Presented to each the Nipawin and Tisdale Corps 12 October 2008
by Captain Michael Ramsay
Hurricane Ike struck Galveston TX a few weeks ago. More than 1 million people were evacuated from Texas and to date more than 72 people have been found dead as a result of Hurricane Ike. Bodies were still being found when I left a couple of days ago.
Homes are destroyed. Businesses are destroyed. The sewers, the water, and the phones are still not working. People are housed in shelters both on and away from Galveston Island. Many still have no place to go. Power is still out in some of the parts where we were posted. The power outage means that even for families that did not lose their stoves and refrigerators – and most did; there were many refrigerators destroyed and lying on the side of the road for pick up – they were unable to keep or cook any food. They don’t have food and they don’t have water.
Food and water: this is a big part of The Salvation Army mission down there. We have around 30 food trucks (called canteens) from which we help to serve around 75 000 hot meals every day and give the people water and ice. Ice is very important. It was around 90 degrees during our time there. And the food: many people told me that without The Salvation Army they wouldn’t have eaten at all. They wouldn’t have survived. We thank the Lord for the service that the volunteers are providing to God and this community. We pray for them that as they continue to serve down there, the Lord will continue to bless greatly the volunteers and the populace alike.
2 Corinthians 9:12-15: This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/10/2-corinthians-912-15-thanks-be-to-god.html
---
www.sheepspeak.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Open Letter to Parliament on Bill C-301
PROJECT PLOUGHSHARES
57 Erb Street West
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 6C2
Canada
519-888-6541
Fax: 519-888-0018
plough@ploughshares.ca
http://www.ploughshares.ca/
The proposed changes also would undermine Canadian commitment to the UN PoA, which calls for measures at the national level including, in Paragraph II.9, an undertaking by States “to ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction” (emphasis added). The erosion of Canada’s domestic firearms standards would weaken the impact of Canada’s calls for improved national standards elsewhere.
The gun registry is a tool to monitor gun ownership, not punish gun ownership. It enables police to take preventative actions and remove firearms where there is a risk. It assists police investigations and reduces the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets. (Most illegal guns start out as legal guns.) In a 9 March 2009 letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police states its opposition to Bill C-301 in its current form. It takes the position that all gun owners need to be licensed, all guns need to be registered, and gun owners need to be accountable for their firearms.
We urge you and the elected members of your parties to consider these concerns when amending or voting on Bill C-301.
Sincerely,
John Siebert
Executive Director
PROJECT PLOUGHSHARES
on-line at http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Statements/BillC301LetterMar09.pdf
---
about project ploughshares:
When Canadian churches formed Project Ploughshares in 1976 they realized that biblically and theologically based responses to contemporary peace and conflict issues needed to be supported and informed by in-depth research and analysis of those very issues.
As an agency of the Canadian Council of Churches, Project Ploughshares provides expertise and analysis to the Council and its members on peace and security issues, and assists them in shaping an ecumenical response to those issues.
read more: http://www.ploughshares.ca/what/index.html
57 Erb Street West
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 6C2
Canada
519-888-6541
Fax: 519-888-0018
plough@ploughshares.ca
http://www.ploughshares.ca/
The proposed changes also would undermine Canadian commitment to the UN PoA, which calls for measures at the national level including, in Paragraph II.9, an undertaking by States “to ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction” (emphasis added). The erosion of Canada’s domestic firearms standards would weaken the impact of Canada’s calls for improved national standards elsewhere.
The gun registry is a tool to monitor gun ownership, not punish gun ownership. It enables police to take preventative actions and remove firearms where there is a risk. It assists police investigations and reduces the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets. (Most illegal guns start out as legal guns.) In a 9 March 2009 letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police states its opposition to Bill C-301 in its current form. It takes the position that all gun owners need to be licensed, all guns need to be registered, and gun owners need to be accountable for their firearms.
We urge you and the elected members of your parties to consider these concerns when amending or voting on Bill C-301.
Sincerely,
John Siebert
Executive Director
PROJECT PLOUGHSHARES
on-line at http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Statements/BillC301LetterMar09.pdf
---
about project ploughshares:
When Canadian churches formed Project Ploughshares in 1976 they realized that biblically and theologically based responses to contemporary peace and conflict issues needed to be supported and informed by in-depth research and analysis of those very issues.
As an agency of the Canadian Council of Churches, Project Ploughshares provides expertise and analysis to the Council and its members on peace and security issues, and assists them in shaping an ecumenical response to those issues.
read more: http://www.ploughshares.ca/what/index.html
Monday, March 30, 2009
Romans 2:1-16 (Pt. ii)
(This is Part 2; read the previous entry first: Romans 1: 18-32)
This next section is interesting. Paul claims in verse one that no one, whoever you are, has any excuse (cf. 1:18) to condemn others, for you, whoever you are, are doing the very same things. You, whoever you are, are committing the evil acts that come from worshiping the created over the creator and are worthy of the judgement of God.
It is worth examining here the ‘whoever you are’ from verse one. Until this point in the letter Paul has been using the third person plural pronoun (‘they’ in English) to refer to people whose actions he is discussing. He here describes people using the second person singular, ‘you’. This is not to say that he is referring to the recipients of the letter, as that would necessitate a plural form of the word. Rather, “Paul utilizes here…a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or an opponent.”[10] So who is this ‘you’ that is being addressed? It is probably not a specific person but rather an imaginary one who personifies many arguments that Paul may have previously refuted on this topic. This ‘you’ may be representative of a condemning Jew to contrast with the wicked Gentile ‘they,’[11] in which case it would say here that the Jew will judged as well as the Gentile. By ‘you’ however, Paul may have also meant the Gentiles who deplore the aforementioned evil actions.[12] Either way, this is a significant change of language and it espouses judgement upon the judge and condemnation upon the self-righteous moralizer.[13] You, whoever you are, are not immune to this human condition of being guilty of rebellion against God.
Verses 3-5, through a series of rhetorical questions, point to the hypocrisy of claiming one thing and yet doing another: “Do you imagine…that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (2:3-5).” Even in this judgement, grace can be seen. For while these actions by the truth-deniers lead to death, God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance for God “will repay according to each one’s deeds (v.6).” The human condition of the truth-deniers is that they are more than creation worshipers (cf. v.25); they are self-seeking (cf. Gen 3:6) in their wrath-provoking disobedience of truth (cf. 1:18) and therefore every bit as guilty as they who were mentioned in Chapter One.
Verse 9 mentions ‘the Jew’ explicitly for the first time in Romans. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] They will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged. This is the human condition: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1).”
It is not those who hear the law – for they may be truth-deniers or rejecters – but it is those who obey the law that are justified (v.13). Verses 14-15 are an expression of a central part of Paul’s expressed concept of the human condition. Even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but it is also an acknowledgement of the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth. They are now blessed as even the Gentiles ‘have the law written on their hearts.’
All of this then is the human condition according to Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. Those who deny the abundant evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:19-20) are rightly exposed to the wrath of God (1:18, 2:8), which results in being given over to their unnatural desires to act upon a debased mind. As a consequence of this sin, this rebellion, that they commit, they are condemned and deserve to die. Neither moralizing nor the Torah can save anyone. Christ, however, has ushered in the new covenant (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hebrews 8, 9, 12:24); therefore, repentance (2:4), blessing (Gen 12:3), justification (2:13), and righteousness (2:13) await those ‘doers of the law’ which is now written on their hearts. In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
---
www.sheepspeak.com
This next section is interesting. Paul claims in verse one that no one, whoever you are, has any excuse (cf. 1:18) to condemn others, for you, whoever you are, are doing the very same things. You, whoever you are, are committing the evil acts that come from worshiping the created over the creator and are worthy of the judgement of God.
It is worth examining here the ‘whoever you are’ from verse one. Until this point in the letter Paul has been using the third person plural pronoun (‘they’ in English) to refer to people whose actions he is discussing. He here describes people using the second person singular, ‘you’. This is not to say that he is referring to the recipients of the letter, as that would necessitate a plural form of the word. Rather, “Paul utilizes here…a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or an opponent.”[10] So who is this ‘you’ that is being addressed? It is probably not a specific person but rather an imaginary one who personifies many arguments that Paul may have previously refuted on this topic. This ‘you’ may be representative of a condemning Jew to contrast with the wicked Gentile ‘they,’[11] in which case it would say here that the Jew will judged as well as the Gentile. By ‘you’ however, Paul may have also meant the Gentiles who deplore the aforementioned evil actions.[12] Either way, this is a significant change of language and it espouses judgement upon the judge and condemnation upon the self-righteous moralizer.[13] You, whoever you are, are not immune to this human condition of being guilty of rebellion against God.
Verses 3-5, through a series of rhetorical questions, point to the hypocrisy of claiming one thing and yet doing another: “Do you imagine…that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (2:3-5).” Even in this judgement, grace can be seen. For while these actions by the truth-deniers lead to death, God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance for God “will repay according to each one’s deeds (v.6).” The human condition of the truth-deniers is that they are more than creation worshipers (cf. v.25); they are self-seeking (cf. Gen 3:6) in their wrath-provoking disobedience of truth (cf. 1:18) and therefore every bit as guilty as they who were mentioned in Chapter One.
Verse 9 mentions ‘the Jew’ explicitly for the first time in Romans. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] They will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged. This is the human condition: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1).”
It is not those who hear the law – for they may be truth-deniers or rejecters – but it is those who obey the law that are justified (v.13). Verses 14-15 are an expression of a central part of Paul’s expressed concept of the human condition. Even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but it is also an acknowledgement of the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth. They are now blessed as even the Gentiles ‘have the law written on their hearts.’
All of this then is the human condition according to Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. Those who deny the abundant evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:19-20) are rightly exposed to the wrath of God (1:18, 2:8), which results in being given over to their unnatural desires to act upon a debased mind. As a consequence of this sin, this rebellion, that they commit, they are condemned and deserve to die. Neither moralizing nor the Torah can save anyone. Christ, however, has ushered in the new covenant (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hebrews 8, 9, 12:24); therefore, repentance (2:4), blessing (Gen 12:3), justification (2:13), and righteousness (2:13) await those ‘doers of the law’ which is now written on their hearts. In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
---
www.sheepspeak.com
Romans 1: 18-32
The section begins with Paul acknowledging the human condition of those who “by their wickedness [asebeia] suppress the truth (1:18).” This is significant. Their condition is stated as receiving the wrath of God for good reason: Paul points out that the truth they are suppressing must be plain to them for God, himself, has shown it to them (1:19) through the evidence of His creation. Ever since the beginning of the world, God’s power and nature have been understood (v.20).
Though this truth was revealed to them, they neither honoured God nor gave Him the thanks He deserves; rather ‘claiming to be wise they became fools’ in that they abandoned the glory of the creator so that they might worship the image of the created (cf. Psalm 106:20). It is because they, without any good excuse, disregarded the truth and followed this lie that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v.24).” The human condition here is, by way of denying the obvious truth, one of rebellion against God.
Much could be written on the lists included in vv.26-31. What is significant for our purposes here is that God gave the truth-deniers up to their “unnatural” (para physin) passions (v.26): they had intercourse with people of the same gender and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (v.27).”[8] Further, “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (v.28):” they were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing evil, rebellion against parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness (vv.29-31; cf. 2 Tim 3:2,3). This is the general human condition of the truth-deniers while acknowledging that “sinful man is capable of committing all of them [these sins], but not every individual is necessarily guilty of every one.”[9] These truth-deniers, Paul asserts, are aware that they deserve to die for participating in these things and that they not only partake of these actions but also encourage others to indulge in the very same acts. The result, then, of disregarding the truth about the divine nature and eternal power of God is to be given over to these unnatural desires and to act upon a debased mind; this is the human condition and for this they deserve to die.
read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com/NT_Michael_Ramsay.htm#Paul%20and%20the%20Human%20Condition
---
www.sheepspeak.com
Though this truth was revealed to them, they neither honoured God nor gave Him the thanks He deserves; rather ‘claiming to be wise they became fools’ in that they abandoned the glory of the creator so that they might worship the image of the created (cf. Psalm 106:20). It is because they, without any good excuse, disregarded the truth and followed this lie that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v.24).” The human condition here is, by way of denying the obvious truth, one of rebellion against God.
Much could be written on the lists included in vv.26-31. What is significant for our purposes here is that God gave the truth-deniers up to their “unnatural” (para physin) passions (v.26): they had intercourse with people of the same gender and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (v.27).”[8] Further, “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (v.28):” they were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing evil, rebellion against parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness (vv.29-31; cf. 2 Tim 3:2,3). This is the general human condition of the truth-deniers while acknowledging that “sinful man is capable of committing all of them [these sins], but not every individual is necessarily guilty of every one.”[9] These truth-deniers, Paul asserts, are aware that they deserve to die for participating in these things and that they not only partake of these actions but also encourage others to indulge in the very same acts. The result, then, of disregarding the truth about the divine nature and eternal power of God is to be given over to these unnatural desires and to act upon a debased mind; this is the human condition and for this they deserve to die.
read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com/NT_Michael_Ramsay.htm#Paul%20and%20the%20Human%20Condition
---
www.sheepspeak.com
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Acts 10&11: Chocolate Cake - Devotional Thought
This devotional thought was presented to the Nipawin Leadership Team and Tisdale Corps Council meetings on the week of September 2nd.We have all had the opportunity to read through the book of Acts together these past couple of weeks. I just wanted to open up today by sharing some devotional thoughts on Acts chapters 10 and 11 for us.
.
Do you remember the story of Peter and the Cornelius? Here is Peter, not only a good synagogue-going person but also a devout follower of Jesus and one day he has a dream. It is a most peculiar dream. One day he dreams of all these foods that he is not supposed to eat - now I am not talking about chocolate or cake or things that were bad for his diet - but I am talking about things that, in his day, good people who followed God wouldn't touch because well, they were just that; they were good, God-following people.
.
So Peter has this dream and in his dream the Lord's voice from heaven has asked him to eat this stuff three times. Now Peter isn't stupid and he not too long ago had just been caught denying Jesus three times before the rooster crows (Matt. 26:15, Mark 14:72, Luke 22:61), if you remember, and he is not going to race into any rash decisions here about this kind of thing; he shows the Lord that he is faithful to his Jewish covenant and declines the invitation three times.
.
This is not what is wanted here though and this is not what the dream, it turns out, is about at all.
.
This passage not about dietary laws and what foods a good follower of Jesus will or will not eat and Peter should actually know this because he was there when Jesus fulfilled/abolished the dietary laws (Mark 7:19) by declaring all foods clean. Peter knows that what the Lord's voice is saying here is true that he should 'not call anything impure that God has made' he knows that. This is not here a new piece of information. But there is something else here.
.
What Peter and the resurrected Jesus are talking about here is something much more profound than diets. They are discussing the salvation and role of the Gentiles. You see the Jews had not thought to this point that the Gentiles, as they were, could be saved. They knew always that salvation was possible for them; Judaism always had proselytes. There were always people converting to Judaism but here in Cornelius' household, we have God-fearing people who are not like the regular synagogue-goers.
.
You see with every other Gentile to this point who converted/repented/changed, they all started to dress like the Jews, pray like the Jews, talk like the Jews, eat like the Jews and the men were even circumcised like the Jews - they joined the religion on Judaism's terms.
.
But now, however, there are people who do not eat like them, do not look like them, do not act like them and who are already in a relationship with God. How can that be? They don't dress like the Jews, pray like the Jews, talk like the Jews, eat like the Jews, and the men aren't circumcised like the Jews and yet they have already received the gifts of repentance and the Holy Spirit.
.
My question that I am going to leave us with - that we're not going to answer today is - who are these 'Gentiles' in our society that don't dress like us, pray like us, talk like us, eat like us, and otherwise act like us and how do we ensure that we are following God's Spirit in extending His mission to them like Peter did after his dream?
.
.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
As Christians, do we have a responsibility to take care of the poor?
Nipawin Journal
January 2008
Little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honour your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbour as yourself.'"
"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:13-26).
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matthew 6:19-21).”
Canada is one of the richest nations on earth; one in six Canadian children live in poverty. Do I have a responsibility to share my wealth with those who are poor? Yes.
January 2008
Little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honour your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbour as yourself.'"
"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:13-26).
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matthew 6:19-21).”
Canada is one of the richest nations on earth; one in six Canadian children live in poverty. Do I have a responsibility to share my wealth with those who are poor? Yes.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Balaam blessing...
Three times Balak comes before the LORD not wanting salvation for his enemies but wanting them to be cursed. Three times, the Lord tells Balak that He will instead save his enemies. Now as Balak is standing in the way of their salvation, Balak finds himself cursed (Numbers 24:17).
Are there times when we stand in the way of the salvation of our enemies (Cf. Matt 5:44, Luke 6:37; cf. Romans 5:10-11, Colossians 1:21-24) and in the process risk calling down a curse upon ourselves? Do we ever say that we couldn’t possibly speak to THOSE people? I have mentioned here before that there were churches in this very community that were not open to smokers, for one example. There are congregations where single mothers did not feel welcome. There are even congregations in this town who have even been called racist. Do we ever -like Balak- call curses upon those whom God has already blessed? Do we ever seek punishments for our enemies? Do we ever call curses upon those for whom God has a plan of salvation? Do we ever refuse to forgive our Christian brothers and sisters and thus risk sacrificing God’s forgiveness for us (Cf. Matt. 6:12-14, 18:15-35, Mark 11:25, Luke 6:37, 11:4, 17:1-3)?
Romans 5:10: “For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” All of us before we are saved are God’s enemies. And those who stand in the way of God’s plan for salvation –like Balak- are still his enemies. Do we ever do this? Do we ever stop people from coming to church? Do we ever make it so people don't want to come to Jesus? Do we ever stand at the top of the proverbial mountain and call curses down on people that we don't like or that we are afraid of? Do we ever stand in the way of other people’s salvation? This was Balak's sin; he was interfering with the Israelites' salvation and actually asking God to curse people that He has already blessed.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/03/numbers-22-24-balaam-blessing.html
Are there times when we stand in the way of the salvation of our enemies (Cf. Matt 5:44, Luke 6:37; cf. Romans 5:10-11, Colossians 1:21-24) and in the process risk calling down a curse upon ourselves? Do we ever say that we couldn’t possibly speak to THOSE people? I have mentioned here before that there were churches in this very community that were not open to smokers, for one example. There are congregations where single mothers did not feel welcome. There are even congregations in this town who have even been called racist. Do we ever -like Balak- call curses upon those whom God has already blessed? Do we ever seek punishments for our enemies? Do we ever call curses upon those for whom God has a plan of salvation? Do we ever refuse to forgive our Christian brothers and sisters and thus risk sacrificing God’s forgiveness for us (Cf. Matt. 6:12-14, 18:15-35, Mark 11:25, Luke 6:37, 11:4, 17:1-3)?
Romans 5:10: “For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” All of us before we are saved are God’s enemies. And those who stand in the way of God’s plan for salvation –like Balak- are still his enemies. Do we ever do this? Do we ever stop people from coming to church? Do we ever make it so people don't want to come to Jesus? Do we ever stand at the top of the proverbial mountain and call curses down on people that we don't like or that we are afraid of? Do we ever stand in the way of other people’s salvation? This was Balak's sin; he was interfering with the Israelites' salvation and actually asking God to curse people that He has already blessed.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/03/numbers-22-24-balaam-blessing.html
Monday, March 23, 2009
Acts 23 and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
There’s a children’s book by Judith Viorst entitled “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day”[1] Have you ever had one of those days, where it doesn’t matter what you do you just seem to get in trouble? I remember grade 2.Now grade two admittedly was not my finest hour. It seemed that I was a permanent member of the detention club. And I remember one day, I just couldn’t win for losing. It was my birthday and many of the grade twos were coming to my party after school so we were told, ‘no dawdling’. We had to be home right after school.
Well, Mrs Leung gave me a detention – and it wasn’t even my fault! You see, Clinton had been chewing gum in school. Now, I hate gum. He gets in trouble for it and he tells Mrs. Leung that he isn’t actually chewing GUM; he is chewing his cheek. She believed him! I thought it was a strange thing to do - chew your cheek so, like any curious 8 year-old, I have to try it and, of course, … And Mrs. Leung catches me and says “Michael no chewing gum” and I say, “I’m not – I’m chewing my cheek” (which I was) and do you think she believes me NOOOO! So I have a detention after school on my birthday and it wasn’t even my fault!
Now, it is my birthday so Mrs. Leung has pity on me and lets me get out at the regular time and this would be fine except two friends of mine in the class – Wade and Clinton – go and get detentions and Mrs. Leung isn’t going to let them go. So sure I get out at the normal time but we all have to wait anyway.
Well, so there we are waiting just INSIDE the exterior door for Wade and Clinton – and now apparently there is a rule that you are not supposed to wait INSIDE the school for anyone – you have to wait OUTSIDE. So guess what? Wade and Clinton finish serving their time and are on their way out of detention hall only to find out that the rest of us our now on our way into detention…so much for getting home on time for my birthday party! But that is not the end of the story either!
You see Wade and Clinton are waiting for the rest of us and guess what? They decide to wait for us INSIDE the school – so guess what…we all wind up spending the first part of my Birthday in detention hallWell, more than ½ an hour later we all show up for my party…it was just like the children’s book says, “a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.”
In Acts, today, up to and including Chapter 23, you will notice that Paul has been having a little bit of a run like that himself...
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/acts-23-1-11-punch-in-mouth-or-terrible.html
---
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Covenant: The Example of Samson
COVENANTS are very important to the Lord. In his Officer article 'Till I Die' (November December 2008), Captain Stephen Court made a very important point about our soldier's covenant when he pointed out that it does not come with an expiry date. This is significant....
Read more from the Officer Magazine:
www.sheepspeak.com/RamsayonCovenantSamson.pdf
Michael's previous article on covenant from the Officer Magazine:
http://renewnetwork.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html#1640474474468394257
Read more from the Officer Magazine:
www.sheepspeak.com/RamsayonCovenantSamson.pdf
Michael's previous article on covenant from the Officer Magazine:
http://renewnetwork.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html#1640474474468394257
Captain Stephen Court on Covenant...
Covenant: Where do we go from here?
COVENANT is the much-overlooked key to effective soldiership. Once called the 'Soldier's Pledge', the articles of war are now known as 'A Soldier's Covenant' yet many Salvationists don't understand the profundity and potential of this rich biblical truth...
read more (page 1): www.sheepspeak.com/Court1of2.pdf
page 2: www.sheepspeak.com/Court2of2.pdf
from the previous issue: 'Till I die'
- an important and inspiring article:'AND I do here and now call upon all present to witness that I have entered into this undertaking and sign these articles of war of my own free will, feeling that the love of Christ, who died to save me! requires from me this devotion of my life to his service for the salvation of the whole world, and therefore do here declare my full determination, by God's help, to be a true soldier of The Salvation Army till I die'...
read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com/SC_Covenant.pdf
---
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COVENANT is the much-overlooked key to effective soldiership. Once called the 'Soldier's Pledge', the articles of war are now known as 'A Soldier's Covenant' yet many Salvationists don't understand the profundity and potential of this rich biblical truth...
read more (page 1): www.sheepspeak.com/Court1of2.pdf
page 2: www.sheepspeak.com/Court2of2.pdf
from the previous issue: 'Till I die'
- an important and inspiring article:'AND I do here and now call upon all present to witness that I have entered into this undertaking and sign these articles of war of my own free will, feeling that the love of Christ, who died to save me! requires from me this devotion of my life to his service for the salvation of the whole world, and therefore do here declare my full determination, by God's help, to be a true soldier of The Salvation Army till I die'...
read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com/SC_Covenant.pdf
---
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Christians unite to deter Olympics sex traffickers
By Frank Stirk AS Christians prepare to welcome the athletes and spectators who will be coming to Vancouver and Whistler from across the globe to attend the 2010 Winter Olympics next February, there is one group of potential visitors that they will be working just as hard to keep out: those who sell children and women for sex.
Major Brian Venables, the Salvation Army's divisional secretary for public relations and development, calls the prospect of a significant upsurge in prostitution "an underbelly to Vancouver being on the world stage." He adds: "The number of prostitutes doubles when the world comes to your community, and we want to make sure that doesn't happen here."
read more from Canadian Christianity.com: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/090319unite.html
Farewell to the Rapture!
N.T. Wright, Bible Review, August 2001.
Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.
The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.
This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?
It is Paul who should be credited with creating this scenario. Jesus himself, as I have argued in various books, never predicted such an event[2]. The gospel passages about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Mark 13:26, 14:62, for example) are about Jesus’ vindication, his “coming” to heaven from earth. The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11-27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever.
The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines[3], and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether.
The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).
Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.
First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.
Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.
Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.
Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.
Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it? And how can we do so, as he did, in such a way as to subvert the political imagery of the dominant and dehumanizing empires of our world? We might begin by asking, What view of the world is sustained, even legitimized, by the Left Behind ideology? How might it be confronted and subverted by genuinely biblical thinking? For a start, is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon? Wouldn’t this be overturned if we recaptured Paul’s wholistic vision of God’s whole creation?
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm
---
[1] Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind (Cambridge, UK: Tyndale House Publishing, 1996). Eight other titles have followed, all runaway bestsellers.
[2] See my Jesus and the Victory of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996); the discussions in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999); and Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), chapters 13 and 14.
[3] Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.
The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.
This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?
It is Paul who should be credited with creating this scenario. Jesus himself, as I have argued in various books, never predicted such an event[2]. The gospel passages about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Mark 13:26, 14:62, for example) are about Jesus’ vindication, his “coming” to heaven from earth. The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11-27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever.
The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines[3], and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether.
The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).
Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.
First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.
Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.
Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.
Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.
Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it? And how can we do so, as he did, in such a way as to subvert the political imagery of the dominant and dehumanizing empires of our world? We might begin by asking, What view of the world is sustained, even legitimized, by the Left Behind ideology? How might it be confronted and subverted by genuinely biblical thinking? For a start, is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon? Wouldn’t this be overturned if we recaptured Paul’s wholistic vision of God’s whole creation?
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm
---
[1] Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind (Cambridge, UK: Tyndale House Publishing, 1996). Eight other titles have followed, all runaway bestsellers.
[2] See my Jesus and the Victory of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996); the discussions in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999); and Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), chapters 13 and 14.
[3] Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
March and the race for the play-offs...
HOME: http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Join us as we read through the Bible in a year.
2 Samuel 21-23 and 1 Thessalonians 1
(May 12th readings)
The Patron Saint of Hockey...
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Join us as we read through the Bible in a year.
2 Samuel 21-23 and 1 Thessalonians 1
(May 12th readings)
The Patron Saint of Hockey...
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Sparkle of Hope in Vancouver
March 16, 2009
In addition to raising awareness, The Salvation Army ministers to the victims of human trafficking
The Salvation Army, in partnership with Medicine Centre Pharmacies in Vancouver, B.C., is hoping to raise awareness of and fundraise to help the victims of human trafficking. It is selling a Sparkle of Hope pin. The pin is a glittering crown, representing the dignity and freedom all people deserve.
A number of programs are designed to meet the needs of women living in Vancouver’s downtown east side...
read more from www.Salvationist.ca: http://salvationist.ca/2009/03/a-sparkle-of-hope-in-vancouver/
In addition to raising awareness, The Salvation Army ministers to the victims of human trafficking
The Salvation Army, in partnership with Medicine Centre Pharmacies in Vancouver, B.C., is hoping to raise awareness of and fundraise to help the victims of human trafficking. It is selling a Sparkle of Hope pin. The pin is a glittering crown, representing the dignity and freedom all people deserve.
A number of programs are designed to meet the needs of women living in Vancouver’s downtown east side...
read more from www.Salvationist.ca: http://salvationist.ca/2009/03/a-sparkle-of-hope-in-vancouver/
Monday, March 16, 2009
Covenant, Car Insurance and Seatbelts (2)
Our covenants in this way are like seatbelts. When the car crashes, we don’t take off our seatbelt and say that we are never going to wear it again. No, this is when we praise the Lord for it more than ever before.
It is like last spring when my daughters and I were coming home from Tisdale. We were driving that highway like we did a couple of times every week when all of a sudden we hit black ice, we swerved into on-coming traffic and then off our side of the road where the car proceeded to flip: it rolled over a time and a half.
In my accident the seatbelts did not break and this is like our covenants before the Lord. Even though the car was totalled, the seatbelts held. This is important. Like sometimes an alcoholic makes a mistake and has a drink; like a husband sometimes does not operate perfectly as a loving husband; like at times we might sin before the Lord and like there are times when our lives just come crashing down all around us; when my car rolled over, there was that moment of panic as I looked back to see if my daughters were all right. To my relief they were safe and sound – even though we were all dangling upside down after the accident – they were all right because the LORD protected them through our seatbelts that did not break. We are safe and sound and soon restored to our normal life because of the Lord and our seatbelts.
Likewise, for all of us when our lives come crashing down around us, we will be safe and sound as long as we rely on the strength of our holy seatbelt -our covenant with the Lord- because the Lord will not let His covenant with us break no matter what happens to the automobile of our life. So then, let us enjoy the security of this holy seatbelt and, like the ancient Nazirite, through our covenants, let us rely fully on His strength rather than our own so that we may indeed be holy unto the LORD even as the LORD our God is holy.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/03/numbers-6-1-21-nazirites-ot.html
It is like last spring when my daughters and I were coming home from Tisdale. We were driving that highway like we did a couple of times every week when all of a sudden we hit black ice, we swerved into on-coming traffic and then off our side of the road where the car proceeded to flip: it rolled over a time and a half.
In my accident the seatbelts did not break and this is like our covenants before the Lord. Even though the car was totalled, the seatbelts held. This is important. Like sometimes an alcoholic makes a mistake and has a drink; like a husband sometimes does not operate perfectly as a loving husband; like at times we might sin before the Lord and like there are times when our lives just come crashing down all around us; when my car rolled over, there was that moment of panic as I looked back to see if my daughters were all right. To my relief they were safe and sound – even though we were all dangling upside down after the accident – they were all right because the LORD protected them through our seatbelts that did not break. We are safe and sound and soon restored to our normal life because of the Lord and our seatbelts.
Likewise, for all of us when our lives come crashing down around us, we will be safe and sound as long as we rely on the strength of our holy seatbelt -our covenant with the Lord- because the Lord will not let His covenant with us break no matter what happens to the automobile of our life. So then, let us enjoy the security of this holy seatbelt and, like the ancient Nazirite, through our covenants, let us rely fully on His strength rather than our own so that we may indeed be holy unto the LORD even as the LORD our God is holy.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/03/numbers-6-1-21-nazirites-ot.html
Covenant, Car insurance and seatbelts (1)
This is one of the very important aspects of covenants that we enter into with and before the LORD. When we disobey the covenant – there are consequences – but He is still there for us. Until the successful completion of our covenant, if it has an expiry date, or until our death (Romans 7:1-3), if it does not, our covenants remain to bind us to the Lord.
Our covenants in this way are like car insurance.
It is like last spring when my daughters and I were coming home from Tisdale. We were driving that highway like we did a couple of times every week when all of a sudden we hit black ice, we swerved into on-coming traffic and then off our side of the road where the car proceeded to flip: it rolled over a time and a half. We did not see the accident coming and therefore could do nothing to prepare for it anymore than a Nazirite could prepare for someone suddenly dying in his presence. Even though the experts admitted that there was nothing we could do to avoid the accident, I guarantee you that SGI (the insurance company) declared that it was our fault. This is the same with the Nazirite. YHWH Insurance, so to speak, declares that they are at fault and requires payment. In this case the payment is their hair and as far as their clean driving record is concerned, they have to start over again – but the insurance isn’t cancelled.
Similarly when the Soldier runs into troubles her covenant isn’t cancelled; it remains in place to protect her.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/03/numbers-6-1-21-nazirites-ot.html
Our covenants in this way are like car insurance.
It is like last spring when my daughters and I were coming home from Tisdale. We were driving that highway like we did a couple of times every week when all of a sudden we hit black ice, we swerved into on-coming traffic and then off our side of the road where the car proceeded to flip: it rolled over a time and a half. We did not see the accident coming and therefore could do nothing to prepare for it anymore than a Nazirite could prepare for someone suddenly dying in his presence. Even though the experts admitted that there was nothing we could do to avoid the accident, I guarantee you that SGI (the insurance company) declared that it was our fault. This is the same with the Nazirite. YHWH Insurance, so to speak, declares that they are at fault and requires payment. In this case the payment is their hair and as far as their clean driving record is concerned, they have to start over again – but the insurance isn’t cancelled.
Similarly when the Soldier runs into troubles her covenant isn’t cancelled; it remains in place to protect her.
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/03/numbers-6-1-21-nazirites-ot.html
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Narzirites, Old Testament Salvationists?
Today we are talking about an important covenant, a significant vow in our text, the Nazarite vow. It is not unlike the Soldiership oath or the Christian marriage covenant. Susan and I, like every married Christian couple, made our wedding covenant and took these very serious vows with our spouse before the Lord. We promised to forsake all others and be joined by God with this one other person – separated from all others - until our death (Cf. Romans 7:2,3).Covenants, vows, and oaths are very important to God. They are quite common in the Bible. Covenants are a way for God to bind us to the vehicle of Salvation, his Son. ...
---
Friday, March 13, 2009
Numbers Quiz
1. Complete the patterns:
a) 2,4,6,8,10, ...
b) 1,2,4,8, ...
c) 3,5,7,13, ...
d) O,T,T,F,F,S,S, ...
2. Did you know that Numbers have gender?
– Some are male and some are female...
how can you tell them apart?
Click HERE to find the answers:
http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/02/numbers-34-this-is-test.html
a) 2,4,6,8,10, ...
b) 1,2,4,8, ...
c) 3,5,7,13, ...
d) O,T,T,F,F,S,S, ...
2. Did you know that Numbers have gender?
– Some are male and some are female...
how can you tell them apart?
Click HERE to find the answers:
http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/02/numbers-34-this-is-test.html
DR Was - March 13
HOME: http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Join us as we read through the Bible in a year.
Click the verses to read them on-line:
Deuteronomy 22-23 and Galatians 4
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Join us as we read through the Bible in a year.
Click the verses to read them on-line:
Deuteronomy 22-23 and Galatians 4
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The enlightenment myth, History and Postmodernity
I regard it as a hopeful sign that we are today being more explicit than we were a generation ago about the ambiguous nature of the European and American Enlightenment. Many have highlighted the way in which our perceptions of that many-sided moment and movement have themselves turned into carefully constructed myths, such as that of the great victory of reason and science over ignorance and tyrannical tradition. It is no longer possible simply to say ‘we are the children of the Enlightenment, therefore we must think and behave thus and so’: any movement that gave us, so to speak, the Guillotine as one of its first fruits and the Gulag as one of its finest cannot simply be affirmed as it stands. This is not, of course, to suggest that we unthinkingly embrace a postmodern, still less a pre-modern, viewpoint. To refer again to dentistry: I have no desire to have my teeth hacked about by either a postmodern or a premodern dentist.
But the myths of the Enlightenment have given birth today to the widespread phenomenon of a worrying stand-off between an increasingly shrill secularism and an increasingly powerful fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim or some other. In that stand-off, as with many such polarizations, any suggestions of a nuanced approach which redraws the map are rejected and vilified as straightforward capitulation to the other side in the assumed battle, as the Archbishop found last week. Shades of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, where Cinna the poet is mistaken for Cinna the conspirator, and when the mistake is discovered the mob goes ahead and lynches him anyway. Once the blood-lust is up, saying ‘that isn’t what I said’ is met with a shrug of the shoulders.
This stand-off between secularism and fundamentalism takes many forms. There is, for example, the well-known fresh attack on religious belief of all sorts launched in the name of empirical science by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others. I say ‘in the name of’, but actually the rhetoric used by those three goes way beyond empirical science itself and into the realm of good old-fashioned mud-slinging. Just as the media refused last week to engage with what the Archbishop actually said, so Dawkins and others refuse to engage with real theologians, not to mention real communities of faith that are making a real difference at places where the world is in deep pain, a pain which the great advances of science have if anything exacerbated (through weapons technology and the like) rather than alleviated. Just as European science in the nineteenth century was anything but politically neutral, but must be understood within the Enlightenment-based projects of imperial and technological expansion, leading inexorably to the First World War, so the present anti-religious scientific protests must be understood within the multivalent culture of late modernity. That, however, is a subject for another day. (The recent books by Tina Beattie (The New Atheists) and Becky Garrison (The New Atheist Crusaders) at least get some sort of debate going.)
More important for our purposes, and indeed going to the heart of tonight’s topic, are the tricky interfaces I’ve highlighted between faith and public life. We need, very briefly, to set them in historical context.
As various writers have pointed out, the earlier eighteenth-century belief (expounded by one of my most famous predecessors, Bishop Joseph Butler) that intelligent people could more or less read off Christian theology from observation of the natural order had been blown apart by the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 (three years after Butler’s death). That event was one of the major drivers for the way the Enlightenment gathered steam. This generated, initially at least, a Deism in which God was removed from the natural world and so unable to be blamed for its horrors.
NT Wright (Bishop of Durham)
Read more: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=279
But the myths of the Enlightenment have given birth today to the widespread phenomenon of a worrying stand-off between an increasingly shrill secularism and an increasingly powerful fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim or some other. In that stand-off, as with many such polarizations, any suggestions of a nuanced approach which redraws the map are rejected and vilified as straightforward capitulation to the other side in the assumed battle, as the Archbishop found last week. Shades of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, where Cinna the poet is mistaken for Cinna the conspirator, and when the mistake is discovered the mob goes ahead and lynches him anyway. Once the blood-lust is up, saying ‘that isn’t what I said’ is met with a shrug of the shoulders.
This stand-off between secularism and fundamentalism takes many forms. There is, for example, the well-known fresh attack on religious belief of all sorts launched in the name of empirical science by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others. I say ‘in the name of’, but actually the rhetoric used by those three goes way beyond empirical science itself and into the realm of good old-fashioned mud-slinging. Just as the media refused last week to engage with what the Archbishop actually said, so Dawkins and others refuse to engage with real theologians, not to mention real communities of faith that are making a real difference at places where the world is in deep pain, a pain which the great advances of science have if anything exacerbated (through weapons technology and the like) rather than alleviated. Just as European science in the nineteenth century was anything but politically neutral, but must be understood within the Enlightenment-based projects of imperial and technological expansion, leading inexorably to the First World War, so the present anti-religious scientific protests must be understood within the multivalent culture of late modernity. That, however, is a subject for another day. (The recent books by Tina Beattie (The New Atheists) and Becky Garrison (The New Atheist Crusaders) at least get some sort of debate going.)
More important for our purposes, and indeed going to the heart of tonight’s topic, are the tricky interfaces I’ve highlighted between faith and public life. We need, very briefly, to set them in historical context.
As various writers have pointed out, the earlier eighteenth-century belief (expounded by one of my most famous predecessors, Bishop Joseph Butler) that intelligent people could more or less read off Christian theology from observation of the natural order had been blown apart by the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 (three years after Butler’s death). That event was one of the major drivers for the way the Enlightenment gathered steam. This generated, initially at least, a Deism in which God was removed from the natural world and so unable to be blamed for its horrors.
NT Wright (Bishop of Durham)
Read more: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=279
The enlightenment myth (and more)
...the Enlightenment myth of secular progress and its accompanying political discourse.
He [The Archbishop of Canterbury] has pointed out on the one hand the religious and indeed Christian roots of the Enlightenment’s vision of justice and rights, and on the other the way in which the secularist rhetoric, growing ever more shrill these days, effectively cuts off the branch of Reason on which it claims to be sitting – as, again, we see in the media reaction. And with this deconstruction he is challenging the monopolistic idea of a secular state, in the name not of an arrogant faith elbowing its way into the public domain but as part of the inner logic of the Christian-derived Enlightenment vision itself. The danger he has in mind is that of a state which can pass ever more draconian laws to constrict not only what religious people may do but what they may say and how they may think. The slogan ‘Vox populi, vox Dei’ may have begun as a cry for liberty from clerical oppression, but it quickly turns into a new form of self-justifying tyranny, seeking to prevent religious belief from having any effect on public life (see below). One of the ironies here, of course, is that the very secularists who are insisting that there must be one identical law for everyone about everything do not want to live by that when it...
-NT Wright (Bishop of Durham)
read more: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=279
He [The Archbishop of Canterbury] has pointed out on the one hand the religious and indeed Christian roots of the Enlightenment’s vision of justice and rights, and on the other the way in which the secularist rhetoric, growing ever more shrill these days, effectively cuts off the branch of Reason on which it claims to be sitting – as, again, we see in the media reaction. And with this deconstruction he is challenging the monopolistic idea of a secular state, in the name not of an arrogant faith elbowing its way into the public domain but as part of the inner logic of the Christian-derived Enlightenment vision itself. The danger he has in mind is that of a state which can pass ever more draconian laws to constrict not only what religious people may do but what they may say and how they may think. The slogan ‘Vox populi, vox Dei’ may have begun as a cry for liberty from clerical oppression, but it quickly turns into a new form of self-justifying tyranny, seeking to prevent religious belief from having any effect on public life (see below). One of the ironies here, of course, is that the very secularists who are insisting that there must be one identical law for everyone about everything do not want to live by that when it...
-NT Wright (Bishop of Durham)
read more: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=279
Monday, March 09, 2009
Determined to go wrong?
Ravi Zacharias
http://www.rzim.org/USA/USFV/tabid/436/ArticleID/8993/CBModuleId/1133/Default.aspx
I’d like to discuss an often unseen but very sacred biblical principle that I like to state as poignantly as I can. But because it is so misunderstood, it must be stated very carefully. That principle is this: If you are determined in going in a certain direction, God will step aside and second your motion. What do I mean by that? I think God in his mercy reveals to us His desire for our lives, He has told us of the purpose for us—That we should know Him and live by His laws for our well being. Yet, we often violate His revealed will and then wonder why life has fallen apart. If we are determined in moving in a contrary way, I firmly believe God moves aside and will not violate your will.
There are many passages that sustain this, but let us look at just one of them.
There was a man in the Book of Numbers called Balaam. He was given an extraordinary privilege. God told him, “Whatever you bless, I will bless. Whatever you curse, I will curse. It was a gift entrusted with honor. But Balaam fell victim to his greed. A group of his people’s enemies, came and asked him to curse his own people and they would pay him handsomely. Balaam knew that God did not want that. How was he going to get around it? He told this delegation: “I will come with you to their camp, but I will not curse them” Why did he go, one wonders, if he was not going to curse them. As he drew closer, God spoke to Balaam and said “Don’t do it”. So Balaam looked at this delegation and said “I’m sorry I cannot disobey God.” Next day, they offered him some more money. He said, “All right, I’ll go with you, but will not curse them” Again, God warned him. This happened three times, each time they offered him more money. Finally, he laid his scheme. “I can’t curse them, he said, “but I will give you a plan such that they will end up disobeying God, and in effect curse themselves.”
Balaam got what he wanted, but gave the appearance of being clean. Years later, God warned His people not to be like Balaam, who God did not stop, when he was determined to do it his way.
How often we too, in our lives and in our homes are determined to do it our way rather than God’s way. We find in the end that we squandered God’s blessing by selling ourselves to lesser causes. C.S. Lewis said: There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who bend their knee to Him and say, “Your will be done”, and those who refuse to bend their knee, and God says to them, “All right then, your will be done.” If you are determined to do it your way, God will step aside and second your motion. Why don’t you pause right now and choose to go his way.
----
HOME: http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
http://www.rzim.org/USA/USFV/tabid/436/ArticleID/8993/CBModuleId/1133/Default.aspx
I’d like to discuss an often unseen but very sacred biblical principle that I like to state as poignantly as I can. But because it is so misunderstood, it must be stated very carefully. That principle is this: If you are determined in going in a certain direction, God will step aside and second your motion. What do I mean by that? I think God in his mercy reveals to us His desire for our lives, He has told us of the purpose for us—That we should know Him and live by His laws for our well being. Yet, we often violate His revealed will and then wonder why life has fallen apart. If we are determined in moving in a contrary way, I firmly believe God moves aside and will not violate your will.
There are many passages that sustain this, but let us look at just one of them.
There was a man in the Book of Numbers called Balaam. He was given an extraordinary privilege. God told him, “Whatever you bless, I will bless. Whatever you curse, I will curse. It was a gift entrusted with honor. But Balaam fell victim to his greed. A group of his people’s enemies, came and asked him to curse his own people and they would pay him handsomely. Balaam knew that God did not want that. How was he going to get around it? He told this delegation: “I will come with you to their camp, but I will not curse them” Why did he go, one wonders, if he was not going to curse them. As he drew closer, God spoke to Balaam and said “Don’t do it”. So Balaam looked at this delegation and said “I’m sorry I cannot disobey God.” Next day, they offered him some more money. He said, “All right, I’ll go with you, but will not curse them” Again, God warned him. This happened three times, each time they offered him more money. Finally, he laid his scheme. “I can’t curse them, he said, “but I will give you a plan such that they will end up disobeying God, and in effect curse themselves.”
Balaam got what he wanted, but gave the appearance of being clean. Years later, God warned His people not to be like Balaam, who God did not stop, when he was determined to do it his way.
How often we too, in our lives and in our homes are determined to do it our way rather than God’s way. We find in the end that we squandered God’s blessing by selling ourselves to lesser causes. C.S. Lewis said: There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who bend their knee to Him and say, “Your will be done”, and those who refuse to bend their knee, and God says to them, “All right then, your will be done.” If you are determined to do it your way, God will step aside and second your motion. Why don’t you pause right now and choose to go his way.
----
HOME: http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Defending Christianity in a Secular Culture
Interview with Ravi Zacharias by Richard L. Schoonover, associate editor of Enrichment journal.
http://enrichmentjournal@ag.org.
What is destroying the moral and spiritual foundation of today’s society?
Zacharias: I believe a convergence of many factors has taken place. Much of education in the 1960s came unhinged from any moral absolutes and ethical values, to wit the book Excellence Without a Soul by Harry R. Lewis. We have seen this happening the last 40 years. There have been many voices alerting us to this. But more than just a philosophy took over; a mood took over.
First, secularization generally held that religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations have lost their social significance. People liked the idea of a secular society and a secular government. But in terms of moral values and ethics, they never checked into the internal assumptions of secularization that made it wide open to almost any view on any subject. Beginning in the 1960s, the moods of secularization ultimately led to society’s loss of shame.
Next is pluralization, which sounds like a practical and worthy idea; and in many ways, it is. In pluralism you have a competing number of worldviews that are available, and no worldview is dominant. But smuggled in with pluralization was the absolutization of relativism. The only thing we could be sure of was that all moral choices were relative and there was no point of reference to right and wrong. This resulted in the death of reason.
Last is privatization, which is an accommodation to the religiously minded. If secularization and pluralization were going to hold sway, what does society do with the large number of people who are spiritually minded?
Being spiritually minded was okay as long as people kept their spiritual beliefs private and did not bring them into the public arena. The irony of this was the fact secularization — which had its assumptions on absolutes and anything of the metaphysical nature — was allowed into the public place. In fact, its very trust was to bring it into the public place. But anyone who believed in a spiritual Essence, an Ultimate Reality, and the fact there were transcendent absolutes that needed to be adhered to was told to keep those beliefs private. That ultimately paved the way for the loss of meaning.
These three moods — secularization, pluralization, and privatization — brought about loss of shame, loss of reason, and loss of meaning. How was this authoritatively pontificated in the social strain? This is when philosophy stepped in, the moralizers against morality came in, and political correctness came in. These gave society some parameters that allowed it to expel the moralizing from outside the secular realm.
As a result, everything became pragmatic. Philosophers and naturalists stepped in. In this new century, we have lost all definitions of what it means to be human, and what sexuality, life, and the home are all about. We are on the high seas, battling the storms of conflicting worldviews without a compass.
read more: http://www.rzim.org/USA/USFV/tabid/436/ArticleID/10206/CBModuleId/1297/Default.aspx
http://enrichmentjournal@ag.org.
What is destroying the moral and spiritual foundation of today’s society?
Zacharias: I believe a convergence of many factors has taken place. Much of education in the 1960s came unhinged from any moral absolutes and ethical values, to wit the book Excellence Without a Soul by Harry R. Lewis. We have seen this happening the last 40 years. There have been many voices alerting us to this. But more than just a philosophy took over; a mood took over.
First, secularization generally held that religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations have lost their social significance. People liked the idea of a secular society and a secular government. But in terms of moral values and ethics, they never checked into the internal assumptions of secularization that made it wide open to almost any view on any subject. Beginning in the 1960s, the moods of secularization ultimately led to society’s loss of shame.
Next is pluralization, which sounds like a practical and worthy idea; and in many ways, it is. In pluralism you have a competing number of worldviews that are available, and no worldview is dominant. But smuggled in with pluralization was the absolutization of relativism. The only thing we could be sure of was that all moral choices were relative and there was no point of reference to right and wrong. This resulted in the death of reason.
Last is privatization, which is an accommodation to the religiously minded. If secularization and pluralization were going to hold sway, what does society do with the large number of people who are spiritually minded?
Being spiritually minded was okay as long as people kept their spiritual beliefs private and did not bring them into the public arena. The irony of this was the fact secularization — which had its assumptions on absolutes and anything of the metaphysical nature — was allowed into the public place. In fact, its very trust was to bring it into the public place. But anyone who believed in a spiritual Essence, an Ultimate Reality, and the fact there were transcendent absolutes that needed to be adhered to was told to keep those beliefs private. That ultimately paved the way for the loss of meaning.
These three moods — secularization, pluralization, and privatization — brought about loss of shame, loss of reason, and loss of meaning. How was this authoritatively pontificated in the social strain? This is when philosophy stepped in, the moralizers against morality came in, and political correctness came in. These gave society some parameters that allowed it to expel the moralizing from outside the secular realm.
As a result, everything became pragmatic. Philosophers and naturalists stepped in. In this new century, we have lost all definitions of what it means to be human, and what sexuality, life, and the home are all about. We are on the high seas, battling the storms of conflicting worldviews without a compass.
read more: http://www.rzim.org/USA/USFV/tabid/436/ArticleID/10206/CBModuleId/1297/Default.aspx
Friday, March 06, 2009
Work Schedule and U2 from Army Barmy
Salvo Work Schedule
The idea is to optimise resources God provides for the salvation war. The context is an understanding of Sabbath from a spiritual perspective (Hebrews 4; John 5; etc; several armybarmy blog post archives). It goes like this. You get six hours sleep. The rest of the days is broken into nine two-hour components:
1. work up - rations
2. work around - family
3. work out - food/exercise
4. work in - study
5. work into - disciple
6. work outside - evangelise
7. work through - communications/decision-making
8. work ahead - strategy/planning
9. work over - personal (errands/chores/relax)
It may be worthy of a week-long trial at some point.
new single by U2
I was born
I was born to sing for you
I didnt have a choice but to lift you up
And sing whatever song you wanted me to
I give you back my voice
From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise
Only love, only love can leave such a mark
But only love, only love can heal such a scar
Justified till we die, you and I will magnify
The Magnificent
Magnificent
The idea is to optimise resources God provides for the salvation war. The context is an understanding of Sabbath from a spiritual perspective (Hebrews 4; John 5; etc; several armybarmy blog post archives). It goes like this. You get six hours sleep. The rest of the days is broken into nine two-hour components:
1. work up - rations
2. work around - family
3. work out - food/exercise
4. work in - study
5. work into - disciple
6. work outside - evangelise
7. work through - communications/decision-making
8. work ahead - strategy/planning
9. work over - personal (errands/chores/relax)
It may be worthy of a week-long trial at some point.
new single by U2
I was born
I was born to sing for you
I didnt have a choice but to lift you up
And sing whatever song you wanted me to
I give you back my voice
From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise
Only love, only love can leave such a mark
But only love, only love can heal such a scar
Justified till we die, you and I will magnify
The Magnificent
Magnificent
Thursday, March 05, 2009
The Intellectual Appeal of The Salvation Army
Early Salvationists were grounded in a Wesleyan theology that embraced the life of the mind as well as the heart
January 26, 2009
by Roger J. Green, Ph.D.
Salvationist.ca
After reading my title, you may be thinking: “I never knew that there was any intellectual appeal to The Salvation Army. We have always been a people of service to the poor, and even our worship style historically and presently really reflects more of a Pentecostal type of worship.”
But there are facts from Salvation Army history that we should keep in mind. First, the rather odd manifestations during worship at the outset of The Christian Mission were no different from those demonstrated at the beginning of the Wesleyan revival a hundred years earlier—things like levitation in the services and the rollicking singing of songs to such tunes as Champagne Charlie. But these manifestations did not last long. William Booth, although sometimes pictured as dancing on the streets with a tambourine in hand to attract sinners, abhorred what he called “comicality”, and knew intuitively that if he did not deepen the experience of his converts in serious worship, great preaching, and class meetings that the Army would indeed be a rope of sand.
And if William abhorred “comicality,” Catherine did more....
read more: http://salvationist.ca/2009/01/the-intellectual-appeal/
(Hat Tip: FW)
January 26, 2009
by Roger J. Green, Ph.D.
Salvationist.ca
After reading my title, you may be thinking: “I never knew that there was any intellectual appeal to The Salvation Army. We have always been a people of service to the poor, and even our worship style historically and presently really reflects more of a Pentecostal type of worship.”
But there are facts from Salvation Army history that we should keep in mind. First, the rather odd manifestations during worship at the outset of The Christian Mission were no different from those demonstrated at the beginning of the Wesleyan revival a hundred years earlier—things like levitation in the services and the rollicking singing of songs to such tunes as Champagne Charlie. But these manifestations did not last long. William Booth, although sometimes pictured as dancing on the streets with a tambourine in hand to attract sinners, abhorred what he called “comicality”, and knew intuitively that if he did not deepen the experience of his converts in serious worship, great preaching, and class meetings that the Army would indeed be a rope of sand.
And if William abhorred “comicality,” Catherine did more....
read more: http://salvationist.ca/2009/01/the-intellectual-appeal/
(Hat Tip: FW)
Mick the Galatian Chicken (Galatians 3:19-25)
Presented to Nipawin Corps on January 20, 2008
and to Tisdale Corps on January 27, 2008
By Captain Michael Ramsay
One day at the McDonald farm there is a rumbling in the air; something is a foot. In the chicken coop – something isn’t just quite right. The old farmer walks all around the chicken wire fence. It seems to be in tact. The barbed wire along the perimeter looks undisturbed. Everything looks fine as he locks up the hens for the night. But inside the henhouse on the top rung, something is stirring…it is Henrietta the Poultry Hen.
Now, as soon as Farmer McDonald closes the door to the coop, Henrietta, the Hen, speaks up: “It’s time.” Quickly Henrietta, Polly, Mick, - and all the chickens on the top rung - run to the southeast corner of the coop. They peck and they peck the ground in the corner like never before. Last night they had almost made it. Tonight would be the night. Finally – breakthrough! Henrietta and the other Chickens are free. They are free from the farmer’s coop. They are free from the barbed wire and the chicken wire; they are free from the tedious ritual and routine. They are free!
They spend the next morning roaming around the yard, exploring the whole farm. They eat what they want, when then want. They can be near or wander far away: they talk. They talk and they talk some more; it’s a hen’s life. They spend that whole day walking around eating what and when they want and really enjoying the full freedom from the yard. At the end of the day, they perch on a branch of tree across the road from the farm and cuddle up the night. It is good.
They have a nice rest but in the morning when they wake up, they notice something on the road - - - it is Mick the chicken crossing the road. They wonder. Why did the chicken cross the road? - - - Mick is walking back towards the farm.Mick is walking back to the coop. She goes across the road, to the fence and through the same crack under the chicken wire fence. She walks around the corner and up the walkway onto her old bar in the farmer’s small, confining chicken coop. The farmer then notices the crack in the fence and repairs it quickly. Mick is trapped.
Henrietta can’t believe it. She sees the whole thing where she is sitting, still free, looking on from her perch on other side of the road. She sees Mick, of her own accord, trapped all over again on the farm.Mick was free and then she just goes back to be trapped all over again and it is even worse then she thought at first - As Henrietta scans the farm and hears the noises: here a cluck, there a cluck everywhere a cluck, cluck. She remembers, Mick the Chicken is on McDonald’s farm. The Mick Chicken is back at MacDonald’s! And you know what happens to McChickens at McDonald’s.[1] They get eaten. Mick is trapped.
And this is just like the Galatians.... read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/galatians-319-25-dont-be-mcchicken.html
----
HOME: http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
and to Tisdale Corps on January 27, 2008
By Captain Michael Ramsay
One day at the McDonald farm there is a rumbling in the air; something is a foot. In the chicken coop – something isn’t just quite right. The old farmer walks all around the chicken wire fence. It seems to be in tact. The barbed wire along the perimeter looks undisturbed. Everything looks fine as he locks up the hens for the night. But inside the henhouse on the top rung, something is stirring…it is Henrietta the Poultry Hen.
Now, as soon as Farmer McDonald closes the door to the coop, Henrietta, the Hen, speaks up: “It’s time.” Quickly Henrietta, Polly, Mick, - and all the chickens on the top rung - run to the southeast corner of the coop. They peck and they peck the ground in the corner like never before. Last night they had almost made it. Tonight would be the night. Finally – breakthrough! Henrietta and the other Chickens are free. They are free from the farmer’s coop. They are free from the barbed wire and the chicken wire; they are free from the tedious ritual and routine. They are free!
They spend the next morning roaming around the yard, exploring the whole farm. They eat what they want, when then want. They can be near or wander far away: they talk. They talk and they talk some more; it’s a hen’s life. They spend that whole day walking around eating what and when they want and really enjoying the full freedom from the yard. At the end of the day, they perch on a branch of tree across the road from the farm and cuddle up the night. It is good.
They have a nice rest but in the morning when they wake up, they notice something on the road - - - it is Mick the chicken crossing the road. They wonder. Why did the chicken cross the road? - - - Mick is walking back towards the farm.Mick is walking back to the coop. She goes across the road, to the fence and through the same crack under the chicken wire fence. She walks around the corner and up the walkway onto her old bar in the farmer’s small, confining chicken coop. The farmer then notices the crack in the fence and repairs it quickly. Mick is trapped.
Henrietta can’t believe it. She sees the whole thing where she is sitting, still free, looking on from her perch on other side of the road. She sees Mick, of her own accord, trapped all over again on the farm.Mick was free and then she just goes back to be trapped all over again and it is even worse then she thought at first - As Henrietta scans the farm and hears the noises: here a cluck, there a cluck everywhere a cluck, cluck. She remembers, Mick the Chicken is on McDonald’s farm. The Mick Chicken is back at MacDonald’s! And you know what happens to McChickens at McDonald’s.[1] They get eaten. Mick is trapped.
And this is just like the Galatians.... read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/galatians-319-25-dont-be-mcchicken.html
----
HOME: http://www.sheepspeak.com/
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
DR Was - March 4
HOME: www.sheepspeak.com
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers 34-36 and Mark 11
COMICS: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/
SERMONS: www.sheepspeak.com/sermons.htm
ETC: www.sheepspeak.com/Michael_Ramsays_opinion.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers 34-36 and Mark 11
Monday, March 02, 2009
Sunday's Sermon (Numbers 3:4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
