Saturday, July 07, 2012
Excellent book. I have taught from this book twice already and was required to read it again for my ministerial studies. I only have one disagreement and that would be with their pushing the TNIV (and I do mean "push"). Gordon Fee was on the translation team so I suppose it is understandable. Personally I prefer the ESV and NASB (they refer to the NASB as "wooden"). Other than that I would highly recommend it when it comes to a well rounded, understandable discussion of a very large and sometimes difficult topic.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
I read this book about two months ago and am finally getting around to posting it. It was given to me by my father and step-mother (who is herself a pastor).
Honestly, I am not a huge Swindoll fan. I like his preaching and he is clearly a man after God's heart and has an almost contagious love for people, so i have no complaints against him personally or his ministry. I just don't go out of my way to listen to him or read his books.
This is the first one (and probably the last) I have ever read. Strangely it reads like he preaches. Really. If you read it out loud you may even be able to sound like him! (I write that with a smile).
His message is important though and for that reason alone it is worth recommending. He also covers a number of subjects in a way that the average layperson can follow along and he does it without picking on anyone or making wild accusations. In other words, he speaks in love.
Honestly, I am not a huge Swindoll fan. I like his preaching and he is clearly a man after God's heart and has an almost contagious love for people, so i have no complaints against him personally or his ministry. I just don't go out of my way to listen to him or read his books.
This is the first one (and probably the last) I have ever read. Strangely it reads like he preaches. Really. If you read it out loud you may even be able to sound like him! (I write that with a smile).
His message is important though and for that reason alone it is worth recommending. He also covers a number of subjects in a way that the average layperson can follow along and he does it without picking on anyone or making wild accusations. In other words, he speaks in love.
I've been asked to preach of late. Preaching, for me, is one of the greatest joys of my life. The study, the searching, the prayer, all make for a wonderful adventure with God. But I see a great need for improvement and so I keep my eye out for anything that may help towards that end. This book was given to me by my pastor in a stack of about thirty or forty other books he was getting rid of. I must say this was not only instructional, the quotes Whitesell gives were devotional and inspirational to say the least. Very enjoyable.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sunday, January 15, 2006
The children and wife are all laying down for a nap, so I decided to get in a quickie before the house once again erupts to life.
"The kingdom of God is in you." Jesus had spoken these words around 2000 years ago to a group of people that were waiting for Jesus to rip the world from the hands of the Roman Empire and hand it over, lock, stock and barrel, back to the Jews.
Can you just imagine the disciples dumbfoundedness, their disenchantment while looking upon the dying form of their "Savior"? Granted, he did rise from the dead three days hence, but still, that moment must have been horrible. Even with him coming back from the dead, everything they thought they understood (which, according to Him, wasn't much) had to be reevaluated and re-understood.
How many times in my own life has my "Savior" died? Not the real Jesus, but the one I made up. The one I thought I knew and understood. I try so hard to make up a little world where I am a disciple and he is my Lord and I have all the rules and regulations in line. Every jot and tittle is in place and the picture is well defined. Then all of a sudden the linchpin lets go and "Crack!", the hammer comes down on the nail and once again the cross is lifted for all to see. "It is finished!"
I am a programmer, so having rules that are well defined and regular is important to me. So when things don't turn out the way I thought they should I have a problem with that.
It is my fault, really. I think I know so much. I think I am so smart. That I have it all figured out. But, in fact, I know nothing.
"The kingdom of God is in you." I try so hard to fix the outside, to keep up appearances, when all along I have built the wrong kingdom. Bummer.
"The kingdom of God is in you." Jesus had spoken these words around 2000 years ago to a group of people that were waiting for Jesus to rip the world from the hands of the Roman Empire and hand it over, lock, stock and barrel, back to the Jews.
Can you just imagine the disciples dumbfoundedness, their disenchantment while looking upon the dying form of their "Savior"? Granted, he did rise from the dead three days hence, but still, that moment must have been horrible. Even with him coming back from the dead, everything they thought they understood (which, according to Him, wasn't much) had to be reevaluated and re-understood.
How many times in my own life has my "Savior" died? Not the real Jesus, but the one I made up. The one I thought I knew and understood. I try so hard to make up a little world where I am a disciple and he is my Lord and I have all the rules and regulations in line. Every jot and tittle is in place and the picture is well defined. Then all of a sudden the linchpin lets go and "Crack!", the hammer comes down on the nail and once again the cross is lifted for all to see. "It is finished!"
I am a programmer, so having rules that are well defined and regular is important to me. So when things don't turn out the way I thought they should I have a problem with that.
It is my fault, really. I think I know so much. I think I am so smart. That I have it all figured out. But, in fact, I know nothing.
"The kingdom of God is in you." I try so hard to fix the outside, to keep up appearances, when all along I have built the wrong kingdom. Bummer.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
I went to see Narnia last night. With me were three of my daughters who are avid Narnia fans. Not only have we read the books together, but they have each read the Chronicles several times. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. Not only did it stick very closely to the book, but it was done very well.
I find it interesting that a movie was made that had no heads exploding or intestines gushing out, no nude people and no foal language and the director was still able to get his point across very effectively. I don't mean that he was able to, say, make all the violence not violent. Quite the opposite. He was able to create a sense of violence without actually going into detail. For instance, when Aslan is killed by the White Witch the actual plunging in of the knife is never shown. Instead we saw a close up of Aslan's face and especially his eyes. Just that alone not only told us of the violence, but made the violence much more personal and thus much more effective. It literally struck to the heart (no pun intended). Even the battle scenes were full of violence with out the violent detail. Some people got hit by big rocks or spears, but no details. Yet I came away from the battle scene with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach and a feeling of horror that comes with knowing that battles are bad and people get hurt. I didn't need to see someone's brains hit the camera to know that. I just knew it.
This isn't something understood by only the moderns. There have been a few odd-balls in recent (20 year) history. I remember watching a movie where two people where obviously in love and, in one particular scene, the man and the women go into a room together and the camera fades as the door closes. As an adult you knew what was going on. You knew of the love and passion they had for each other. In other words the director was so good as to assume his audiences intelligence. He said, "I will only give them a couple scenes and I know they will make the connection." Unlike many movies I have seen in the past few years where the directors have such a low opinion of their audience's intelligence that they have to actually show everything in great detail for fear the viewer just won't be able to make the connection. "O.k., they are in the room. And just in case you can't figure out what two people in love do in a room alone let me show you. First they will...."
I wish more producers would take the hint. A movie can be made without being needlessly offensive and still tell a very effective story. In fact, it appears to me that all the gore, sexuality and language that appear in modern movies is simply a detractor from the real story trying to be told. Movie producers in the past twenty years have been like a bunch of teenage boys who have discovered sex for the first time (I didn't say "Had it", just "Discovered it"). They just can't stop going on about it. They can't wait to tell everyone about what they know and proceed to do the most inappropriate things at the most awkward times.
It seemed like movies just cannot get along unless it shows blood, chest (female mostly) and accost your ears with foal language. Yet it seems that the trend is waning. Either the teenagers have moved on far past their preoccupations and have gone on to focus on the art or they have just figured out that there is money to be made in a sector that doesn't like those sorts of things being forced in their faces every time they turn around. Either way, I like it. There have been a few adult oriented movies lately that have really hit the high ground, in my opinion, and all without having to stoop to peep-show tactics. And some of them are so good they can even be show to the younger audience without ripping away their innocence in the process.
As a side note for those out there who would call me a nut case and a fanatic for what I am saying:
Just because I don't want to go into a room full of strangers and watch naked people running about or making love on a huge, storey size screen doesn't, in my book, make me at all strange. If you want to really know who the weirdos are, next time you go to that sort of movie take a look around you. Oh, and you better bring a mirror lest you miss anyone.
I find it interesting that a movie was made that had no heads exploding or intestines gushing out, no nude people and no foal language and the director was still able to get his point across very effectively. I don't mean that he was able to, say, make all the violence not violent. Quite the opposite. He was able to create a sense of violence without actually going into detail. For instance, when Aslan is killed by the White Witch the actual plunging in of the knife is never shown. Instead we saw a close up of Aslan's face and especially his eyes. Just that alone not only told us of the violence, but made the violence much more personal and thus much more effective. It literally struck to the heart (no pun intended). Even the battle scenes were full of violence with out the violent detail. Some people got hit by big rocks or spears, but no details. Yet I came away from the battle scene with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach and a feeling of horror that comes with knowing that battles are bad and people get hurt. I didn't need to see someone's brains hit the camera to know that. I just knew it.
This isn't something understood by only the moderns. There have been a few odd-balls in recent (20 year) history. I remember watching a movie where two people where obviously in love and, in one particular scene, the man and the women go into a room together and the camera fades as the door closes. As an adult you knew what was going on. You knew of the love and passion they had for each other. In other words the director was so good as to assume his audiences intelligence. He said, "I will only give them a couple scenes and I know they will make the connection." Unlike many movies I have seen in the past few years where the directors have such a low opinion of their audience's intelligence that they have to actually show everything in great detail for fear the viewer just won't be able to make the connection. "O.k., they are in the room. And just in case you can't figure out what two people in love do in a room alone let me show you. First they will...."
I wish more producers would take the hint. A movie can be made without being needlessly offensive and still tell a very effective story. In fact, it appears to me that all the gore, sexuality and language that appear in modern movies is simply a detractor from the real story trying to be told. Movie producers in the past twenty years have been like a bunch of teenage boys who have discovered sex for the first time (I didn't say "Had it", just "Discovered it"). They just can't stop going on about it. They can't wait to tell everyone about what they know and proceed to do the most inappropriate things at the most awkward times.
It seemed like movies just cannot get along unless it shows blood, chest (female mostly) and accost your ears with foal language. Yet it seems that the trend is waning. Either the teenagers have moved on far past their preoccupations and have gone on to focus on the art or they have just figured out that there is money to be made in a sector that doesn't like those sorts of things being forced in their faces every time they turn around. Either way, I like it. There have been a few adult oriented movies lately that have really hit the high ground, in my opinion, and all without having to stoop to peep-show tactics. And some of them are so good they can even be show to the younger audience without ripping away their innocence in the process.
As a side note for those out there who would call me a nut case and a fanatic for what I am saying:
Just because I don't want to go into a room full of strangers and watch naked people running about or making love on a huge, storey size screen doesn't, in my book, make me at all strange. If you want to really know who the weirdos are, next time you go to that sort of movie take a look around you. Oh, and you better bring a mirror lest you miss anyone.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
A hypocrite! She called me a hypocrite! How dare she! I mean, I am as real as the next person. I give no pretense of who I am.
Yet I find myself haunted by the very question that threatens to challenge that fact. Who am I?
As a Christian I say that I am one thing. That I fit a certain mold defined by who someone else is (that someone being Christ of course) and that there are clearly drawn lines as to what that does or does not mean. But how well do I fit that mold?
In my experience I have found that many of us (regardless of religion or lack thereof) spend half the time defining what we are suppose to be and the other half busily defending our conclusions. Perhaps it is here that the young lady's accusation finds its most apropos dwelling place.
Oh, it isn't like I am a dog who is trying to convince everyone that I am a cat. It is more like I am a black dog trying to argue that I am not black but dark brown. I am certainly not trying to convince myself of the fact for that fact is already well established. If it wasn't I wouldn't be spending the time defending it. That would be crazy.
No. That wouldn't' be crazy. That would be lying. Something far worse in my opinion. I would be crazy if I believed something as fact that was obviously not in the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary. That would be crazy. So maybe I am not a hypocrite after all. I am simply psychotic!
But then would someone who is psychotic know he is? Isn't psychoses a detachment from reality? Now that really does put me in a strange predicament. The only real way to know for sure I am not psychotic is to realize that I am. As long as I am sure I am not I take the very real (if not remote) chance of actually being so and simply being ignorant of it. That's if I was really concerned about being one or the other.
But back to the topic. The problem, as I see it, is that I must be at least somewhat sure that I have my facts straight. Once that is done I can go about convincing others that I am what I believe. And that is where the crux lies. How is one to know that they are what they are without making themselves the standards? And even if they make others the standard how are they to be sure that the "other" is not only the correct standard, but that we ourselves are imitating correctly?
In the end, there is clearly more room for faith then once thought. Not the type of faith that believe lies to be the truth, but that believes truth to be knowable. That believes something can be one thing and not the other. That believes that seeking after truth can be a worthwhile, profitable adventure. An adventure that will take some time and effort to come to the end of...if there is an end.
Yet I find myself haunted by the very question that threatens to challenge that fact. Who am I?
As a Christian I say that I am one thing. That I fit a certain mold defined by who someone else is (that someone being Christ of course) and that there are clearly drawn lines as to what that does or does not mean. But how well do I fit that mold?
In my experience I have found that many of us (regardless of religion or lack thereof) spend half the time defining what we are suppose to be and the other half busily defending our conclusions. Perhaps it is here that the young lady's accusation finds its most apropos dwelling place.
Oh, it isn't like I am a dog who is trying to convince everyone that I am a cat. It is more like I am a black dog trying to argue that I am not black but dark brown. I am certainly not trying to convince myself of the fact for that fact is already well established. If it wasn't I wouldn't be spending the time defending it. That would be crazy.
No. That wouldn't' be crazy. That would be lying. Something far worse in my opinion. I would be crazy if I believed something as fact that was obviously not in the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary. That would be crazy. So maybe I am not a hypocrite after all. I am simply psychotic!
But then would someone who is psychotic know he is? Isn't psychoses a detachment from reality? Now that really does put me in a strange predicament. The only real way to know for sure I am not psychotic is to realize that I am. As long as I am sure I am not I take the very real (if not remote) chance of actually being so and simply being ignorant of it. That's if I was really concerned about being one or the other.
But back to the topic. The problem, as I see it, is that I must be at least somewhat sure that I have my facts straight. Once that is done I can go about convincing others that I am what I believe. And that is where the crux lies. How is one to know that they are what they are without making themselves the standards? And even if they make others the standard how are they to be sure that the "other" is not only the correct standard, but that we ourselves are imitating correctly?
In the end, there is clearly more room for faith then once thought. Not the type of faith that believe lies to be the truth, but that believes truth to be knowable. That believes something can be one thing and not the other. That believes that seeking after truth can be a worthwhile, profitable adventure. An adventure that will take some time and effort to come to the end of...if there is an end.
Hello. Welcome to my blog. What you will read here could be basically considered my ruminations. It isn't very coherent and it certainly isn't a systematic treatment of anything.
There are a number of reasons of doing this, the least of which is praise from anyone else. So if you find yourself disgusted of frustrated with anything I write, please try not to take it too seriously. I'm certainly not.
In reality I am mangling the poor electrons allotted to me here because I haven't anything that I would consider useful enough to publish. That's if I wanted to be honest. If I was striking out to be barbarously false I would put off that I was attempting to add to the useful information already inundating cyberville and hoping to somehow enhance my reader's life. That is, if I had no intentions towards the truth.
Speaking of truth, should you consider these writings the real me? A deep expression of who I am, the skeleton stripped of its flesh, the wound laid bare? God forbid! That sort of thing couldn't be farthest from the truth. If I were out to do that sort of thing I would ask you to come and live with me. But cyberville being what it is, I cannot expect you to see me for something that I am not.
So read on, if you like.
There are a number of reasons of doing this, the least of which is praise from anyone else. So if you find yourself disgusted of frustrated with anything I write, please try not to take it too seriously. I'm certainly not.
In reality I am mangling the poor electrons allotted to me here because I haven't anything that I would consider useful enough to publish. That's if I wanted to be honest. If I was striking out to be barbarously false I would put off that I was attempting to add to the useful information already inundating cyberville and hoping to somehow enhance my reader's life. That is, if I had no intentions towards the truth.
Speaking of truth, should you consider these writings the real me? A deep expression of who I am, the skeleton stripped of its flesh, the wound laid bare? God forbid! That sort of thing couldn't be farthest from the truth. If I were out to do that sort of thing I would ask you to come and live with me. But cyberville being what it is, I cannot expect you to see me for something that I am not.
So read on, if you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)