|
"Anyone wishing to save humanity
must first of all save the Word."
Jacques Ellul |
|
|
 |
|
|
Restoring the weightiness of preaching - Raising
Christian discourse above our fading culture |
|
|
|
March 26, 2006
Fixated on application and practicality
Yesterday I finally—yes,
it took almost a whole year—posted
another
Rough Cut exegetical
essay:
Fishers of men
reconsidered. In the
years I have been a Christian, I’d say,
aside from the reference to John 3:16
and Revelation 3:20 (“Behold I stand at
the door and knock”), Mark 1:17 and
Matthew 4:19 have been some of the most
quoted and referred to verses I have
heard from the lips of Christian
leaders. Ranking right up there with
Galatians 2:20 (“I have been crucified
with Christ”), Jesus’ words about
becoming “fishers of men” are staple
references to refer to the way one is to
be a Christian. I some measure I agree,
but not for the same reasons given by
most (e.g., fishers of men =
witnessing, catching people for
Christ). (In fact all the popular
verses mentioned above will deserve
Rough Cut time on this site!) In
preparing this new Rough Cut I was
struck by the fact that the
interpretation I was positing made it
difficult for this popular verse to be
applied. My interpretation didn’t seem
practical. I have always struggled with
our fixation with application. I wrote
in the fishers of men
Rough Cut:
It can be too easy to
resort to popular interpretations
because they are, however misleading
(away from the text), often easier
to grasp. We shouldn’t exclude
difficult to understand allusions
just because they are harder to
relate to, or are more difficult to
apply personally.
I pause to point out
that we, in the contemporary
American Church, are fixated on
application. There is a tendency to
skip and even to eschew the vital
step of interpretation (by which I
mean exegesis). Somewhere along the
way, we abandoned the discipline of
exegesis and biblical interpretation
in exchange for American
pragmatism. The Bible often
becomes, with each individual part
(i.e., each text, each verse, and
even sometimes just a word here and
there in a verse), a utilitarian
tool to give detail instructions and
application—specific do’s and
don’ts. Every text has to be
practical. This makes it all
the harder to offer interpretations
that—on the surface—do not seem
practical, or easily applied.
The fishers of men Rough Cut>>
This fixation on
application and practicality makes it
especially difficult to offer
interpretations of popular verses that
are hard to understand and difficult to
apply. Such fixation on texts having to
always be practical cam lead us away
from what God is actually saying through
a text (like “I will make you become
fishers of men” or “I have been
crucified with Christ”). As my essay on
fishers of men points out, we should
seek to understand the significance of a
text first, then—and only then—can we
apply what God has said.
The
fishers of men Rough Cut>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
March 19, 2006
I saw the future workforce, my daughter
among them
As only a proud father
could be, I was so thankful to see my
daughter join 600 other middle and high
school students from around Connecticut
compete for top honors at the 2006 State
Science Fair. Amanda, along with her
stepbrother Michael, both 7th
graders, were chosen to enter the
Bridgeport City Science Fair. Amanda
placed 2nd, giving her
entrance into the State Fair at
Quinnipiac University in
Hamden, Connecticut. On this past
Tuesday I accompanied Amanda to the
campus to set up her board. Wednesday,
with no students around, judges picked
out the finalists who are invited back
on Thursday for final judging and
interviews. Amanda received her (first)
call back! No parents. No teachers.
Just students standing by their science
project boards, being grilled by
professionals about their projects and
results. At the end of the day, the
awards were announced. I knew she’d at
least get a medal for being a finalist.
As the names were being called for 7th
grade life science projects, Amanda
received 3rd Place! I
couldn’t have been more proud and
pleased. Not because she has to do
something for my approval, but because
the nice and clean board might have
gotten her to the finalist round, but
she had to stand on her own to take it
to the next step. And with her first
time on such a large-scale competition
and interview, she stood on her own and
took home 3rd place in
State. I was so very proud to be
watching as student after student was
acknowledged for their hard work—and of
course my daughter among them…
But it didn’t stop
there. I couldn’t help myself. I work
everyday as a Planner in the human
service field, with a concentration on
workforce development. So, I couldn’t
just sit by idly enjoying the fruit of
my daughter’s hard work in 7th
grade science. My mind swirled with
connections between State Science Fair
and workforce development. I kept
repeating to myself, “This is workforce
development.” As I have remarked in
Margins
before regarding early childhood
development and it being workforce
development, this too, was connected to
Connecticut’s long-term investment in
its workforce. It is far sited, and has
more return on investment that can be
imagined—or probably calculated. There
should be a stronger connection to
events and competitions like this
(Connecticut State Science Fair) and the
Workforce Investment Board system in
Connecticut. I have sat on the
Governor’s Commission for Education and
Training (i.e., workforce development
and competitiveness) as a surrogate for
my former Executive Director (who was
the actually member). I listened time
and time again, discussions and
reactions to trends on Connecticut’s
shrinking workforce and its untrained,
low-skilled entry-level workforce
population. The argument is made, but
never (really) carried through—there
needs to be a better and stronger and
more effective connection between
Connecticut’s education system and its
workforce development. I kept thinking
at the awards assembly for State Science
Fair that there needs to be a full court
press investment in this (in things like
this), in these students. There needs
to be a far better connection between
the urban schools and its nearby
Community Colleges. And, there needs to
be a thread developed that motivates,
moves, and passes, especially, urban
students, through the school system to
Community College and then on to
Connecticut’s Higher Education
system—and then on to fill Connecticut’s
workforce needs. You want to stop the
shrinkage of future, potential workers?
I saw them walking up to receive medals
and awards on Thursday at the
Connecticut State Science Fair at
Quinnipiac University. My daughter
among them…
See Amanda's place
and project (# 2012)>>
Connecticut
State Science Fair>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
March
15, 2006
Moving corporate worship out of the
realm of law
Recently I read a rather
intricate essay on getting to church on
time—no wait, I mean it was on
preparation for Sunday worship begins on
Saturday. It was church mail. It was
repeated at church as well. It stirred
my thinking. First, although I agree
that the church corporate, for the most
part and throughout church history, has
met on Sunday for worship, there is
actually no biblical demand or command
to do so. In fact, Paul in Romans
scolds those who raise one day above
another. (Friends, this is the New
Testament era, not the old—a rather
important redemptive concept we keep
forgetting.) Second, corporate worship,
like the Old Testament day of rest
(which is Saturday by the way), is
cumulative, a climax, an ending, a final
celebration marking the passing of
time. I had always thought that
preparation for the Sunday gathering of
God’s people and corporate worship
actually started on Monday. And this
leads to my third thought, it is not
about what I do or don’t do on Saturday,
it is about who I am and who I belong
to—all week. This last idea is what
keeps the experience of corporate
worship out of the realm of law and
under grace. These are hardly
definitive or exhaustive thoughts, but I
am always amazed how much we are are
under law rather than under the Spirit,
grace, and freedom. I am all for
preparing for corporate worship
together, but I'd like to see (hear) the
discussion from a Biblical, rather than,
pragmatic perspective. Again, this
idea of preparing for Sunday on Saturday
reminds me that our Christian and
worship experience is built on my
experience and participation in the
American way of life, and not a
reflection of the redemptive potential
(my Pastor's term) of who we are in
Christ; built on the modern (and
postmodern) American social and cultural
values we have become accustomed to
rather than expression of a biblical
worldview we are being discipled in.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
March
13, 2006
Far worse than The DaVinci Code
The book was bad enough,
but now we have the movie coming out.
The DaVinci Code, starring Tom Hanks,
and its soon release has begun the
onslaught of Christian anti-DaVinci Code
articles, blogs, books, and speeches.
We are being warned, don’t support the
movie. It is fiction, people! It will
pass. And as one person has so aptly
written already, “…it shrewdly plays
into what the reader so wants to
believe: that Jesus was not divine, and
that all the demands that go along with
his divinity may be conveniently
ignored.” So in the end, it will not be
the linchpin in the devil’s plan to
thwart the truth of the Gospel.
Anyway—the Bible always outlives its
pallbearers. Here’s what gets to me.
On any given Sunday morning we have
something that happens that is far worse
in the arsenal of the enemy to thwart or
diminish the truth of the Scriptures;
something far more dangerous, but
certainly accepted as normal and banal:
What passes as good and faithful
exposition from the pulpit, but is
actually nothing of the sort. Poor
exegesis and faulty prooftexting is more
dangerous than any fictional movie that
seeks to undermine faith in Christ. It
is more subtle, and far more undermining
of the truths found in the Bible. For
what happens on a Sunday morning where
sound exegesis and the faithful
exposition of the text is replaced by
the utilitarian use of wordplay, shoddy
exposition, and the agenda’s of pastors
and preachers, although clothed in
religious, biblical, and evangelical
language, is a worse any threat to
Christianity than a $13.99 movie at a
nearby theater. We need to strengthen
our resolve to have better exegesis from
our ministers long before we warn its
members to stay clear of movies like The
DaVinci Code.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
March 7, 2006
Selectively ignoring the tough verses
Why is it that
I never hear, as far as I can tell from
my feeble memory, when the famous “Send
me” passage from Isaiah 6 is preached,
any reference to the following verses in
the text? They always stop at the end
of verse 8; the preacher never continues
with verse 9 and following. We get to:
“Then I
heard the voice of the Lord, saying,
‘Whom shall I send, and who will go
for Us?’ Then I said, ‘Here am I.
Send me!’” (Isaiah 6:8).
And then we
never hear what “we” are being sent to
do; what we are volunteering to do.
“He said, ‘Go, and tell this people:
“Keep on listening, but do not
perceive; keep on looking, but do
not understand. Render the hearts of
this people insensitive, their ears
dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise
they might see with their eyes, hear
with their ears, understand with
their hearts, and return and be
healed”’” (Isaiah 6:9-10).
As a preacher once said,
“We selectively ignore the difficult
texts.” Ironic thing was, the same
preacher had just “selectively ignored”
the difficult portion of the Isaiah
“Send me” passage. I am guessing that
verse 9 and following don’t serve the
purpose of the one preaching. We like
God asking us, “Who shall I send?” And
we (can self-righteously) think
ourselves like the one originally asked,
the Prophet Isaiah, and respond with
humility, “Here am I. Send me.” We—or
the preacher—supply the content of the
“sending,” never even taking into
consideration what God intends in the
text (vv 9ff.). For sure this must be one of the
most abused, misrepresented, poorly prooftexted texts of Scripture. And, it
is probably one of the most important,
given that our Gospel is defined by it
in the New Testament. All four Gospels
quote it in pivotal places where the
Gospel of the Kingdom is defined and/or
explained (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8;
John 12). And, it is always the tough
verses of Isaiah 6 that are referred
to. Even Luke ends his Acts of the
Apostles with Paul quoting the tough
verses of Isaiah (Acts 28). The Isaiah
6 “send me” text is just one example of
the poor exegesis and self-serving prooftexting that happens on a regular
basis on Sunday mornings. We tread on
dangerous ground.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
March
6, 2006
An unplanned undertone to church—if we
were listening
Sometimes you can
organize and plan out a worship service
in detail, everything timed, and in its
place, yet there will be undertones
created by another dynamic, unseen to
the human eye, but felt, seen, and heard
if we are paying attention. Please
don’t take this as a comment that we
shouldn’t plan out a service, giving
direction and intention and purpose to
every part. I whole-heartedly believe
we should. What I am talking about or
inferring are those underlining
messages, the unintended consequences of
God’s people gathered and God wanting to
talk to His people—all of them in a
local congregation at once. My concern
is that we are there, at Church, as
individuals, invoking privatized
versions of religious experience. As
you have heard me before
In the
Margins and elsewhere on this
site, even the preachers, pastors,
worship leaders all—perhaps
unintentionally—have a habit, a
culturally formed inclination, to pitch
songs, experience, application, and
self-understanding toward the personal,
the individual, the private rather than
the corporate, the body, the church.
And this is where I believe we miss,
sometimes, what God is saying; what God
is intertwining in an undertone through
the whole of corporate worship service.
Perhaps, that’s why in Acts 13 we hear
that God was able to speak to the whole
congregation:
“Now there were at
Antioch, in the church that was
there, prophets and teachers:
Barnabas, and Simeon who was called
Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and
Manaen who had been brought up with
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While
they were ministering to the Lord
and fasting, the Holy Spirit said,
‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul
for the work to which I have called
them’” (Acts 13:1-2).
All this to say, I
thought I had heard an undertone of
God’s voice in yesterday’s worship
service.
“Church is not for
those who have it together. Love
and pay attention to the unnoticed.
God’s grace and redemption should
reach, through us, to those who are
poor, neglected, unwelcome, those
out of reach that we must find a way
to reach…”
There was probably more.
But my ears aren’t as good as they used
to be. I was wondering if anyone else
heard this, too?
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 27, 2006
Another problem finding (individualized)
purpose
Another thing: where do
we get the idea that each one of us has
an individualized purpose, a
custom-tailored -just-for-me-purpose
designed by God? In America, as one
person remarked, we have 290 million
gods. And, it is hard to please them
all. I’d add: we have 290 million popes
that can determine, all by themselves,
God’s individualized purpose for their
lives. If we all are to find
individualized purpose—a plan designed
just for me—then we are bound to be
vying for fulfilling that purpose—all
together, each one doing what is right
in his or her own eyes. (Isn’t there
something biblical negative about that
in the first place?) Now don’t get me
wrong, or misunderstand. I do believe
that, through council, a discipleship
relationship, and with the assistance of
a larger Christian community (one’s
church or elders for example), a
sub-purpose (and individual plan) can be
promoted and determined and fostered and
fulfilled. But such calls for finding
God’s purpose for one’s life isn’t set
within that mode of disciples, but set
very much within the context of American
individualism and self-fulfillment. On
a Sunday morning, we are not 300 (using
my church’s attendance as an example)
individuals looking for custom-tailored
purposes (And, perhaps potentially
competing purposes, too. And what
happens if the purpose I
hear--determine--God calling me to is to
preach at my church--do you think the
present pastor is just going to say
"Okay"?). We ought to be 300
individuals being called to a purpose.
We continue to confuse God's call to
"seek first His Kingdom and His
righteousness" with American
individualism and self-fulfillment.
No wonder God's purpose doesn't get done
and we find ourselves frustrated,
joyless, troubled, anxious, and plagued
by individual sins and guilt.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 25, 2006
The details can get in the way of
purpose
We have turned biblical Christianity
into a religion of pragmatism,
exchanging a biblical worldview for a
mere, and lower, utilitarian religion.
One case in point is our fascination
with “practical application.” I find it
ironic that I hear so much appeal for
finding our purpose as Christians. I
hear every Sunday that there is a big
plan for my life, that I have a purpose,
that there is a grand picture, a bigger
picture into which I fit. Then, and
almost in the same breath I’ll be asked
about the details of my life. I’ll be
asked to repent of individualized and
private sins. Every text I hear from
preachers seems to bear on the minute
details of my life, or so it seems from
the sermonizing. How are we to grasp
the larger picture when we’re forced to
think about the details? Especially the
details of my life? How can I find the
purpose when I am asked to consider the
particulars? That’s what has me bogged
down in the first place.
I find this ironic and very puzzling. I
understand that a “popular” preacher is
practical, and is skilled at showing how
practical Christianity and the Bible
is. This is important to the current
marketing of the church and of
Christianity in modern society. I
understand. But its not remotely
derived from a biblical model. I
believe it was G.K. Chesterton who once
said, “For those who do not believe in
God, joy is peripheral and suffering is
fundamental; but for the believer,
suffering is peripheral and joy is
fundamental.” In other words, the
Christian is one who maintains a
worldview where joy is fundamental, and
outside of that (i.e., the details),
such things as suffering are
peripheral. Current demands on pastoral
leadership (here I mean market demands
and the demands of how success is now
measured) present pressure that cause us
to reverse this in our preaching and
teaching: be practical, offer details,
but yet demand everyone to sign on to
God’s big purpose. This, however, works
against the goal of discovering God’s
big purpose. In fact, this works
against much of Biblical material, even
the texts of command and exhortation,
for the biblical documents are filled
with worldview-developing exhortations,
and rarely the details and minutiae of
private application.
Moreover, for the most part the inspired
sacred text is given to help us gain the
big picture, i.e., a biblical
worldview. When Mark expressed the
essence and summary of the Gospel as
preached by Jesus—and to be repeated by
those who follow—it is, just that, a
summary that is to help us frame our
worldview. Details will follow
naturally. Just as when an athlete
(since its Winter Olympic time now)
gives himself or herself to the sport
(the big picture) and to the objectives
and goals of that sport, other things,
peripheral things (the details) become
clear. The athlete learns what can and
cannot be done, what should and should
not be done in order to fulfill the One
Big Picture (i.e. play the sport). I do
believe that, within a discipleship
relationship with a mature Christian
mentor, one can find a sub-purpose (a
personalized purpose) that can be lived
out in light of the ONE BIG PURPOSE of
God’s Kingdom that has arrived in the
Person of Jesus Christ. But we get lost
in the details, our eyes are too close
to the map, the colors of the painting
all bleed together because we’re too
close… We need to hear that from
Scripture that we are called to this ONE
BIG PURPOSE, which can be summed up,
easily in two texts from the Gospels:
“Now after John had been taken into
custody, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of God, and
saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and
the kingdom of God is at hand;
repent and believe in the gospel.’
As He was going along by the Sea of
Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew,
the brother of Simon, casting a net
in the sea; for they were fishermen.
And Jesus said to them, ‘Follow Me,
and I will make you become fishers
of men.’ Immediately they left
their nets and followed Him” (Mark
1:14-18).
“But seek first His kingdom and His
righteousness, and all these things
will be added to you” (Matthew
6:33).
I believe
that the preoccupation of the
details—that is concentrating on the
privatized aspects of our lives, sins,
and the attempting to make Christianity
so individualized and practical—actually
works against God’s actually
Kingdom-mission purpose being believed,
own, and actualized in our life.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 21, 2006
Random thoughts after church
Don’t pray for patience
Scares me when someone leads in prayer,
“Lord, help us to be more patient.” I
know—and we all should know—there is
only one answer to that prayer: God will
bring about things in our lives to make
us more patient, i.e., trouble, anguish,
hurt, irritation…I think you can supply
the remainder of the list. There is no
worse prayer to pray, accept asking God
to make you more humble. Again, there
is only one way God can answer that
prayer…and it should scare the wits out
of us. In fact, you can scour the Bible
cover to cover and you will never—ever,
never, nada, not one verse, or even a
hint—read a command or even
encouragement to ask God for more
patience or humility. In fact, we are
simply commanded to be humble, seek
humility, and have patience.
A
pet peeve
I
have, as my kids would say, a number of
pet peeves.
One that gets me week after week at
church: regular attendees who constantly
sit at the far ends of the pews (or row
of chairs), that is the opening, the
first sets of chairs or spaces, making
every single person that comes in after
them, including guests, older folks, and
women with infants or small children)
climb over them to get to the open seats
in the middle of the pew (or row of
chairs). I am not too bothered by
guests doing this, but regulars…come
on. Not only is this unthoughtful, it
is such an obvious display that our
world revolves around ourselves—which is
not supposed to happen at the most
unselfish, character revealing, sin
unveiling, and other-centered moment of
our week: corporate worship of the
Creator God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, granted this habit might be an
unconscious one. But what are we
thinking?
Counting our individual, private sins
and losing any sense of purpose
I have tired of hearing
about personal, individualized sins that
I might and might not be
committing—especially when I hear about
them from the pulpit. Our corporate
sins, our congregational
responsibilities, our neglect of living
out as a community the very things God
wants in His community, the forgetting
and neglect of the poor, the putting our
corporate light under a bushel and
refusing to be a City set on a hill gets
lost in the call to repent of a thousand
personalized, private sins. Maybe if we
would hear from the pulpit of our sins
of omission as a congregation and calls
for corporate repentance (one example is
our neglect of the poor), maybe we
wouldn’t have so many personal, private
sins to repent of—there wouldn’t be as
much time for them anyway. Making every
text of Scripture speak to the minutia
of details in our lives drives us away
from purpose, not toward it. In fact,
most texts (including the one’s read and
referred to on Sunday) speak to our
corporate character as a body of
Christ. But, I guess it is a whole lot
safer to admit that I look at a porn
website every once and a while rather
than feel guilty for not ministering to
the poor, and easier than contributing
to the guilt of a body of people who
neglect the poor. Lot easier on the
preacher too.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 20, 2006
President’s day 2006
By all counts, George
Washington, America’s first President
and Commander in Chief was, a great
President and heads and shoulders above,
in moral character and integrity, than
most men of his time, and for that
matter, our time. Over the past few
years I have devoured a number of
Biographies on our founder father, among
some of the titles worth passing on are:
1776 by David
McCullough—one of the recent tomes
on this very big, make that huge
man. A good read. Taking us
through the portrait of our first
Commander-in-Chief, framed through
the historical setting of the
revolutionary war. A slice of our
history worth knowing about.
Founding Father by
Richard Brookhiser—a view of the man
Washington that emphasizes the
relationships that molded his
character. Short, easy to read, but
very well worthwhile.
Citizen Washington,
by William Martin—actually a novel
in format, written around
correspondences between supposed
letters belonging to Martha,
Washington’s wife, who was caught
burning them. Great insight.
Highly recommend for content,
insight, and the joy of history.
I’d like to post once
again, some incredible words from a
significant man at a very important time
in our history:
“You have done all I asked and more than could be reasonably
expected, but your country is at stake,
your wives, your homes and all you hold
dear. You have worn yourselves out with
fatigues and hardships, but we know not
how to spare you. If you will consent
to stay only one more month, you will
render that service to the cause of
liberty and to your country which you
probably never can do under any other
circumstance…We are facing the crisis
which is to decide our destiny” (George
Washington’s one more month speech to
his weary men, 1776;
originally posted on July 4, 2005).
This does not even
remotely resemble the political rhetoric
we are subjected to in our own days of
crisis.
Also check out...Our
forefather's morality check (December 19, 2004)
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 12, 2006
Not in my back Yard, the NIMBY excuse
This isn’t just spin. As a conservative
and a republican, I am all being more
fiscally responsible and to minimize the
tax burden on American citizens. But it
is of national interest to maximize our
resources, as the purpose of the
Community Services
Block Grant program
affirms, “to
alleviate the causes and conditions of
poverty in communities.” For sure there
is government waste, and I agree some of
the tax dollars funneled into welfare
and poverty programs are wasted, not
well implemented, unaccountable, and
unwisely distributed—but I say some, not
all. (Strengthen, don’t eliminate; fix,
not do away with.) As the disaster in
New Orleans and the broken levies has
shown even other federally supported
programs (like the ones that were
supposed to build good levies) can be
wasted and misused and misappropriated.
But does that mean we stop building
levies? Of course not. We fix what is
wrong. Same should be applied to our
goal—isn’t it a good goal, of national
and of personal interest?—“to alleviate
the causes and conditions of poverty in
communities.” Why would you be against
that goal? Why would anyone? This idea
that it is up to individuals, or even
should be left up to the religious
organizations is a phony hypothetical.
Those claiming such are often religious,
few of whom ever lift a finger to do a
thing about poverty. And now, we hear
that the major talking heads of the
evangelical leadership community are
asking the Federal government to work on
global warming and world poverty—over
there, of course Let’s see these same
evangelical leaders do something about
it here, on our shores, in our
backyard. Politically-correct-evangelicalese
has now succumb to the Bono-syndrome: It
is all over there. (Apparently Bono and
our status leaders show up at these
evangelical leader’s offices now.)
Forget what’s here, right next door.
Not in my back yard (NIMBY). The NIMBY
principle is alive and well among
evangelicals. If evangelicals,
together, wanted to actually do
something about poverty here in America,
they would because they could. Os
Guinness in his
Gravedigger File
points out
“It may be true that there are more
Christians in America than ever
before and that they have never had
so much money at their disposal,
such powerful technologies to use,
such positions of influence to fill,
or such a global opportunity to
which to respond. But the signs are
that the opportunity will be
squandered and that much of American
Christendom is more modern and more
American than it is decisively
Christian.”
Whereas I agree that we will always have
the poor among us, why is that the
primary working (Biblical) principle
among those who claim to be following
Jesus Christ? Yet James, the brother of
Jesus and an apostle reminds the
Christian community that was divided
over the issues and thought patterns of
rich-poor, haves-have nots:
“Pure
and undefiled religion in the sight
of our God and Father is this: to
visit orphans and widows in their
distress, and to keep oneself
unstained by the world” (James
1:27).
This is obviously what the church
community should be busy about, since it
was written to an established church.
We use the “poor will always be with
you” principle as an excuse. How is it
that we escape the words from Proverbs?
“He
who oppresses the poor taunts his
Maker, but he who is gracious to the
needy honors Him” (Proverbs 14: 31).
“The righteous is concerned for the
rights of the poor, the wicked does
not understand such concern”
(Proverbs 29:7).
We think we escape them. We won’t.
I know I have wondered about here with
my ranting. I am greatly disturbed when
I hear that top leaders within the
Evangelical community from church and
denominational leaders to Presidents of
institutions of higher Christian
education sign “A
Call to Action” to
stop global warming and world hunger
(now we’re players on the political
scene and are apparently our talking
heads have become “people to see”), yet
ignore the poverty right here. Where is
the call to action for
alleviating the
causes and conditions of poverty right
here in our communities? In our back
yards? Not in my back yard! God
forgive us.
See the
National Community
Action Foundation’s Press Release
regarding the elimination of national
resources that exist to
alleviate the conditions and causes of
poverty in our communities….GO!
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 7, 2006
My
spin on "fishers of men"
In
a short while, I will be posting another
Rough Cut exegetical essay. I
choose Mark 1:17 and Jesus' promise to
make those who follow Him "fishers of
men." While this verse has on a
popular level been used to promoted
evangelism and witnessing to the
non-believer, I find that its true
meaning has been lost.
I don't think Jesus was
making a positive statement on
evangelism, but a very serious comment,
actually an Old Testament promise,
concerning the nature of our ministry as
agents of the Gospel of the Kingdom of
God. Time permitting, I am editing
the final draft and the Rough Cut on
"Fishers of Men" will be posted within
two weeks. I am presenting my
findings and conclusions as Black Rock
Congregational Church's Tuesday Bible
Study tonight, Feb 7, 2006.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 5, 2006
Violence over cartoons, unconditional
love after murder
Recently we have heard
news of violence, ugly protests, and
mindless rampages because someone one,
with no moral bearings and insensitive
wit published irreverent cartoons of
Islam’s revered prophet. According to
an AP report thousands of Syrians,
enraged by the stupid caricatures,
torched two embassies in Damascus and
Palestinians in Gaza marched through the
streets burning German and Danish flags,
smashing windows of the German cultural
center. The new leader of Hamas, a
Palestinian organization now the
majority party for the Palestinians,
called the cartoons “an unforgivable
insult” that rises to the level of
punishment by death. At Growth Group
Friday night, someone commented on the
reaction by Islamic believers, wondering
where is the forgiveness in their
religion. I couldn’t help but contrast
the violent outrage and calls for the
death of the cartoons creators and
publishers with the recent major motion
picture release of
End
of the Spear. This
movie retells the true story of five
murdered missionaries in Ecuador in
1956. I thought, “what a contrast. I
wonder if anyone will notice?” On
January 8, 1956, five missionaries were
attempting to make contact with what was
considered to be one of the most savage
and violent tribes known to man. Two
years later, the wife and sister of two
of the martyred men walked into the
jungle to live—yes actually live, not
burn their villages, not attach them,
but to live—with the same people who had
murdered their husbands. On one
occasion the murderers asked the wives,
why didn’t they shoot us, they had
guns? The reply came, “Waengogi [the
Waodani term for God] had a son who was
speared, but he did not spear back.”
Don’t misunderstand me: It is awful,
irresponsible, and senseless to mock or
ridicule what someone finds sacred. I
do not condone the brainless and
irresponsible and hurtful mockery by the
cartoonists. What I am contrasting is
the reaction of the protesters (hardly
peaceful, loving, or forgiving) and the
Islamic leadership (calling for the
death of the cartoon creators) with the
imitation of Christ found in both the
five martyred missionary men and their
families who went and loved the very
ones who had murdered their husbands. I
recall Steve Saint, son of Nate Saint
(one of the five) telling Mincaye, the
one who killed his father, “You did not
take his life; he gave it.” This
contrast should be apparent since both
news items—the reaction to the cartoons
and the
End
of the Spear story—has
been permeating the media outlets. This
contrast is what sets the Christian
faith apart from most other worldviews
and religions. The acts of love and
forgiveness are not an excuse for
dim-witted and/or blasphemous actions of
others; but such reactions of love and
forgiveness are the divine
reaction—because of them, the violence
stops.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 3, 2006
What
about their witness?
Talk about a utilitarian
faith disguised as real faith in God.
I have been following a story in the
paper about a large community church
congregation that wants to expand and
build a mega-church-style building in
the suburbs, near where they are now.
After numerous public town meetings,
where they should have learned that
their unchurched and non-Christian
neighbors (neighbors of the church
building), with one loud voice in unison
cried, "No!," the final decision was
made by the commission responsible for
such permits who voted unanimously "no"
as well. I wasn't surprised; but
the church and its lawyers sure tried,
even in the end using the constitutional
guarantee of "Freedom of Religion" as a
reason to grant the permit. As I
listened and read with interest, I often
wondered what kind of witness this was
for the community. What about
their witness? Granted I would
have been still opposed to spending such
money on a larger building more on
biblical grounds, but I was appalled at
the church's lack of understanding and
caring about their neighbors. Even
more disgusted by the leadership's
utilitarian use of both Scripture and
prayer to say "it was God's will."
This church is a suburban church and I
wondered, why not go build where there
are zoning laws that permit such large
buildings? No, they don't want to
be "in the city." One congregation
member wondered what the big deal was
about zoning (their project was deemed
to big and too near wetlands),
remarking, "They
build buildings in Manhattan every day,
and they're within inches of each
other." Well then, build the
larger church building "in the City."
Seems simple enough to me. Just
think about your witness to the wider
community. That at least seems to
have God's will marked on it without
poor proof-texting and pious remarks
about prayer.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
February 1, 2006
My kids make it to City Science Fair
Today my daughter and
step-son present their science fair
projects at the City competition.
They earned this privilege by placing
1st and 2nd in their School's 7th Grade
annual Science Fair. This is
Amanda's second year winning 1st Place.
Her experiment was called "Aquaponics:
Water Farming," determining what was the
best aqua-environment to grow plants.
Michael's experiment, "Growing Yogurt,"
sought to discover which milk (1%, 2%,
whole, and skim) produced the best
yogurt. They will be competing
against all the other 7th Grade winners
(whoever placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd) from
the City of Bridgeport. If they
hold their own in explaining their
experiment well, make good eye-contact,
and sound like they own (and are excited
by) their experiment, they are good
candidates for going to State (and
winning a few bucks, too!). I
couldn't help but be proud, of course.
And I couldn't help but think about the
evolution vs. intelligent design (ID)
debate. I know my kids are smart
enough to know that even their
experiment took a designer.
Neither will tell the judges they threw
the materials (which eternally existed)
into a container, shook it from time to
time over a period of days, and poof,
the final product was complete and they
just studied it and came to their
conclusions. If they did, neither
would be taken seriously--winning 1st,
2nd, or 3rd would not be an option.
But that's what evolutionists want us to
believed--and we still give them prizes
and places of honor and hold sacred
their theory. I'll let you know
how my kids do today.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 29, 2006
Give me liberty or deny me the right to
kill the unborn
If I were an alien—from
say a remote planet or even remote
island on the planet, let alone just a
foreigner from a non-US territory—and I
happened to stray a shore, passing very
unfamiliar structures and signs, and
then happening upon a TV
somewhere-someplace in America, and
being captivated by what I would later
come to know as the Senate hearings on
the nomination of a man named Samuel
Alito to what is called the United
States Supreme Court…what would I have
seen? What would I have come to know
about life in America? What would I
come away with that is important to
Americans—well at least important to the
questioning Senators? I would surmise
that American society is built on
whether a female of the American species
could kill their unborn or not. One of
the inquisitors stating, “women all over
America have come to depend on” the
right to unrestricted abortion. No
wonder Abortion Rights are the most
important reason to vote against a
conservative Supreme Court nominee.
Parable aside, I also find it funny,
ironic, and constitutionally selective
when I hear the same anti-life
politicians say that the Second
Amendment (right to bear arms) is a
static, militia oriented, proscription
that can’t be applied to the individuals
as a right to own a gun, but yet find a
flexible—“the founders couldn’t have
known, but made a flexible, fluid,
‘living’”—constitutional right to
privacy to cover a woman’s right to NOT
continuing bearing a child that she has
inside of her womb. When the brave
founding father, facing certain death
for his stand against England’s tyranny
shouted for all American History to
hear, “Give me liberty, or give me
death,” I don’t think he meant, as Ann
Coulter wrote, that the modern cry for a
faithful understanding of the fight for
freedom is captured in “Give me liberty
or give me the right to have unprotected
sex with men I don't want to have a
child with.” I didn’t realize that the
American experiment is a course in
defining personhood backwards…I
thought we made great gains forward in
the experiment on this matter…we made
gains in determining that we ought not
to have slaves and that people of color
(from all different races and ethnic
lineage) are indeed persons will
inalienable rights to “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” Now we
have Senator’s wanting a selective
“living constitution” which diminishes
the personhood of the unborn “fetus” and
believes passionately (because that’s
where their financial support comes
from) that in order to have true liberty
one must be free to destroy the life, if
one chooses, that is the most innocent
and of need of the most protection.
Give me liberty or deny me the right to
kill the unborn. Sad. Very sad.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 26, 2006
Further away from the foundations of
faith
As our society steps
further and further away from its faith
foundations, the soulishness of the
American experiment, why are we so
surprised at the depths of our now
public and open depravity, the spreading
of greed and the blur of ethical
professional behaviors, and the
Columbine-style nihilism of our youth.
And yet, we see in such movies as the
End of the Spear
that the power of the Good News can and
does penetrate the most violent of
cultures—and the Waodani tribe of the
Ecuador rainforest is a far cry from the
American, Western culture formed by the
foundations of the Christian faith. I
just recently heard Ravi Zacharias
mention that he had quite a surprise
while visiting Communist China. After
numerous guard stations and security
check points, he arrived at a prominent
government building to be greeted with a
large banner stretched across the front,
proclaiming Merry Christmas. He
commented that he had to travel to the
other side of the world and to a
policy-driven atheistic State to see a
government-sponsor acknowledgement of
Christ. I am profoundly disturbed that
in the very place where culture and
society is supposed to be a continuous
argument for what is better, more
promoting of what brings more openness
for “life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness,” the very foundation (and
worldview) that made the experiment
possible—Christianity—is often left out
and even kept out of the argument. How
ironic.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 25, 2006
The Gospel for the jungles of Ecuador,
and maybe even for our American High
Schools
The Director of the “End
of the Spear” tell us that the Waodani
tribe of the eastern rainforest of
Ecuador, at first, did not want to allow
them to be portrayed on film, especially
the events of January 1956. As the shot
at Concord was heard around the world,
there was a true sense that the spears
piercing into the five missionaries on
that river sand bar in the jungles of
Equator, too, were heard around the
world. Many Christians know the story
as repeated in sermons, Sunday school,
college chapels, and missionary stories:
Missionaries Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Ed
McCully, Pete Fleming, and Roget
Youderian met the end of the spear in a
deceitful twist of what was to be a
fruitful missionary journey to bring the
Good News to one of the most violent
tribes of South America. When the
Waodani tribe, now many years later, and
many who follow God’s carvings, said no
at the invitation to retell their story
on film, Steve Saint began to explain to
them about the violence in America. He
explained the incident at Columbine
where, for no real reason, students had
murdered their fellow classmates. After
hearing some of America’s violent
stories, Mincayani, the actual one who
had killed Steve’s father in 1956, noted
that the stories of violence in American
was just like how the Waodani had lived
before following God’s carvings. The
tribe then agreed: if their story could
help us in the U.S. stop killing and
live in peace, they saw telling their
story through film as a good thing. The
truthfulness of the Gospel is an
objective fact of history; its power can
even be applied to the wildest, most
violent, hate filled tribe in the
deepest parts of the jungle. Perhaps,
it can be applied here, in the US, in
our own schools.
See the movie--you
will not be disappointed; you will be
changed.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 17, 2005
End of the Spear
A story of courage,
faith, and forgiveness...End of the
Spear opens this Friday, January
20th...check your local listings...
End of the
Spear is a major
motion picture coming to theaters
January 20th, 2006. This film is the
dramatic representation of the true
story seen in Beyond the Gates
of Splendor. End of the
Spear follows the life journeys
of Mincayani, a Waodoni warrior who
led a raid on five missionaries in
1956, and Steve Saint, son of
missionary Nate Saint.
Mincayani grew up
knowing he must spear and live or be
speared and die. His family
struggles to survive the cycle of
revenge spearings that threaten
their very existence. His encounter
with five missionaries propels his
tribe down a road that culminates in
them not only departing from
violence, but caring for the enemy
tribe they once raided.
Steve Saint grew up
knowing his father devoted his life
to reaching a tribe in peril. Steve
and his family continue the mission
that began with his father, even
though it could cost them
everything. This film raises the
questions:
Is it possible to
forgive someone who killed your
loved one? Is it possible to have a
family relationship with that
person?
Winner of the
Heartland Film Festival 2005,
End of the Spear is a powerful
film that will touch your heart and
challenge your faith. Don't miss
this incredible motion picture as it
comes to 1200 theaters nationwide.
From Bearing Fruit
Communications
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 15, 2006
Once to every man and nation
I
am hesitant posting James Lowell’s song,
One to every man and nation, because
some might think I do so to “protest”
the Iraq War, or in some way want others
to think I take an opposing position to
our President’s policies on terrorism.
I do not. Lowell did write this well
known hymn to protest America’s war with
Mexico in 1845; and, Martin Luther King
quoted in a speech given to protest the
War in Vietnam (two days before he,
himself, fell victim to an assassin’s
bullet. But I do post it to remind us
that truth can be awfully hidden from us
and it seems that God must work in the
shadows. Just read the song, the words,
and think of the greater, O so greater
war between truth and falsehood. And
think of how the poles have been
reversed in our culture where right (or
righteousness and truth) is spun as
wrong or incorrect or politically
incorrect, and where wrong
(unrighteousness or falsehood) is
triumphed as freeing, independent, and
progressive.
Once to every man and nation, comes
the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with
falsehood, for the good or evil
side;
Some great cause, some great
decision, offering each the bloom or
blight,
And the choice goes by forever,
’twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble,
when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses
while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of
the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs,
Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with
the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time
makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward,
who would keep abreast of truth.
Though the cause of evil prosper,
yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
keeping watch above His own.
(James Russell Lowell, published in
the Boston Courier December
11, 1845)
My family and I joined
the Congregational Church on the Green
in Norwalk (CT) this morning. These are
our friends. Their pastor of over 40
years retired and soon passed to better
shores in heaven. In the grief, there
is now a search for a new pastor, and
they have been having a tough time as of
late. Not details, sorry, but we did
want to join them to show our support,
love, and concern. We enjoyed
worshipping with them—our friends and
wider Church family. We sung Lowell’s
song in closing. I was touched by the
words. Though the causes that stem from
evil seem to prosper, truth will triumph
in the end. We live truth on the cross
and wrong on the throne. But still,
God, although hidden in the shadows,
keeps watch. Christ on the cross;
Creaser on the throne. Mismatched. But
we dare give up hope, and find ways to
join God—in those shadows, righting
wrongs, and bringing righteousness in
the midst of the darkness of
unrighteousness.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 6, 2006
Bad PR, bad news for the Good News
The Good News is being
overshadowed and drowned out by some
national and local (bad) news. And I
don’t mean Christians picketing an
abortion clinic or a faulty portrayal of
clergy in some current TV show or movie,
or, even some sexual scandal within the
church. No I mean Pat Robertson, the
so-called Christian broadcaster mogul,
speaking out of his poorly informed,
biblically ignorant mouth again. He
said on air for everyone to quote that
the Israel’s Prime Minister’s stroke was
God’s judgment for giving up a part of
“God’s land.” As one person said,
Robertson is not open to
non-dispensational views of
eschatology—that would really mess up
his public statements. There will
always be false prophets and religious
swindlers, but now they have access to
TV. Where is the Evangelical leadership
on this? (Let’s see Christianity today
take this trash on!) Someone tell this
guy to get off the air. Of course
Robertson’s main objective is not to
bring about the return of Christ—that
would certainly get his show cancelled
and then his millions would mean nothing
and all his power and influence and
self-aggrandizement would be finished
(and fed to the fire). His objective
and every move on screen is calculated
to bring in the $$$ from his
donor-base. But his news taints the
real Good News. I wonder how many Jews
will see Robertson’s love and open
themselves up to the real Good News?
And then we have a hopeful (wannabe)
mega-church in the making here where I
live that is in the news: They want to
build a megachurch-styled building in a
suburban residential area that is not
zoned for such a structure. They have
taken on their neighbors (whom they are
supposed to love and lay down their life
for) and brought in the lawyers (didn’t
Paul say something about not taking
non-Christians to court, and rather be
wronged?) all to build a building that
will also be put in the fire as will
Robertson’s media empire. This is all
wrong. This is all bad news for the
Good News. I was disgusted watching
both of these accounts of Christians in
my local and national news outlets.
This is wrong. And I’ll be the first
(which thankfully I am not) to say so!
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 5, 2006
For
Churches over 40
I ran across an
interesting website dedicated to
Churches over 40. Now on the one hand I
found it funny and helpful. The
founder’s stated purpose is:
“Church Over 40
exists to develop clergy and lay
leaders in churches over 40 who will
partner with God for renewal. Our
vision is to become a catalyst for
widespread renewal among American
congregations over 40 years old” (Church
Over 40).
There is much helpful
material, workshops, ideas, and links
for the over 40 Church. I highly
recommend it. I just think its funny,
the choice of “over 40.” True there are
so many new Churches popping up all
over. But 40! I was a interim pastor
of a Church in southern Minnesota that
was started in the late 1800’s. In the
grand scheme of things, 40 is young.
But I take it the founder is speaking
generationally, that is an over 40
church will be still, possibly led by
principles from a generation ago. From
what I can see, this site offers help to
bring renewal for older churches stuck
in patterns of church life and thinking
that hinder renewal today. Take a
look. Pray for renewal.
Check out Church Over 40.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 3, 2006
Be better cities on your respective
hills
I am going to get in
trouble here, but that’s the way it
goes. You can search the New Testament
high and low and you will not find the
Gospel writers (Paul, Luke, James,
Peter, or John) dwelling on the subject
of evangelism. I know to speak against
or downplay evangelism (that is,
contemporary, individualistic, personal
evangelism) is like committing
sacrilege—and it certainly would not
make one a popular candidate for a
pastoral position in today’s modern
church. I have been a student of the
Bible for over 27 years, nearly three
decades. I have a Masters in New
Testament Theology (a Greek
concentration). I have been a New
Testament and Greek Professor at a Bible
College and have pastored churches for
about ten years. And I still get
strange looks and condemning comments
when I ask where are the commands to
evangelize. Of course I appreciate the
passion of some who are committed
“verbal witnesses,” who make it part of
their daily lives to share Christ with
others. I am moved by the commitment of
those who weekly participate in programs
like Evangelism Explosion and witnessing
teams. But as a formal command to share
the Gospel or for a church to develop
and plan for evangelism (and to tell
people in the pews its their job, their
responsibility to do the work of
evangelism), there is a lack in New
Testament scripture. Go make disciples
(Matthew 28:19), of course. The general
call to preach the gospel to all
creation (Mark 16:15), this is there.
The promise of being Christ’s witness to
the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), yes,
indeed that is there as well. Some will
think these are enough to suggest each
individual Christian is responsible to
evangelize. My issue, however, is we
all too often attach “witnessing” and
“evangelism” to growing my church, our
individual local congregations. There
is that expectation, as if the burden to
bring “in the numbers” is a people of
the pew responsibility. But go ahead,
read each New Testament Letter and find
me one place where Paul, James, Peter or
John (or Luke for that matter) commands
those individual churches to get busy
evangelizing, or calls for individual
Christians among the congregations to go
out and bring people in. Why I am even
bringing this up? Don’t I care about
people going to hell? Why wouldn’t I
emphasize evangelism? What’s wrong with
me? I think this cognitive approach to
spreading the Gospel is an excuse for
actually not doing the work of the
Kingdom. I believe church leadership
uses this “place the burden on the pew”
approach to evangelism to replace tiers
responsibility for fulfilling true
leadership and the call of pastoring.
The New Testament is more concerned
about expanding the influence of Jesus
and His kingdom than making a series of
individualistic, building-centered
church bodies increase in numbers. I’d
like to see more biblical theology on
church growth (and not just social
trends and sociological studies—all
good, but not starting places). The
church is called to be an expanding
temple of Christ—moving outward,
expanding outward to encompass more
territory demographically and
geographically. As we seek to develop
plans for evangelism, church leadership
is to, well, lead (and that means do,
people, do, not just talk), and whole
congregations should implement ways to
expand the kingdom—this is why it is
social and personal. It seems to me
that the New Testament writers spent
their writing time disciplining and
assisting the local church communities
to be better “Cities” on their
respective “hills” and evoking the
church’s leadership to lead.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
January 1, 2006
The two faces of Happy New Year
From what I understand,
New Year’s is considered the oldest
known official holiday. In fact, it was
first celebrated in ancient Babylon,
which is now Iraq, four thousand and six
years ago, around 2000 BC. Of course,
everyone doesn’t celebrate New Year’s on
January 1. Only those with a 365-day
solar calendar originating from Roman
origins mark the first day of the month
of January as the beginning of the New
Year. Thomas Mann is right, we mortals
might not have invented time, but we
sure do take pains to mark it, count it,
reflect on it. Perhaps it is because we
are in the habit of looking back and
looking forward, marking time by the
good or bad that happens, and praying
for a future more desired or less
tainted by error. In fact we call our
first month January after the mythical
king of an ancient Rome whose head
adorns early calendars going as far back
as 153 BC. This ancient legend also
started what we now call New Year’s
Resolutions. Janus, that mythical king
of Rome, had two faces, one looking back
on past events and forward to the
future. This king's two-face head
accompanied ancient calendars, becoming
a symbol for resolutions for making
amends for the past and resolving more
positive commitments for the future.
The Romans used to celebrate New Year’s
in what we call March, but Julius
Caesar, in 46 BC changed the calendar to
more reflect the seasons and named the
first month after Janus, the god of
beginnings and the guardian of doors and
entrances. That calendar has struck for
close to 2052 years.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
|
|
