per cent of Canadian households don't have enough money to buy food.
She suggested that people donate cash instead of food items to food banks and social agencies so they can buy nutritional food for clients.
read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/08/28/food-insecurity-study.html
Related CBC Stories:
Food banks provide low nutritional value: study
More working poor using food banks: study
Other Related Links:
Discomforting comfort foods: stirring the pot on Kraft Dinner and social inequality in Canada
Calgary Inter-Faith Food Bank most needed food donations
Income-related household food security in Canada
See previous blog links as well including the link to The Salvation Army's Canadian poistion statement on poverty, etc.
Social injustice is killing people on a grand scale
Last Updated: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:06 AM ET
CBC News
People are dying early not only because of health gaps between rich and poor countries but also because of a lack of housing and clean water in wealthy countries like Canada, policy-makers said in a report to the World Health Organization on Thursday....
In Canada, nearly 1.5 million people, mostly single mothers and children, lack decent family income, safe and affordable housing, suffer food insecurity and are vulnerable to violence, said the group's Canadian commissioner, Monique Bégin, a former federal health minister and a professor in the school of management at the University of Ottawa.
read more from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/08/27/who-socdet.html
read the report: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/en/
The Salvation Army Canada's position statement on poverty and economic justice: http://www.salvationarmyethics.org/positionstatements/poverty
CBC News
People are dying early not only because of health gaps between rich and poor countries but also because of a lack of housing and clean water in wealthy countries like Canada, policy-makers said in a report to the World Health Organization on Thursday....
In Canada, nearly 1.5 million people, mostly single mothers and children, lack decent family income, safe and affordable housing, suffer food insecurity and are vulnerable to violence, said the group's Canadian commissioner, Monique Bégin, a former federal health minister and a professor in the school of management at the University of Ottawa.
read more from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/08/27/who-socdet.html
read the report: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/en/
The Salvation Army Canada's position statement on poverty and economic justice: http://www.salvationarmyethics.org/positionstatements/poverty
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wesleyan Social Gospel Roots-Part 2
The Wesley brothers were involved in a great number of charitable activities even while they were at Oxford, including visiting prisoners (debtors and felons), which they began at the bequest of William Morgan. Their social activities continued to spread and “before long, the Methodists were spending several hours with the poor and needy in the town” (Heitzenrater 1995, 40). This continued through the revival from the strong start it had in the 1730s when many of the Methodists at Oxford “had spent a good deal of their time, money, and energy in a ministry of mercy to the poor – educating the children in the workhouses, taking food to the needy, providing wool and other materials from which people could make clothes and other durable goods to wear or sell (Heitzenrater 1995, 125)” Orphanages too seemed to be a favourite project of the Wesleyans on either side of the Atlantic for years to come.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Wesleyan Social Gospel Roots
Before I joined The Salvation Army those many years ago almost all that I knew of it was that it helped people. We do good deeds for the marginalized. It has not been uncommon in the time that I have been serving with The Salvation Army in western Canada for people to be completely unaware of any of our other attributes including even the fact that we are even a Christian organisation. The one thing that is readily recognisable about us to all though does spring from our Wesleyan tradition and that is our active concern for the marginalized.
I found this very interesting to read about in Wesley and the People Called Methodists because I, I must confess, did not previously realise how active the Wesleys, Whitefield, Morgan, and their contemporaries were in looking after the poor. The tree of social concern in our organization has certainly grown from these roots and these roots run deep.
These socially conscious roots go back as far as the religious societies, which were planted in England in the 1670s. These societies sprung out of the collegia pietatis on the European continent and by the eighteenth century many centralized organisations had grown up and one such organisation, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), had as a member the rector of the Epworth parish, Samuel Wesley, the father of John and Charles Wesley (Heitzenrater 1995, 20-21). “At a very early stage in their development, the societies began to demonstrate a special interest in the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, giving food and money to the needy, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and teaching the children of the unfortunate” (Heitzenrater 1995, 23). This is certainly a strong attribute of the contemporary Salvation Army.
I found this very interesting to read about in Wesley and the People Called Methodists because I, I must confess, did not previously realise how active the Wesleys, Whitefield, Morgan, and their contemporaries were in looking after the poor. The tree of social concern in our organization has certainly grown from these roots and these roots run deep.
These socially conscious roots go back as far as the religious societies, which were planted in England in the 1670s. These societies sprung out of the collegia pietatis on the European continent and by the eighteenth century many centralized organisations had grown up and one such organisation, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), had as a member the rector of the Epworth parish, Samuel Wesley, the father of John and Charles Wesley (Heitzenrater 1995, 20-21). “At a very early stage in their development, the societies began to demonstrate a special interest in the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, giving food and money to the needy, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and teaching the children of the unfortunate” (Heitzenrater 1995, 23). This is certainly a strong attribute of the contemporary Salvation Army.
John Wesley's Questions About Money.
When considering a purchase John Wesley encourages us to ask ourselves these questions:
1) In spending this money, am I acting as if I own it or as the Lord's steward?
2) What scripture requires me to spend money in this way?
3) Can I offer up this purchase as a sacrifice to the Lord?
4) Will God reward me for this expenditure at the resurrection of the just?
Good questions - try them. Let me know how it turns out: blog@sheepspeak.com
1) In spending this money, am I acting as if I own it or as the Lord's steward?
2) What scripture requires me to spend money in this way?
3) Can I offer up this purchase as a sacrifice to the Lord?
4) Will God reward me for this expenditure at the resurrection of the just?
Good questions - try them. Let me know how it turns out: blog@sheepspeak.com
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Use of Money (Comment-Part 4)
Principle III. Having, First, gained all you can, and, Secondly saved all you can, Then "give all you can."
It is only when this principle is added to the preceding principles that the argument gains its full strength. Wesley acknowledges that if one stops prior to this step one has actually done nothing. He argues that we are merely stewards of the Lord’s goods; therefore we should take from Him only as much as is absolutely required to provide for the needs of our household and ourselves. Next, we should provide for the ‘household of faith’ and with all the remainder (and there is much remaining in most households in our contemporary society), we have the opportunity to give to all people and in so doing we will actually be giving to the Lord himself. Wesley encourages us to cut off every expense whose only purpose is to indulge our ‘foolish desires’ and we should give God not only a tenth but everything we have in the manner of the three principles that Wesley has laid out. It is only as we do this that we will be “laying up in store for yourselves a good foundation against the time to come, that ye may attain eternal life! (SIC)” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 357).
Conclusion
This sermon is highly effective. I most certainly felt the conviction of the Spirit upon reading it. In my life, I have been trying to eliminate all that might be considered excess frivolity. It has been difficult for even me who naturally errs towards simplicity. Is this sermon preachable today? I don’t know if Canadian society is ready for it yet. I believe that its message is needed. I think however that we have strayed so far down the staircase of self-indulgence that we may need one or two smaller steps before this one in order to be effectively encouraged to continue climbing the stairway to heaven (holiness).
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Use of Money by Wesley (Comment-Part 3)
Principle I. We ought to gain all we can gain but this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor at the expense of our health.
Wesley’s first principle that we should ‘gain all we can’, will cause most devout Wesleyans to stop in their tracks at first read. One’s mind naturally races to the ideas of the so-called prosperity gospel and of trying to serve two masters. It is important to read on. Wesley espouses a number of useful caveats: our pursuit should not lesson our physical or mental health or those of our neighbours. Wesley argues that even the non-believer should be able to understand this. He bolsters his argument by mentioning from Scripture that “whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with they might.” Thus, with respect to money, he argues that one must ‘gain all you can’. This section cannot stand alone, but it does build the first story upon the introductory foundation and make it possible for him to develop his second principle.
Principle II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea (Save all you can).
Now that one has gained all one can, Wesley argues that one should save all that one can. As with the first principle, upon reading the second, ‘red flags’ are raised. One immediately thinks of Jesus’ parable of the rich fool (Luke 12) whose only sin was displayed by the fact that he did just what Wesley seems to be suggesting here. The rich fool gained all he could and then he saved all he could and then God called him a fool and took his very life from him. It is good that Wesley elaborates. We should not simply throw away that which God has given us “to gratify the desire of the flesh, desire of the eye, or the pride of life” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 353). Wesley goes on to advocate a life of simplicity so radical that I personally have never seen a living example of it: not only are we not to indulge ourselves at all but Wesley argues that out of love we should not provide superfluities for our children for to do this would be to “increase their temptations and snares, and to pierce them through with more sorrows” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 354). His argument at this point is not yet complete. The third principle still needs to be added to the first two.
Wesley’s first principle that we should ‘gain all we can’, will cause most devout Wesleyans to stop in their tracks at first read. One’s mind naturally races to the ideas of the so-called prosperity gospel and of trying to serve two masters. It is important to read on. Wesley espouses a number of useful caveats: our pursuit should not lesson our physical or mental health or those of our neighbours. Wesley argues that even the non-believer should be able to understand this. He bolsters his argument by mentioning from Scripture that “whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with they might.” Thus, with respect to money, he argues that one must ‘gain all you can’. This section cannot stand alone, but it does build the first story upon the introductory foundation and make it possible for him to develop his second principle.
Principle II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea (Save all you can).
Now that one has gained all one can, Wesley argues that one should save all that one can. As with the first principle, upon reading the second, ‘red flags’ are raised. One immediately thinks of Jesus’ parable of the rich fool (Luke 12) whose only sin was displayed by the fact that he did just what Wesley seems to be suggesting here. The rich fool gained all he could and then he saved all he could and then God called him a fool and took his very life from him. It is good that Wesley elaborates. We should not simply throw away that which God has given us “to gratify the desire of the flesh, desire of the eye, or the pride of life” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 353). Wesley goes on to advocate a life of simplicity so radical that I personally have never seen a living example of it: not only are we not to indulge ourselves at all but Wesley argues that out of love we should not provide superfluities for our children for to do this would be to “increase their temptations and snares, and to pierce them through with more sorrows” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 354). His argument at this point is not yet complete. The third principle still needs to be added to the first two.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Use of Money by Wesley (Comment-Part 2)
Wesley begins this sermon by citing the Lord’s extended metaphor/parable commonly known as the ‘Prodigal Son’ and then launching into the parable about the shrewd/dishonest manager. This serves to provide a context for his unfolding argument since the scripture upon which this sermon is based concludes the latter parable.
Wesley intentionally explores the relevant context of the scriptures in this sermon. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge however that the use of money does not seem to be the intended theme of the parable of the shrewd manager. The parable is specifically addressing the concept of ‘prolipses’ and “through this parable Jesus admonishes his hearers to cast caution aside, seize the moment of opportunity and make provision for their future before God. The Kingdom of God is at hand” (Culpepper 1995, 309). That being noted, it should in no way discredit Wesley’s argument that there are principles from this parable that apply to our use of money. In support of this, I draw on the example of the Apostle Paul who while speaking about righteousness in Romans 7:2-3, instructs us that a man and woman are united in marriage until the death of one of the parties. I also note that the verse from which Wesley’s sermon is launched, Luke 16:9, functions not only as a conclusion to the parable of the manager but also as a transition into Jesus’ teachings about money (Luke 16:10-15) and later the futility of putting one’s faith in riches (Luke 16:19-31). Therefore the introductory metaphor/parable is appreciated as it does set the stage nicely for what is to follow. It is “of the highest concern that all who fear God know how to employ this valuable talent” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 350).
Wesley intentionally explores the relevant context of the scriptures in this sermon. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge however that the use of money does not seem to be the intended theme of the parable of the shrewd manager. The parable is specifically addressing the concept of ‘prolipses’ and “through this parable Jesus admonishes his hearers to cast caution aside, seize the moment of opportunity and make provision for their future before God. The Kingdom of God is at hand” (Culpepper 1995, 309). That being noted, it should in no way discredit Wesley’s argument that there are principles from this parable that apply to our use of money. In support of this, I draw on the example of the Apostle Paul who while speaking about righteousness in Romans 7:2-3, instructs us that a man and woman are united in marriage until the death of one of the parties. I also note that the verse from which Wesley’s sermon is launched, Luke 16:9, functions not only as a conclusion to the parable of the manager but also as a transition into Jesus’ teachings about money (Luke 16:10-15) and later the futility of putting one’s faith in riches (Luke 16:19-31). Therefore the introductory metaphor/parable is appreciated as it does set the stage nicely for what is to follow. It is “of the highest concern that all who fear God know how to employ this valuable talent” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 350).
The Use of Money by Wesley (Comment - Part 1)
The Use of Money: Sermon 50 by John Wesley
Sermon 50 by John Wesley launches into his discussion of the use of money from the base of Luke 16:9:
I say unto you, make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into the everlasting habitations.
The primary metaphor that Wesley uses to unite the discussion is that of one’s talent/money; he begins by referring to the parable of the shrewd/dishonest manager and then relates it to the Kingdom of God through the following three sections:
I. We ought to gain all we can gain but this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor at the expense of our health.
II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea.
III. Having, first, gained all you can, and, secondly saved all you can, then "give all you can."
I found it very interesting the way Wesley intertwines the plot and theme of money with a recurring reference to love. It is this that pulls the sermon together in such a detailed, precise way, that one really needs to read – or hear - the sermon in one sitting (probably more than once given both the detail and the eighteenth century language) rather than by reading it a little bit at a time.
In this paper I will address the strengths and weaknesses of this sermon in each of the three above identified sections as well as the very important introductory section that sets the tone of the paper to follow. I will then evaluate the overall effectiveness of the sermon and respond to the question, “Does this sermon preach today?”
Sermon 50 by John Wesley launches into his discussion of the use of money from the base of Luke 16:9:
I say unto you, make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into the everlasting habitations.
The primary metaphor that Wesley uses to unite the discussion is that of one’s talent/money; he begins by referring to the parable of the shrewd/dishonest manager and then relates it to the Kingdom of God through the following three sections:
I. We ought to gain all we can gain but this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor at the expense of our health.
II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea.
III. Having, first, gained all you can, and, secondly saved all you can, then "give all you can."
I found it very interesting the way Wesley intertwines the plot and theme of money with a recurring reference to love. It is this that pulls the sermon together in such a detailed, precise way, that one really needs to read – or hear - the sermon in one sitting (probably more than once given both the detail and the eighteenth century language) rather than by reading it a little bit at a time.
In this paper I will address the strengths and weaknesses of this sermon in each of the three above identified sections as well as the very important introductory section that sets the tone of the paper to follow. I will then evaluate the overall effectiveness of the sermon and respond to the question, “Does this sermon preach today?”
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
A Theology of Food Bank
Recently I have heard a number of questions asked about The Salvation Army food bank. People have been wondering why we offer the service and whether it is a good thing or whether it is a bad thing. People have raised legitimate questions to which this letter is reply.
1) Why do we offer the service?
2) Does it do any good?
3) Can’t food banks just trap people in poverty, enable them to be lazy or take advantage others?
4) How do we help people who have a real need?
5) What about Christianity?
1) Why do we offer the service?
The Salvation Army is a Christian organisation. We acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. There is a parable in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) about sheep and goats. This parable is addressed to all the nations of the world. You will notice in this parable there are two groups: those that spend eternity with Him and those that do not (Heaven and Hell). Both groups call Jesus ‘Lord’; the difference between the two groups is quite simple. The group that spends eternity with the Lord takes care of the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the one needing clothes, the one in hospital, the one in prison.... The other group doesn’t. This is a good motivation for helping people as a society and The Salvation Army food bank is one of the tools we in this nation have available for helping in this way but…
2) Does it do any good?
Does it help really people? Can’t food banks and other social assistance programmes hurt people and hurt society? Can’t they force people to become dependant upon others? Can’t they help perpetuate generations of economic enslavement by removing people’s abilities and motivation for employment? Yes. A food bank (and other well-intentioned ministries) can contribute to all of these things.
In Nipawin and Tisdale we are blessed in that there is only one food bank in each of theses centres. In some centres there are many food banks run by more than one organisation and if there is not fluid communication between these centres then those who are trying to help may actually be tempting those in need to ‘take advantage of the system’ and inadvertently hurt themselves and others. In some larger urban centres a person can unaccountably eat seven or more square meals a day free of charge. Friends of mine struggling with addiction in some of these centres have lamented the fact that the only thing that they actually need to buy with the money they receive is their drugs. This is a problem in some – particularly large, urban places.
In the Salvation Army we have a large centralized database with the information from all of our food banks across the country stored on it. As a client hands us her identification we can see where and when in the country she last required the assistance of The Salvation Army. It means that we can better help the person because one cannot simply circumnavigate the procedures by visiting multiple food banks or moving to a new location. It means that if a client was being helped out in a specific town, when they move here we are able to continue assisting them in the same manner as before.
In North East Saskatchewan, the food banks are meant to help out in emergencies. They are not meant to supply a family with groceries for a whole month. We make a point of trying to give people what they need to help them through a short-term crisis. We are not meaning to supply all of their groceries for them. We also have policies as to how often a person can receive assistance at the food bank.
3) The food banks are meant to help people out of poverty rather than trap them in it.
In North East Saskatchewan here we have a policy that a person is only eligible to come to the food bank once every three months. This is intended to break the dependency cycle. We have noticed that some people can certainly be trapped by poverty. If this happens, when they are eligible to come to the food bank every month, they can plan that into their monthly budgets. This only keeps them trapped. We do not want the food bank to be a tool to keep anyone enslaved by poverty. By only allowing one visit every three months, we remove ‘free food’ from monthly planning and really aim to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
4) How does this work: what about people who are in legitimate need?
What if a family sincerely needs an emergency food hamper after only two months? It is, after all, very hard to break the dependency cycle. Will we turn away starving children? No. What we will do is attempt to address the problem. If a person comes to the food bank frequently there is a reason. That reason may be addiction. That reason may be budgeting. That reason may be personal. There can be any number of factors that drive a person to require assistance.
When a person shows up at the food bank we attempt to find out why she is here. If she returns after only a month and a half and she admits that she has an alcohol or a substance abuse problem, we will refer her to Alcoholics (Narcotics) Anonymous. If she has a problem with budgeting, we will direct her to a programme in town that can help her with that. If she has problems that require counselling we will facilitate her receiving help in that area as well. If she then shows that she is willing to get help, we will most certainly not deny her a small, emergency supply of food.
Many of us have gone through difficult times in our lives. Many of us have required help from our friends, family, churches, government, and The Salvation Army. It is very important to have the mechanisms in place to help and it is very important that the mechanisms are actually used to help people out of poverty rather than trap them in it.
There is an old adage by Lau Tzu that applies well to our theology of food bank: “give a person a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This is most certainly a part of our theology of food bank.
5) What about Christianity?
There is one more question that needs to be addressed and that is, ‘What about Christianity’? If we are a Christian organisation are we always proselytizing? No, but everyone must admit that there is no person or organisation that can distance oneself from one’s values be those values atheist, Hindu, Christian, or whatever. To suggest otherwise is not true. We acknowledge this reality. As such in the food hampers, we provide every client with the latest copy of our magazine, ‘Faith and Friends’. In that magazine you will find a bookmark that lists the times and dates of our Bible Studies, Sunday School, children’s programmes, etc. Whenever someone new chooses to join us at one of these, we are excited to see them. Also should you want it, there are New Testament Bibles available free of charge in our ministry centre and we are never adverse to praying for people – all you need to do is ask.
God Bless,
Captain Michael Ramsay
The Salvation Army
1) Why do we offer the service?
2) Does it do any good?
3) Can’t food banks just trap people in poverty, enable them to be lazy or take advantage others?
4) How do we help people who have a real need?
5) What about Christianity?
1) Why do we offer the service?
The Salvation Army is a Christian organisation. We acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. There is a parable in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) about sheep and goats. This parable is addressed to all the nations of the world. You will notice in this parable there are two groups: those that spend eternity with Him and those that do not (Heaven and Hell). Both groups call Jesus ‘Lord’; the difference between the two groups is quite simple. The group that spends eternity with the Lord takes care of the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the one needing clothes, the one in hospital, the one in prison.... The other group doesn’t. This is a good motivation for helping people as a society and The Salvation Army food bank is one of the tools we in this nation have available for helping in this way but…
2) Does it do any good?
Does it help really people? Can’t food banks and other social assistance programmes hurt people and hurt society? Can’t they force people to become dependant upon others? Can’t they help perpetuate generations of economic enslavement by removing people’s abilities and motivation for employment? Yes. A food bank (and other well-intentioned ministries) can contribute to all of these things.
In Nipawin and Tisdale we are blessed in that there is only one food bank in each of theses centres. In some centres there are many food banks run by more than one organisation and if there is not fluid communication between these centres then those who are trying to help may actually be tempting those in need to ‘take advantage of the system’ and inadvertently hurt themselves and others. In some larger urban centres a person can unaccountably eat seven or more square meals a day free of charge. Friends of mine struggling with addiction in some of these centres have lamented the fact that the only thing that they actually need to buy with the money they receive is their drugs. This is a problem in some – particularly large, urban places.
In the Salvation Army we have a large centralized database with the information from all of our food banks across the country stored on it. As a client hands us her identification we can see where and when in the country she last required the assistance of The Salvation Army. It means that we can better help the person because one cannot simply circumnavigate the procedures by visiting multiple food banks or moving to a new location. It means that if a client was being helped out in a specific town, when they move here we are able to continue assisting them in the same manner as before.
In North East Saskatchewan, the food banks are meant to help out in emergencies. They are not meant to supply a family with groceries for a whole month. We make a point of trying to give people what they need to help them through a short-term crisis. We are not meaning to supply all of their groceries for them. We also have policies as to how often a person can receive assistance at the food bank.
3) The food banks are meant to help people out of poverty rather than trap them in it.
In North East Saskatchewan here we have a policy that a person is only eligible to come to the food bank once every three months. This is intended to break the dependency cycle. We have noticed that some people can certainly be trapped by poverty. If this happens, when they are eligible to come to the food bank every month, they can plan that into their monthly budgets. This only keeps them trapped. We do not want the food bank to be a tool to keep anyone enslaved by poverty. By only allowing one visit every three months, we remove ‘free food’ from monthly planning and really aim to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
4) How does this work: what about people who are in legitimate need?
What if a family sincerely needs an emergency food hamper after only two months? It is, after all, very hard to break the dependency cycle. Will we turn away starving children? No. What we will do is attempt to address the problem. If a person comes to the food bank frequently there is a reason. That reason may be addiction. That reason may be budgeting. That reason may be personal. There can be any number of factors that drive a person to require assistance.
When a person shows up at the food bank we attempt to find out why she is here. If she returns after only a month and a half and she admits that she has an alcohol or a substance abuse problem, we will refer her to Alcoholics (Narcotics) Anonymous. If she has a problem with budgeting, we will direct her to a programme in town that can help her with that. If she has problems that require counselling we will facilitate her receiving help in that area as well. If she then shows that she is willing to get help, we will most certainly not deny her a small, emergency supply of food.
Many of us have gone through difficult times in our lives. Many of us have required help from our friends, family, churches, government, and The Salvation Army. It is very important to have the mechanisms in place to help and it is very important that the mechanisms are actually used to help people out of poverty rather than trap them in it.
There is an old adage by Lau Tzu that applies well to our theology of food bank: “give a person a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This is most certainly a part of our theology of food bank.
5) What about Christianity?
There is one more question that needs to be addressed and that is, ‘What about Christianity’? If we are a Christian organisation are we always proselytizing? No, but everyone must admit that there is no person or organisation that can distance oneself from one’s values be those values atheist, Hindu, Christian, or whatever. To suggest otherwise is not true. We acknowledge this reality. As such in the food hampers, we provide every client with the latest copy of our magazine, ‘Faith and Friends’. In that magazine you will find a bookmark that lists the times and dates of our Bible Studies, Sunday School, children’s programmes, etc. Whenever someone new chooses to join us at one of these, we are excited to see them. Also should you want it, there are New Testament Bibles available free of charge in our ministry centre and we are never adverse to praying for people – all you need to do is ask.
God Bless,
Captain Michael Ramsay
The Salvation Army
Salvo Gold
Hat Tip ArmyBarmy.
A SALVO WON A GOLD MEDAL THIS PAST WEEKEND.
Is it a first? I don't know. But it just happened!Hallelujah. All the Salvo papers should be picking up this story.
Canadian coxswain Brian Price and the men's 8 rowing team won the gold and the television and newspapers picked up the Salvo connection: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n081751A
Meanwhile in Belleville, Ont., the hometown of crew coxswain Brian Price, 32, members of his church clapped and cheered for the Olympian during the morning service."Our speaker got up and just praised Brian, we were all excited about it," said Cathie Price (no relation), who attends the Salvation Army Christian church.-
http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/08/18/6486956-sun.html
A SALVO WON A GOLD MEDAL THIS PAST WEEKEND.
Is it a first? I don't know. But it just happened!Hallelujah. All the Salvo papers should be picking up this story.
Canadian coxswain Brian Price and the men's 8 rowing team won the gold and the television and newspapers picked up the Salvo connection: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n081751A
Meanwhile in Belleville, Ont., the hometown of crew coxswain Brian Price, 32, members of his church clapped and cheered for the Olympian during the morning service."Our speaker got up and just praised Brian, we were all excited about it," said Cathie Price (no relation), who attends the Salvation Army Christian church.-
http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/08/18/6486956-sun.html
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Almost Christian by Wesley (Comment - Part 2)
II. What is implied by being altogether a Christian?
“What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether?” Three things: the love of God, the love of one’s neighbour, and faith. One has to love God with every ounce of emotion and action. One must “love the Lord your God with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” One must love all people, friends and enemies, and we must do so with such sincerity that we love them as much as we do ourselves. We must have faith in God. We must have more than a belief in God. We must have a faith in Christ that even ‘purifies the heart’. Only then according to Wesley are we altogether a Christian.
This second list is not disconnected from the first. The attributes of the ‘almost a Christian’ are a subset of the ‘altogether a Christian’. Wesley acknowledges that even in his less affluent and less self-focussed times, that this is a difficult teaching. He lets us know as well that it is not enough that we have good designs desires to be a good Christian. He reminds us that indeed the road to hell is paved with such good intentions. We must truly have faith and a genuine for love God and our neighbour.
Is Wesley right and true? I believe so. Does this sermon preach today? Yes. Does it preach in North America today? I am not sure. I believe that this message is a holiness message that should encourage all the saints to persevere and not grow faint. I think that so many in our pews may not be included even in the ‘almost a Christian’ category of Wesley’s. I think that maybe this good and strong teaching is solid food for the soul but I think that maybe, in our society, we are not ready yet to be weaned of the spiritual milk. I think this is all true but that maybe we need to first encourage our people to wear the white milk moustaches of prayer and Bible study and as we continue to seek His Kingdom in that way, we will eventually be ready for Wesley’s meat and potatoes.
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Almost Christian by Wesley (Comment - Part 1)
The Almost Christian: Sermon 2 by John Wesley
Preached at St. Mary’s Oxford, before the University, on July 25, 1741.
Sermon 2 by John Wesley launches into his discussion of what defines a Christian from the base of Acts 26:28: Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian
The primary metaphor that Wesley uses to unite the discussion is a description of one whom he defines as the ‘almost Christian’. This is a wonderful vehicle for the discussion; as he compares her/him to the ‘altogether Christian,’ it demands that the hearer/reader pay more attention than if Wesley had merely launched into a discourse of faith versus works. Most readers/listeners, I would imagine, at some point during the description of the ‘almost Christian’ would have cause to ask, as Wesley articulates “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian? What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether? ” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 65).
Wesley divided this sermon into two major sections, each of which attempts to answer questions he raises from Acts 26:28:
I. What is implied by being almost a Christian?
II. What is implied by being altogether a Christian?
I. What is implied by being almost a Christian?
Wesley’s description of the ‘almost Christian’ includes three traits, the first of which is ‘heathen honesty’. Immediately one is drawn into his discussion, for one does not necessarily in our contemporary society equate heathens and honesty whereas Wesley describes them as more honest than many people even in the churches these days. Heathen honesty encompasses refraining from the following acts: being unjust, taking from one’s neighbour, oppressing the poor or the rich, defrauding anyone at all and – insofar as possible – owing anyone anything. The common heathen also acknowledges truth and justice and does not think highly of liars. They can also expect love and assistance from each other: they will feed the hungry and clothe the naked and give away all that they don’t need. One may engage in all these elements of ‘heathen honesty’ and still be only ‘almost a Christian’.
The second trait that defines the ‘almost Christian’ is a form of godliness. One displays this by doing nothing that the gospel forbids. Wesley presents a long list of sins that will be avoided including, among the obvious, those which one would not necessarily attribute to the heathen such as refraining from taking the Lord’s name in vain. The heathen ‘almost Christian’, Wesley claims, not only does not profane the day of the Lord but even does not allow strangers to profane it. How many in our churches fail to live up to the heathen standard here by causing others to work on the Lord’s Day as we have lunch at a restaurant after the service? Wesley explains further that the ‘almost Christian’ will refrain from excesses, revelling and gluttony. How many in our own ranks of TSA Officers have the waistline or knowledge of TV shows that can only be gained by being less than the ‘almost Christian’? Wesley does not stop here. He continues in defining the ‘almost Christian’ as one who “whatsoever his hand findeth to do, he doeth it with his might”: one is not slothful. The ‘almost Christian’ also leads people to Christ and encourages them towards holiness and yet is still only ‘almost Christian’. One goes to church and one leads one’s family in prayer and still one is not even achieved ‘almost a Christian’ status (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 66). There is more.
To be ‘almost a Christian’ one still needs a third trait: sincere faith. It is only when one has this “real inward principal of religion, from whence these outward actions flow” that we may indeed obtain the status of ‘almost a Christian.’ Quoting a heathen Epicurean poet: “Good men avoid sin from the love of virtue. Wicked men avoid sin from a fear of punishment.” According to Wesley, one can – on top of all that has already been discussed “have a sincere view of pleasing God in all things” and still only be ‘almost a Christian.’ Wesley then asks the question that most of us, I’m sure, would ask at this point and that is: “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian?” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991,67).
Preached at St. Mary’s Oxford, before the University, on July 25, 1741.
Sermon 2 by John Wesley launches into his discussion of what defines a Christian from the base of Acts 26:28: Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian
The primary metaphor that Wesley uses to unite the discussion is a description of one whom he defines as the ‘almost Christian’. This is a wonderful vehicle for the discussion; as he compares her/him to the ‘altogether Christian,’ it demands that the hearer/reader pay more attention than if Wesley had merely launched into a discourse of faith versus works. Most readers/listeners, I would imagine, at some point during the description of the ‘almost Christian’ would have cause to ask, as Wesley articulates “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian? What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether? ” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 65).
Wesley divided this sermon into two major sections, each of which attempts to answer questions he raises from Acts 26:28:
I. What is implied by being almost a Christian?
II. What is implied by being altogether a Christian?
I. What is implied by being almost a Christian?
Wesley’s description of the ‘almost Christian’ includes three traits, the first of which is ‘heathen honesty’. Immediately one is drawn into his discussion, for one does not necessarily in our contemporary society equate heathens and honesty whereas Wesley describes them as more honest than many people even in the churches these days. Heathen honesty encompasses refraining from the following acts: being unjust, taking from one’s neighbour, oppressing the poor or the rich, defrauding anyone at all and – insofar as possible – owing anyone anything. The common heathen also acknowledges truth and justice and does not think highly of liars. They can also expect love and assistance from each other: they will feed the hungry and clothe the naked and give away all that they don’t need. One may engage in all these elements of ‘heathen honesty’ and still be only ‘almost a Christian’.
The second trait that defines the ‘almost Christian’ is a form of godliness. One displays this by doing nothing that the gospel forbids. Wesley presents a long list of sins that will be avoided including, among the obvious, those which one would not necessarily attribute to the heathen such as refraining from taking the Lord’s name in vain. The heathen ‘almost Christian’, Wesley claims, not only does not profane the day of the Lord but even does not allow strangers to profane it. How many in our churches fail to live up to the heathen standard here by causing others to work on the Lord’s Day as we have lunch at a restaurant after the service? Wesley explains further that the ‘almost Christian’ will refrain from excesses, revelling and gluttony. How many in our own ranks of TSA Officers have the waistline or knowledge of TV shows that can only be gained by being less than the ‘almost Christian’? Wesley does not stop here. He continues in defining the ‘almost Christian’ as one who “whatsoever his hand findeth to do, he doeth it with his might”: one is not slothful. The ‘almost Christian’ also leads people to Christ and encourages them towards holiness and yet is still only ‘almost Christian’. One goes to church and one leads one’s family in prayer and still one is not even achieved ‘almost a Christian’ status (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 66). There is more.
To be ‘almost a Christian’ one still needs a third trait: sincere faith. It is only when one has this “real inward principal of religion, from whence these outward actions flow” that we may indeed obtain the status of ‘almost a Christian.’ Quoting a heathen Epicurean poet: “Good men avoid sin from the love of virtue. Wicked men avoid sin from a fear of punishment.” According to Wesley, one can – on top of all that has already been discussed “have a sincere view of pleasing God in all things” and still only be ‘almost a Christian.’ Wesley then asks the question that most of us, I’m sure, would ask at this point and that is: “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian?” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991,67).
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Prodical Son and the Shrewd (Dishonest) Manager
this parable raises a question…can we just keep sinning and it doesn’t matter?[1]
If we are members of God’s family, his household, can we just squander everything on ‘wild living’ and sin, like the son? After all, the father not only forgave him but also threw a big party in for him. So, why not keep sinning?
And this is a question that Jesus answers right away in this parable[2]: God (the father) in the prodigal story forgives the one that squanders what he is given but God in the manager story does not.Jesus says, (verses 1 and 2), “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of SQUANDERING (NRSV) his possessions. [same] So he called him in and asked him, ‘what is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.' You face sudden death – sudden unemployment.
The prodigal son is forgiven but the wicked manager is fired. Jesus is stopping any thoughts that we can just keep sinning when we work for God right here. If there are any who think that they can go out and waste everything that God has given them Jesus answers them emphatically… No – No – No, He says, give me an account. [a]The manager is working for (the) God (figure) –just like the disciples are and just like we are - and now he is fired and he never saw this coming [c]. Verse 3, he asks: “what shall I do now… I’m not strong enough to dig. I’m too proud to beg.” He’s being fired for squandering what God has given him and he probably didn’t see it coming.
Well, how are we doing with what God has given us? We know, of course, that our jobs, our businesses, farms, car, home, family, and all the gifts and talents that we have really all belong to God and we are just managing them until Jesus returns; so, how have we been doing with that?Are we using them for the Kingdom and God or are we squandering them on ourselves? At anytime, Jesus will come back. At anytime the owner will ask for an account of what we’ve done with his possessions: are we using them for what he wants or are we squandering them on ourselves and on ‘wild living’?
I can think of a time when I was a pre-teen and I was in the living room when my dad was watching some telethon to help the needy kids. He was talking to me about it for a while. Trying to instill the values of helping others – or something like that – and then right when they are asking for money –on purpose – he says, "thanks Mike for all the help you’ve given me working around the yard this summer" ...and he gives me five bucks... while he’s picking up the telephone. He says, "now you can spend this on anything you want"…while he dials…"anything at all…Hello telethon"…and he hands me the phone…immediately, I’m thinking about giving the telethon - $2.50 (or less), but I know what my father is saying that I should do with this money.
Are we doing what our Heavenly Father wants with what He gives us? What are we doing with His money, yes, but also – can you teach? Are you teaching others about Jesus? Are you organised? Are you using administration skills for the Kingdom? Are you are social person? Are you telling people about Jesus and visiting them when they are sick? All of this is included in the first question Jesus is addressing with the parable but he doesn’t stop here.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/luke-161-13-sudden-death-overtime.html
If we are members of God’s family, his household, can we just squander everything on ‘wild living’ and sin, like the son? After all, the father not only forgave him but also threw a big party in for him. So, why not keep sinning?
And this is a question that Jesus answers right away in this parable[2]: God (the father) in the prodigal story forgives the one that squanders what he is given but God in the manager story does not.Jesus says, (verses 1 and 2), “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of SQUANDERING (NRSV) his possessions. [same] So he called him in and asked him, ‘what is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.' You face sudden death – sudden unemployment.
The prodigal son is forgiven but the wicked manager is fired. Jesus is stopping any thoughts that we can just keep sinning when we work for God right here. If there are any who think that they can go out and waste everything that God has given them Jesus answers them emphatically… No – No – No, He says, give me an account. [a]The manager is working for (the) God (figure) –just like the disciples are and just like we are - and now he is fired and he never saw this coming [c]. Verse 3, he asks: “what shall I do now… I’m not strong enough to dig. I’m too proud to beg.” He’s being fired for squandering what God has given him and he probably didn’t see it coming.
Well, how are we doing with what God has given us? We know, of course, that our jobs, our businesses, farms, car, home, family, and all the gifts and talents that we have really all belong to God and we are just managing them until Jesus returns; so, how have we been doing with that?Are we using them for the Kingdom and God or are we squandering them on ourselves? At anytime, Jesus will come back. At anytime the owner will ask for an account of what we’ve done with his possessions: are we using them for what he wants or are we squandering them on ourselves and on ‘wild living’?
I can think of a time when I was a pre-teen and I was in the living room when my dad was watching some telethon to help the needy kids. He was talking to me about it for a while. Trying to instill the values of helping others – or something like that – and then right when they are asking for money –on purpose – he says, "thanks Mike for all the help you’ve given me working around the yard this summer" ...and he gives me five bucks... while he’s picking up the telephone. He says, "now you can spend this on anything you want"…while he dials…"anything at all…Hello telethon"…and he hands me the phone…immediately, I’m thinking about giving the telethon - $2.50 (or less), but I know what my father is saying that I should do with this money.
Are we doing what our Heavenly Father wants with what He gives us? What are we doing with His money, yes, but also – can you teach? Are you teaching others about Jesus? Are you organised? Are you using administration skills for the Kingdom? Are you are social person? Are you telling people about Jesus and visiting them when they are sick? All of this is included in the first question Jesus is addressing with the parable but he doesn’t stop here.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/luke-161-13-sudden-death-overtime.html
Friday, August 08, 2008
Sudden Death: Can we just keep sinning?
Luke 16:1-13 - Sudden Death Overtime
From the sermon presented to the Nipawin and Tisdale Corps on 29 July 2007 by Captain Michael Ramsay
When Rebecca was just born, I used to listen to hockey every Friday night. Friday night was my night to be home with Rebecca and to clean the house and I would listen to the junior hockey games on the radio as I was doing the dishes, etc.
I remember this one game. I caught the 3rd period. The home team just dominated. It was three or even four nothing coming into the last minute of play. These players had worked really hard, just dominated and they started celebrating the winning of the last game of their season - with one minute left to go.
Then the other team scored. Then again; 30 seconds left. Then again; 10 seconds left. It was four nothing less than a minute ago – they were celebrating – now they are up 4-3 with only 5 seconds left and they aren’t so confident – and now there’s a face-off in their own zone. And you know what happens? The away team scores with less than a second left to force sudden-death overtime.
Our team squanders their lead and as a result they face sudden death.
If you’ll turn to Luke chapter 16, you'll notice that the manager mentioned in the parable there also squanders from his position and now he faces sudden death – or sudden unemployment anyway: he is fired.
Jesus tells this parable directly to his disciples right after he tells the story of the prodigal son. Remember, the point of that parable? What happens when the son squanders what (the) God (figure) gives him? He is forgiven. The parable is about God’s forgiveness of the son who squanders everything on wild (NIV) or dissolute (NRSV) living. As we return to God, He will forgive us whatever we have done.
But this parable raises a question…can we just keep sinning and it doesn’t matter? If we are members of God’s family, his household, can we just squander everything on ‘wild living’ and sin, like the son? After all, the father not only forgave him but also threw a big party in for him. So, why not keep sinning?
Can we just keep sinning?
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/luke-161-13-sudden-death-overtime.html
read more sermons: http://www.sheepspeak.com/sheepspeak.htm
From the sermon presented to the Nipawin and Tisdale Corps on 29 July 2007 by Captain Michael Ramsay
When Rebecca was just born, I used to listen to hockey every Friday night. Friday night was my night to be home with Rebecca and to clean the house and I would listen to the junior hockey games on the radio as I was doing the dishes, etc.
I remember this one game. I caught the 3rd period. The home team just dominated. It was three or even four nothing coming into the last minute of play. These players had worked really hard, just dominated and they started celebrating the winning of the last game of their season - with one minute left to go.
Then the other team scored. Then again; 30 seconds left. Then again; 10 seconds left. It was four nothing less than a minute ago – they were celebrating – now they are up 4-3 with only 5 seconds left and they aren’t so confident – and now there’s a face-off in their own zone. And you know what happens? The away team scores with less than a second left to force sudden-death overtime.
Our team squanders their lead and as a result they face sudden death.
If you’ll turn to Luke chapter 16, you'll notice that the manager mentioned in the parable there also squanders from his position and now he faces sudden death – or sudden unemployment anyway: he is fired.
Jesus tells this parable directly to his disciples right after he tells the story of the prodigal son. Remember, the point of that parable? What happens when the son squanders what (the) God (figure) gives him? He is forgiven. The parable is about God’s forgiveness of the son who squanders everything on wild (NIV) or dissolute (NRSV) living. As we return to God, He will forgive us whatever we have done.
But this parable raises a question…can we just keep sinning and it doesn’t matter? If we are members of God’s family, his household, can we just squander everything on ‘wild living’ and sin, like the son? After all, the father not only forgave him but also threw a big party in for him. So, why not keep sinning?
Can we just keep sinning?
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/luke-161-13-sudden-death-overtime.html
read more sermons: http://www.sheepspeak.com/sheepspeak.htm
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Covenant (JAC Aug 2008) Conclusion
Conclusion.
I would like to re-emphasise a couple of things: One, God does not sever the covenantal ties that bind us to (or before) Him. He is faithful to His promises, even if we are faithless (Romans 3:3,4). This is important for us to remember. We should not enter into our covenants lightly. I don’t believe that God says we can simply declare (through the courts or otherwise) that our partner did not live up to the marriage covenant and so we are no longer married (cf. Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:16-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9). I don’t think that God says that simply because we had a drink we can throw out our Soldiership agreement. I don’t think the shackle is cut. I don’t think that God says that just because we decide not to be Officers anymore that we are released from our vow to ‘make soul-saving a primary purpose of our lives.’ I think that this covenant referred to in Genesis 15, Joshua 9, Judges 2, and 1 Samuel 21 points to the fact that God doesn’t break His covenants with us and as a natural result, there are consequences for us if we try to break that chain that binds.[18]
This brings me to my second point of emphasis: covenants are not punishments; the consequences for rebelling against covenants are not punishments; the consequences of rebellion are the natural and logical results of our own actions. As I have already pointed out, the origin of the Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ comes from a root word meaning, ‘to be shackled together.’ The image of a covenant then is one of being shackled to God through a promise. One can compare a covenant with God (be it through marriage, Soldiership, Officership …) to being shackled to a locomotive, with God being the locomotive. When we are chained to the train and ride comfortably on it – following the Lord’s leading - we wind up where He is going a lot faster and a lot easier than if we travel the tracks on our own strength (under our own steam). This is the benefit of a strong covenant with the Lord.
If, however, once we are bound to the Locomotive of the Lord by a covenant, if we try to go our own way or try to shackle ourselves to something going in a different direction, it is not going to be a pleasant experience. The tie doesn’t break. Disobedience to our covenants is like jumping off the train and trying to run in the opposite direction while we are still chained to it. It is going to hurt but this is not God’s fault. He doesn’t throw us from the train and because God is faithful (cf. Rom 3:3,4) this covenantal chain is so strong that it won’t break - therefore what we suffer are the natural results of our own actions. This is what happened in the stories of the Judges (cf. Judges 2). God, wanting the Israelites to experience the full rest of the promise land entered into a covenant with Abraham and then with Israel. They willing shackled themselves to His train but later, however, the Israelites also shackled themselves to the Gibeonite train that was going in a different direction and suffered the natural and logical consequences of their actions. This is exactly what happens to us when we don’t respect our covenants.
There is good news in all this though and this good news is a great strength for covenanted people: no matter how many times we are faithless and jump off that train; no matter how many times we try to break the covenant; no matter how many times we throw ourselves on the tracks, under the wheels of the ‘God Train’, the Lord is faithful. While we are still alive (cf. Romans 7:1,2), there is opportunity to return to the Lord, the covenantal chain will not be broken.
God is faithful, and Jesus himself is standing here as the new chain that binds all of us in our relationship to God. Jesus is the new covenant through whom whosoever may will indeed be pulled back up onto the train as we turn to and rely on the Lord; so then instead of rebelling against God, instead of pulling against the tie that binds, let us all give our lives over fully to the Lord, buckle up, lean back and enjoy the fully sanctified ride on His train because His train is bound for glory.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
I would like to re-emphasise a couple of things: One, God does not sever the covenantal ties that bind us to (or before) Him. He is faithful to His promises, even if we are faithless (Romans 3:3,4). This is important for us to remember. We should not enter into our covenants lightly. I don’t believe that God says we can simply declare (through the courts or otherwise) that our partner did not live up to the marriage covenant and so we are no longer married (cf. Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:16-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9). I don’t think that God says that simply because we had a drink we can throw out our Soldiership agreement. I don’t think the shackle is cut. I don’t think that God says that just because we decide not to be Officers anymore that we are released from our vow to ‘make soul-saving a primary purpose of our lives.’ I think that this covenant referred to in Genesis 15, Joshua 9, Judges 2, and 1 Samuel 21 points to the fact that God doesn’t break His covenants with us and as a natural result, there are consequences for us if we try to break that chain that binds.[18]
This brings me to my second point of emphasis: covenants are not punishments; the consequences for rebelling against covenants are not punishments; the consequences of rebellion are the natural and logical results of our own actions. As I have already pointed out, the origin of the Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ comes from a root word meaning, ‘to be shackled together.’ The image of a covenant then is one of being shackled to God through a promise. One can compare a covenant with God (be it through marriage, Soldiership, Officership …) to being shackled to a locomotive, with God being the locomotive. When we are chained to the train and ride comfortably on it – following the Lord’s leading - we wind up where He is going a lot faster and a lot easier than if we travel the tracks on our own strength (under our own steam). This is the benefit of a strong covenant with the Lord.
If, however, once we are bound to the Locomotive of the Lord by a covenant, if we try to go our own way or try to shackle ourselves to something going in a different direction, it is not going to be a pleasant experience. The tie doesn’t break. Disobedience to our covenants is like jumping off the train and trying to run in the opposite direction while we are still chained to it. It is going to hurt but this is not God’s fault. He doesn’t throw us from the train and because God is faithful (cf. Rom 3:3,4) this covenantal chain is so strong that it won’t break - therefore what we suffer are the natural results of our own actions. This is what happened in the stories of the Judges (cf. Judges 2). God, wanting the Israelites to experience the full rest of the promise land entered into a covenant with Abraham and then with Israel. They willing shackled themselves to His train but later, however, the Israelites also shackled themselves to the Gibeonite train that was going in a different direction and suffered the natural and logical consequences of their actions. This is exactly what happens to us when we don’t respect our covenants.
There is good news in all this though and this good news is a great strength for covenanted people: no matter how many times we are faithless and jump off that train; no matter how many times we try to break the covenant; no matter how many times we throw ourselves on the tracks, under the wheels of the ‘God Train’, the Lord is faithful. While we are still alive (cf. Romans 7:1,2), there is opportunity to return to the Lord, the covenantal chain will not be broken.
God is faithful, and Jesus himself is standing here as the new chain that binds all of us in our relationship to God. Jesus is the new covenant through whom whosoever may will indeed be pulled back up onto the train as we turn to and rely on the Lord; so then instead of rebelling against God, instead of pulling against the tie that binds, let us all give our lives over fully to the Lord, buckle up, lean back and enjoy the fully sanctified ride on His train because His train is bound for glory.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Monday, August 04, 2008
Covenant (JAC Aug 2008) Part V
The Both / And of Covenant.
Israel is understandably held to its original agreement with YHWH. It is understandable that Israel suffers the consequences (Judge 2:2-3; Exodus 34:12-13; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13) for disobeying God by making this competing covenant. What is interesting, however, is that the Israelites are also held accountable to this new covenant with the Gibeonites, which they made before God even though they made it contrary to the expressed command of God (2 Samuel 21; Joshua 9, Exodus 34:12-13; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13). The Israelites disobeyed God in making this second covenant but they are still held accountable to it. God holds them accountable to both covenants: the one that He initiated and the one that He forbade.[17]
In Judges 2, we read of the consequences for breaking the first covenant with God and in 2 Samuel 21 we see the consequences the Israelites suffer for breaking the second, competing covenant with the Gibeonites. God holds us to our promises. Whether we are lied to, tricked, or even enter into a covenant that is against the Lord’s commands, God holds us to our covenants that are made with Him either as a witness or as one of the parties Himself.
2 Samuel 21: 1ff:
During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years [people die]; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.” The king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites [Canaanites]; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them.) David asked the Gibeonites,
“What shall I do for you? How shall I make amends so that you will bless the LORD's inheritance?”
The Gibeonites answered him, “We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death.”
“What do you want me to do for you?” David asked.
They answered the king, “As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord 's chosen one.”
So the king said, “I will give them to you.”
Verses13-15:
David brought the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from there, and the bones of those who had been killed and exposed were gathered up. They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul's father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered prayer in behalf of the land.
Even though the Israelites disobeyed God by entering into this covenant with the Gibeonites - and suffered their due consequences for disobeying the terms of the covenant with God- when they transgressed this new covenant that they made with the Gibeonites - even though it was against the expressed will of God - God did not even answer their prayers until they made it right.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Israel is understandably held to its original agreement with YHWH. It is understandable that Israel suffers the consequences (Judge 2:2-3; Exodus 34:12-13; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13) for disobeying God by making this competing covenant. What is interesting, however, is that the Israelites are also held accountable to this new covenant with the Gibeonites, which they made before God even though they made it contrary to the expressed command of God (2 Samuel 21; Joshua 9, Exodus 34:12-13; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13). The Israelites disobeyed God in making this second covenant but they are still held accountable to it. God holds them accountable to both covenants: the one that He initiated and the one that He forbade.[17]
In Judges 2, we read of the consequences for breaking the first covenant with God and in 2 Samuel 21 we see the consequences the Israelites suffer for breaking the second, competing covenant with the Gibeonites. God holds us to our promises. Whether we are lied to, tricked, or even enter into a covenant that is against the Lord’s commands, God holds us to our covenants that are made with Him either as a witness or as one of the parties Himself.
2 Samuel 21: 1ff:
During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years [people die]; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.” The king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites [Canaanites]; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them.) David asked the Gibeonites,
“What shall I do for you? How shall I make amends so that you will bless the LORD's inheritance?”
The Gibeonites answered him, “We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death.”
“What do you want me to do for you?” David asked.
They answered the king, “As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord 's chosen one.”
So the king said, “I will give them to you.”
Verses13-15:
David brought the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from there, and the bones of those who had been killed and exposed were gathered up. They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul's father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered prayer in behalf of the land.
Even though the Israelites disobeyed God by entering into this covenant with the Gibeonites - and suffered their due consequences for disobeying the terms of the covenant with God- when they transgressed this new covenant that they made with the Gibeonites - even though it was against the expressed will of God - God did not even answer their prayers until they made it right.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Covenant (JAC Aug 2008) Part IV
If we rebel against a covenant we are not released from it for bad behaviour.
Relating to the disobeyed covenant in Judges 2, we learn from Joshua 9 that the Israelites were tricked into making this covenant agreement with the Gibeonites (who are Canaanites). They didn’t realise that in so doing they were defying their previous promise to God. They entered into this new agreement under false pretences. The Gibeonites lied to them but that doesn’t change the fact that Israel is now bound through the covenant her leaders made with the Gibeonites before God (Joshua 9:18; Judges 2:2). The leaders themselves are well aware that they are bound to keep this covenant (Joshua 9:18); when the Israelites find out that they have been tricked, they don’t nullify the agreement: they realise that it is not within their authority (or power) to do so; Israel still does not attack the Gibeonites. They don’t attack the Gibeonites because –even though they have been lied to, even though they have been tricked, even though they have been deceived – they are still bound to God and the Gibeonites via this treaty. Simply disobeying a covenant does not render it void (cf. Judges 2:1; Romans 3:3-4, 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:16-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9).[15] There are consequences for disregarding a promise but because we disobey a promise made before God does not render that covenant void (Romans 3:3,4).[16] God says, through His angel, Judges 2:1: “I will NEVER break my covenant with you.” The covenant with or the covenant before God is not nullified; the ties are not severed, just because one disobeys God.
There is another interesting point about the agreement that Israel enters into here (Joshua 9) that sets the stage for the book of Judges. Israel enters into a covenant with God first (cf. Genesis 15:7-21; Exodus 34:12-13; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13) and this covenant says that He will give them the land and that they will not make a covenant with the Canaanites: they will instead destroy the present inhabitants of the land. Then the Israelites –without consulting God- enter into the second covenant with the Gibeonites (who are Canaanites) promising that they will not destroy them and in the process Joshua and the Israelites disobey the first covenant agreement with God.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Relating to the disobeyed covenant in Judges 2, we learn from Joshua 9 that the Israelites were tricked into making this covenant agreement with the Gibeonites (who are Canaanites). They didn’t realise that in so doing they were defying their previous promise to God. They entered into this new agreement under false pretences. The Gibeonites lied to them but that doesn’t change the fact that Israel is now bound through the covenant her leaders made with the Gibeonites before God (Joshua 9:18; Judges 2:2). The leaders themselves are well aware that they are bound to keep this covenant (Joshua 9:18); when the Israelites find out that they have been tricked, they don’t nullify the agreement: they realise that it is not within their authority (or power) to do so; Israel still does not attack the Gibeonites. They don’t attack the Gibeonites because –even though they have been lied to, even though they have been tricked, even though they have been deceived – they are still bound to God and the Gibeonites via this treaty. Simply disobeying a covenant does not render it void (cf. Judges 2:1; Romans 3:3-4, 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:16-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9).[15] There are consequences for disregarding a promise but because we disobey a promise made before God does not render that covenant void (Romans 3:3,4).[16] God says, through His angel, Judges 2:1: “I will NEVER break my covenant with you.” The covenant with or the covenant before God is not nullified; the ties are not severed, just because one disobeys God.
There is another interesting point about the agreement that Israel enters into here (Joshua 9) that sets the stage for the book of Judges. Israel enters into a covenant with God first (cf. Genesis 15:7-21; Exodus 34:12-13; Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13) and this covenant says that He will give them the land and that they will not make a covenant with the Canaanites: they will instead destroy the present inhabitants of the land. Then the Israelites –without consulting God- enter into the second covenant with the Gibeonites (who are Canaanites) promising that they will not destroy them and in the process Joshua and the Israelites disobey the first covenant agreement with God.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Covenant (JAC Aug 2008) Part III
A contemporary example from the marriage covenant.
This should be easily understandable for us because this same thing still happens in our world today. Think about the children who are raised in broken homes. Think about the children whose parents rebelled against their marriage covenants with each other and before God[12] (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:16-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9: You will note in these references that – even if one ‘goes out on a limb’ in order to argue that you no longer need to live with the one you with whom you are covenanted in marriage – there is still no NT provision made for marrying a second or subsequent spouse while the one you covenanted before God with is still alive.) One is not released from one’s covenants simply by disobedience to them. God takes all our covenants seriously. There are consequences for not walking in a proper covenant.
Some of the consequences for rebelling against the marriage covenant through divorce are immediate and some of the immediate consequences are the struggles of how to raise a child in two separate homes with two separate sets of rules. Some of the immediate consequences are the challenges involved in that fact that whatever the problem was that split up the marriage in the first place was obviously never resolved: mom or dad still moved out. Some of the immediate consequences of disregarded marriage covenants are that children from broken homes are more likely to be ‘latch-key kids’ and less likely to have access to all the material and emotional support that their peers do. Some of the immediate consequences include the possibility that, at best, one may only ever get a good night kiss from one of their single parents.
But there is more than that in our world today; there are consequences for future generations as well. Many people who get divorced once wind up getting divorced twice or even thrice.[13] Children of divorce are more likely to be divorced themselves[14] and perpetuate the devastating cycle that contributes to generations and generations and generations going without the emotional, spiritual, and other support that only comes from strong marriage covenants.
This is sad because there is a great benefit from continuing in a strong covenant relationship but when we stray from it there are often devastating results. As one continues to read through the book of Judges, it becomes obvious that much misery comes as a direct result of the Israelites’ disobedience to their covenant with the Lord. There are consequences for not walking in proper covenants.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
This should be easily understandable for us because this same thing still happens in our world today. Think about the children who are raised in broken homes. Think about the children whose parents rebelled against their marriage covenants with each other and before God[12] (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10-14; Luke 16:16-16; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:32, 19:9: You will note in these references that – even if one ‘goes out on a limb’ in order to argue that you no longer need to live with the one you with whom you are covenanted in marriage – there is still no NT provision made for marrying a second or subsequent spouse while the one you covenanted before God with is still alive.) One is not released from one’s covenants simply by disobedience to them. God takes all our covenants seriously. There are consequences for not walking in a proper covenant.
Some of the consequences for rebelling against the marriage covenant through divorce are immediate and some of the immediate consequences are the struggles of how to raise a child in two separate homes with two separate sets of rules. Some of the immediate consequences are the challenges involved in that fact that whatever the problem was that split up the marriage in the first place was obviously never resolved: mom or dad still moved out. Some of the immediate consequences of disregarded marriage covenants are that children from broken homes are more likely to be ‘latch-key kids’ and less likely to have access to all the material and emotional support that their peers do. Some of the immediate consequences include the possibility that, at best, one may only ever get a good night kiss from one of their single parents.
But there is more than that in our world today; there are consequences for future generations as well. Many people who get divorced once wind up getting divorced twice or even thrice.[13] Children of divorce are more likely to be divorced themselves[14] and perpetuate the devastating cycle that contributes to generations and generations and generations going without the emotional, spiritual, and other support that only comes from strong marriage covenants.
This is sad because there is a great benefit from continuing in a strong covenant relationship but when we stray from it there are often devastating results. As one continues to read through the book of Judges, it becomes obvious that much misery comes as a direct result of the Israelites’ disobedience to their covenant with the Lord. There are consequences for not walking in proper covenants.
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Friday, August 01, 2008
Covenant (JAC Aug 2008) Part II
Covenants are good.
Covenants with and before God are good things. The Lord uses covenants to give us direct access to strength, security, and blessing. The Lord made a promise to Abraham (Genesis 12) that all the nations of the earth with be blessed through him and this promise is ultimately fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Lord made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15) that his descendents would at some point in time occupy the land promised to him. The Lord is faithful to His word. He does not break his covenants.[5] He is bound to us through His covenants.
This is good news and, as we have discussed in JAC before (Issues 52, 40) the most common word for covenant in the Hebrew Bible is berit[h], (mentioned 286 times).[6] Berit[h] in all probability comes from the Akkadian word for ‘to shackle’[7] so the image of a covenant with (or in the presence of) the LORD then is of one actually being bound, shackled to him with a tie that will not be broken, a chain that cannot be severed.[8]
These covenantal ties are strong and trying to break them – like trying to snap out of iron shackles – will be unsuccessful and will naturally result in unpleasant consequences. Judges 2:3: “…you have disobeyed me…. Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them [the Canaanites] out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.” It is important for us to remember that there are consequences that result from rebelling against our covenants.
The episode around this covenant referred to in Judges 2 is particularly interesting. It relates to the covenant of Genesis 15 and it refers also to the covenant experience of Joshua 9.[9] God commanded Israel not to make a covenant with the Canaanites (Cf. Deut 7:1-6; 20:16-18);[10] God told the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites.[11] (This was after the people of Canaan had graciously been given 400 years and still did not repent of their own sins, cf. Gen 15:16.)
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Covenants with and before God are good things. The Lord uses covenants to give us direct access to strength, security, and blessing. The Lord made a promise to Abraham (Genesis 12) that all the nations of the earth with be blessed through him and this promise is ultimately fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Lord made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15) that his descendents would at some point in time occupy the land promised to him. The Lord is faithful to His word. He does not break his covenants.[5] He is bound to us through His covenants.
This is good news and, as we have discussed in JAC before (Issues 52, 40) the most common word for covenant in the Hebrew Bible is berit[h], (mentioned 286 times).[6] Berit[h] in all probability comes from the Akkadian word for ‘to shackle’[7] so the image of a covenant with (or in the presence of) the LORD then is of one actually being bound, shackled to him with a tie that will not be broken, a chain that cannot be severed.[8]
These covenantal ties are strong and trying to break them – like trying to snap out of iron shackles – will be unsuccessful and will naturally result in unpleasant consequences. Judges 2:3: “…you have disobeyed me…. Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them [the Canaanites] out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.” It is important for us to remember that there are consequences that result from rebelling against our covenants.
The episode around this covenant referred to in Judges 2 is particularly interesting. It relates to the covenant of Genesis 15 and it refers also to the covenant experience of Joshua 9.[9] God commanded Israel not to make a covenant with the Canaanites (Cf. Deut 7:1-6; 20:16-18);[10] God told the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites.[11] (This was after the people of Canaan had graciously been given 400 years and still did not repent of their own sins, cf. Gen 15:16.)
---
read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html
read the latest issue of JAC: http://www.armybarmy.com/jac.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
