Well, even though I didn't preach yesterday (Sun the 16th) thanks to the fact that we were visited by our Bishop, I did preach on the Gospel text at the casual service on Thursday and I do have some "morning after" thoughts on the text. One of the things we did Thursday evening was to make a "T-graph" and put down all of the things we liked, and all of the things we did NOT like about the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The real "gotch'ya" part of this parable comes in vss 24-26a, & vs 30:
"24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, "Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master replied, "You wicked and lazy slave! ...30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
On the DON'T LIKE side of the T-graph was the point that this poor scared servant was so mistreated by the Master--who in the parable is an obvious picture of Christ. We want always to tell our kids, and indeed believer OURSELVES, that God is a God of second chances. That idea is core to the Gospel message. Our past, our shortcomings, our failures, our weaknesses, the times we've let others down, in short OUR SINS....are not something that God holds against us; that, indeed, the Gospel message is that God for Christ's sake overlooks those things. God embraces sinners as His own children, and joint heirs with Christ. This is called "grace"....God's undeserved favor toward sinful humanity.
So where's the grace for this poor scared servant in the parable of the talents?
There are only so many optional answers to that question. One option would be to say that the parable isn't about grace, so we shouldn't try to find any there. But since the central message of the Gospel is about grace, it seems strange that we shouldn't expect to find it somewhere. Another option would be to say that in the end this "wicked & lazy" servant didn't deserve any grace because, unlike the other two servants, he didn't do anything to deserve it. Again, however, this explanation causes some serious problems. If grace is "deserved," then God's "undeserved favor toward sinful humanity" turns out not to be a very good definition of grace. Put another way, if sinful humanity has to *earn* God's grace, how do any of us know whether we're in the group of the first two servants, or in the group of the last one?
Spiritually speaking--which is to say that the original point of the parable may have had a more specific, more narrow application--the end of the parable only makes sense if viewed a certain way. What if the "talents" that were given out by the Master, were in fact, measures of grace? No two individuals are identical. We all stand before God's lawcourt as condemned in terms our status against His perfect Law. But in terms of particular infractions, of course this will vary from individual to individual. St. Paul said, concerning this, that where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Rom. 5:20). In other words, grace is an endless supply of second chances. But there is no grace for one who rejects grace. Put another way, there is no gospel behind door #2. What if the first two servants represent those who willingly accept and live in this relationship of grace with the Lord, but the last servant represents one who spurns this grace? Given that the return of the Master and the "settling of accounts" in the parable is metaphorical for the Last Judgment, the wicked/lazy third servant has indeed run out of second chances.
The parable serves both as good news and as a warning. God is gracious in His dealings with us. He gives us His grace freely and in turn anticipates that we will lovingly live in that relationship of grace, producing the signs of that relationship (more talents, in the parable). But there is also a warning. Failure to "use" God's grace, failure to appropriate it into our lives is rejection--a conscious decision to claim it as un-needed. May we never do this.
peace,
Pastor Manwell
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Morning after thoughts, 23rd Sun. after pentecost
Well, it's been a long time since I've posted morning after thoughts. Seems like since school started back up my Monday mornings have been a little more hectic. But, I'll try to get back up on that horse...
Probably the biggest thought I have about that Matt 22:15-22 text this morning is that even though I think & hope we had a good time yesterday exploring that whole idea of "image"....."whose image" & where is it, and all of that....SOME questions about actual TAXES may be percolating in the back of your minds.
After all, the original question to the teacher from Nazareth was, "is it Lawful [ok with Torah] to pay taxes to the Emperor?"
The relevant point of that question is that the Emperor is someone who is perceived as awful; evil; himself, opposed to Torah.
It's difficult to draw an exact parallel, culturally speaking, from that day to ours. Israel was a conquered people ruled by heartless outsiders. We have a representative democracy. Your party may not be in power at present, but you get to vote. Still, now and then a Christian's conscience will be troubled by something his/her nation is doing with their tax dollars. The most immediate thing that comes to mind is the current war and other acts of aggression. One may very easily find one's self wishing that we could STIPULATE that our tax dollars not be used for such enterprises. There are, no doubt, other issues as well that enflame the hearts of conscientious people. And so perhaps the question is asked again, "is it lawful to pay taxes?" "Is there any way I can get out of this for the sake of my conscience?"
The Bible has never been very helpful on this front. Jesus says in Matthew 22 that the Emperor (or the US Government) seems to have a right to expect a monetary support from the people. St. Paul in Romans 13 talks a great deal about the civil authorities and the fact that we are to submit ourselves to them.
Compared to the bulk of human history, we in our day live in a pretty unique culture. If you disagree with the way your government is using your tax dollars, you actually have *some* choices. You can vote for a different person or a different party, perhaps even run for office yourself! But one thing you really can't do is use your religion as an 'excuse' for not paying your taxes.
cheers,
TM
Probably the biggest thought I have about that Matt 22:15-22 text this morning is that even though I think & hope we had a good time yesterday exploring that whole idea of "image"....."whose image" & where is it, and all of that....SOME questions about actual TAXES may be percolating in the back of your minds.
After all, the original question to the teacher from Nazareth was, "is it Lawful [ok with Torah] to pay taxes to the Emperor?"
The relevant point of that question is that the Emperor is someone who is perceived as awful; evil; himself, opposed to Torah.
It's difficult to draw an exact parallel, culturally speaking, from that day to ours. Israel was a conquered people ruled by heartless outsiders. We have a representative democracy. Your party may not be in power at present, but you get to vote. Still, now and then a Christian's conscience will be troubled by something his/her nation is doing with their tax dollars. The most immediate thing that comes to mind is the current war and other acts of aggression. One may very easily find one's self wishing that we could STIPULATE that our tax dollars not be used for such enterprises. There are, no doubt, other issues as well that enflame the hearts of conscientious people. And so perhaps the question is asked again, "is it lawful to pay taxes?" "Is there any way I can get out of this for the sake of my conscience?"
The Bible has never been very helpful on this front. Jesus says in Matthew 22 that the Emperor (or the US Government) seems to have a right to expect a monetary support from the people. St. Paul in Romans 13 talks a great deal about the civil authorities and the fact that we are to submit ourselves to them.
Compared to the bulk of human history, we in our day live in a pretty unique culture. If you disagree with the way your government is using your tax dollars, you actually have *some* choices. You can vote for a different person or a different party, perhaps even run for office yourself! But one thing you really can't do is use your religion as an 'excuse' for not paying your taxes.
cheers,
TM
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
This is where we went!
Several people have asked **where** in Michigan do we go for summer vacation. Well, here it is--the town of Gaylord. It's about 45 minutes south of the Mackinaw Bridge. When I was 4yrs old my grandparents moved up here. From that time on, "summer vacation" always meant, at the very least, a trip to Gaylord. The prime attraction is Otsego Lake State Park. Otsego Lake is one of the many wonderful inland lakes found in northern Michigan. The only thing to remember is that they are UP NORTH, and hence the water temperature doesn't get truly comfortable until late July or August. Even then if it's breezy out it may still seem like a cool dip!
Check out the neat slideshow of pics from the cabin and at the lake. It should be playing in the upper right corner of the blog.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, August 11, 2008
Pentecost +13 morning after thoughts
Ok, I admit it, I've fallen behind on my 'morning after' thoughts.
How's that jingle go about the 'best laid plans?' Well, anyway, I thought I'd pick back up with these thoughts especially this week following what seems to me to be a VERY interesting text from Romans 10.
First of all, there's the verse that the lectionary omitted, vs 4: "For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (nrsv) A **LOT** can and should be said about this verse. For instance, if "end" means nullification, then what Paul is saying is that the Torah is now done & over with and should be tossed in the nearest trash can. The problem with that idea--regardless of what one may think Paul's view of Torah was--is that it doesn't square very well with Jesus own words: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law (Torah) until all is accomplished." (Mt 5:18, nrsv). Romans 10:4 makes much more sense when we see that in the Greek the word we translate 'end' is 'telos'.....a word which means completion or even culmination. In other words, what Paul is saying is that Messiah is the culmination of the Torah. What, in the final analysis is the Torah all about? Is it about rules to live by, is it about working your way to heaven? NO. It's about the Messiah. Everything in Torah was supposed to point and lead one to the Messiah.
Now, on to the verses in the text, 5-15.
Of course as I said in my sermon the thing that really stands out is how Paul dons his Jewish Rabbi hat to martial huge chunks of the Old Testament to his argument. Again, tho, we miss a very important point in most of the English translations. It all boils down to the translation of the Greek conjunction "de." Most of the English translations of Romans assume that Paul is setting up an adversative scenario between what Moses says vs. what he (Paul) is saying. One classic, but very wrong, way of spinning this would be to say that Moses preached a righteousness according to the law, **but** Paul proclaims a righteousness according to the Gospel. Here's the nrsv version of vss 5-6:
5 Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that "the person who does these things will live by them." 6 ***But*** (Greek "de") the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) etc.
The problem is that in the context of these verses the English word "but" is too strong. Besides, it makes no sense for Paul to say that Moses was dead wrong about something (righteousness according to the law), and then go on directly quoting from Moses (Deut 30). The key is to see that the Greek word "de" should be translated softer.....something along the lines of "and moreover." In this way, what Paul is doing is offering his midrash (commentary) on what Moses is talking about. In other words, Paul would say that Moses would say that "living according to the Torah" is **not** about the rules or "works salvation," but rather living by grace believing in the God of the Torah and His Messiah that is to come; a totally grace-based, faith-based perspective. Paul's point all through Romans is that **this** is the true perspective of the ancient Jewish faith, the Patriarchs and Prophets, but not the current leadership of Judaism who've rejected their own Messiah.
Cheers,
TM
How's that jingle go about the 'best laid plans?' Well, anyway, I thought I'd pick back up with these thoughts especially this week following what seems to me to be a VERY interesting text from Romans 10.
First of all, there's the verse that the lectionary omitted, vs 4: "For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (nrsv) A **LOT** can and should be said about this verse. For instance, if "end" means nullification, then what Paul is saying is that the Torah is now done & over with and should be tossed in the nearest trash can. The problem with that idea--regardless of what one may think Paul's view of Torah was--is that it doesn't square very well with Jesus own words: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law (Torah) until all is accomplished." (Mt 5:18, nrsv). Romans 10:4 makes much more sense when we see that in the Greek the word we translate 'end' is 'telos'.....a word which means completion or even culmination. In other words, what Paul is saying is that Messiah is the culmination of the Torah. What, in the final analysis is the Torah all about? Is it about rules to live by, is it about working your way to heaven? NO. It's about the Messiah. Everything in Torah was supposed to point and lead one to the Messiah.
Now, on to the verses in the text, 5-15.
Of course as I said in my sermon the thing that really stands out is how Paul dons his Jewish Rabbi hat to martial huge chunks of the Old Testament to his argument. Again, tho, we miss a very important point in most of the English translations. It all boils down to the translation of the Greek conjunction "de." Most of the English translations of Romans assume that Paul is setting up an adversative scenario between what Moses says vs. what he (Paul) is saying. One classic, but very wrong, way of spinning this would be to say that Moses preached a righteousness according to the law, **but** Paul proclaims a righteousness according to the Gospel. Here's the nrsv version of vss 5-6:
5 Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that "the person who does these things will live by them." 6 ***But*** (Greek "de") the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) etc.
The problem is that in the context of these verses the English word "but" is too strong. Besides, it makes no sense for Paul to say that Moses was dead wrong about something (righteousness according to the law), and then go on directly quoting from Moses (Deut 30). The key is to see that the Greek word "de" should be translated softer.....something along the lines of "and moreover." In this way, what Paul is doing is offering his midrash (commentary) on what Moses is talking about. In other words, Paul would say that Moses would say that "living according to the Torah" is **not** about the rules or "works salvation," but rather living by grace believing in the God of the Torah and His Messiah that is to come; a totally grace-based, faith-based perspective. Paul's point all through Romans is that **this** is the true perspective of the ancient Jewish faith, the Patriarchs and Prophets, but not the current leadership of Judaism who've rejected their own Messiah.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, June 2, 2008
Pentecost +3 morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, yesterday was week #2 of our new series in the book of Romans. The thing that sticks in my mind about this passage is how radically EQUAL St. Paul sees things. The "no distinction" he mentions in vs 22b means that in his thinking there is no distinction between Jew & Gentile in their standing before God, and in terms of Paul's all-important issue of justification. Two things come blasting into my mind almost simultaneously on this topic.......(1) how radical of a notion this must've been--indeed, I'm not at all sure that Paul's view was supported by ANY OTHER APOSTLE at the time......and (2) how almost entirely irrelevant it is in today's church.
Not that I'm trying to dis St. Paul or a passage from the Bible, but the whole issue of the status of Jewish believers vs Gentile believers is almost completely absent from our radar screens. As a matter of fact, there is a HUGE issue of interpretation when it comes to this & other such passages of the Bible. The writer *clearly* had a particular group of people in mind at the time of his writing. IF that particular set of circumstances is no longer active......or at least actively brewing in the church, does that mean that we should seek to re-interpret and in some ways re-apply the author's point? In other words, our own local congregation here at LCHS (to the best of my knowledge) has no such mixture of Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. We are all Gentile. So then should I re-interpret/re-apply any of Paul's Jewish/Gentile dialog to mean something more along the lines of older generation/younger generation believers.....or maybe long-time believers vs newer converts.....or maybe those who seem stuck on tradition vs those who are more free-wheeling?
The reason I pose the rhetorical question is that this is PRECISELY the way that huge sections of Paul's writings have been interpreted and applied in the all-Gentile church for hundreds of years. Since the Jewish/Gentile dynamic of Paul's setting doesn't apply to our own, we seek to draw parallels to situations that we do have.
I struggle with this, however, as I'm not sure that ANY parallel we could possibly come up with equates to the Jewish experience.
In our own faith tradition, we need look no further than Luther himself when it comes to mistaken parallels. When Luther, for instance, looked at Romans 3:28 and read: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law," his heavily conditioned medieval thought process interpreted that to mean that our standing before God's law-court was entirely conditioned upon FAITH, not our GOOD WORKS....especially, not the system of Indulgences, fasts, Purgatory, Masses for the dead, etc. etc. In our modern lingo, we might say that our standing before God is entirely based on our faith, not on how much money we drop in the Salvation Army Santa Klaus bucket, or how many little old ladies we help across the street, etc.
But this is a case of an entirely **true** conclusion coming from a faulty understanding of the verse. Paul wasn't talking about "good works" or "good actions" etc. when he mentioned "deeds of the law." In this particular case the modern translation known as the Complete Jewish Bible is more accurate: "Therefore, we hold the view that a person comes to be considered righteous by God on the ground of trusting, which has nothing to do with legalistic observance of Torah commands." In other words, the "deeds of the law" that Paul is talking about are things prescribed by TORAH (dietary rules, circumcision, Sabbath requirements, etc. etc.), NOT what we would simply call good deeds.
What practical difference does this make? Well, the first is interpretive. As followers of Jesus it is IMPORTANT to us that we strive to understand the word of God properly even if the thing its saying doesn't touch our lives in particular. If nothing else, this will help us from being led astray by charlatans and hucksters. Secondly and more importantly, once we begin to re-evaluate Paul's "deeds of the law" statements from books such as Romans and Galatians--seeing those statements in terms of Torah & keeping Kosher etc.--we in particular in our Protestant faith tradition can come to a happier understanding of the place of good deeds within our Christian life. Sadly, after nearly 500 years of Protestantism's ideal that we are "justified by faith alone" there are many Christians who have the quite mistaken understanding that saving faith *is* alone......and is rarely, if ever, accompanied by any fruit. Not so. Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone.
Cheers,
TM
Well, yesterday was week #2 of our new series in the book of Romans. The thing that sticks in my mind about this passage is how radically EQUAL St. Paul sees things. The "no distinction" he mentions in vs 22b means that in his thinking there is no distinction between Jew & Gentile in their standing before God, and in terms of Paul's all-important issue of justification. Two things come blasting into my mind almost simultaneously on this topic.......(1) how radical of a notion this must've been--indeed, I'm not at all sure that Paul's view was supported by ANY OTHER APOSTLE at the time......and (2) how almost entirely irrelevant it is in today's church.
Not that I'm trying to dis St. Paul or a passage from the Bible, but the whole issue of the status of Jewish believers vs Gentile believers is almost completely absent from our radar screens. As a matter of fact, there is a HUGE issue of interpretation when it comes to this & other such passages of the Bible. The writer *clearly* had a particular group of people in mind at the time of his writing. IF that particular set of circumstances is no longer active......or at least actively brewing in the church, does that mean that we should seek to re-interpret and in some ways re-apply the author's point? In other words, our own local congregation here at LCHS (to the best of my knowledge) has no such mixture of Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. We are all Gentile. So then should I re-interpret/re-apply any of Paul's Jewish/Gentile dialog to mean something more along the lines of older generation/younger generation believers.....or maybe long-time believers vs newer converts.....or maybe those who seem stuck on tradition vs those who are more free-wheeling?
The reason I pose the rhetorical question is that this is PRECISELY the way that huge sections of Paul's writings have been interpreted and applied in the all-Gentile church for hundreds of years. Since the Jewish/Gentile dynamic of Paul's setting doesn't apply to our own, we seek to draw parallels to situations that we do have.
I struggle with this, however, as I'm not sure that ANY parallel we could possibly come up with equates to the Jewish experience.
In our own faith tradition, we need look no further than Luther himself when it comes to mistaken parallels. When Luther, for instance, looked at Romans 3:28 and read: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law," his heavily conditioned medieval thought process interpreted that to mean that our standing before God's law-court was entirely conditioned upon FAITH, not our GOOD WORKS....especially, not the system of Indulgences, fasts, Purgatory, Masses for the dead, etc. etc. In our modern lingo, we might say that our standing before God is entirely based on our faith, not on how much money we drop in the Salvation Army Santa Klaus bucket, or how many little old ladies we help across the street, etc.
But this is a case of an entirely **true** conclusion coming from a faulty understanding of the verse. Paul wasn't talking about "good works" or "good actions" etc. when he mentioned "deeds of the law." In this particular case the modern translation known as the Complete Jewish Bible is more accurate: "Therefore, we hold the view that a person comes to be considered righteous by God on the ground of trusting, which has nothing to do with legalistic observance of Torah commands." In other words, the "deeds of the law" that Paul is talking about are things prescribed by TORAH (dietary rules, circumcision, Sabbath requirements, etc. etc.), NOT what we would simply call good deeds.
What practical difference does this make? Well, the first is interpretive. As followers of Jesus it is IMPORTANT to us that we strive to understand the word of God properly even if the thing its saying doesn't touch our lives in particular. If nothing else, this will help us from being led astray by charlatans and hucksters. Secondly and more importantly, once we begin to re-evaluate Paul's "deeds of the law" statements from books such as Romans and Galatians--seeing those statements in terms of Torah & keeping Kosher etc.--we in particular in our Protestant faith tradition can come to a happier understanding of the place of good deeds within our Christian life. Sadly, after nearly 500 years of Protestantism's ideal that we are "justified by faith alone" there are many Christians who have the quite mistaken understanding that saving faith *is* alone......and is rarely, if ever, accompanied by any fruit. Not so. Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, May 19, 2008
Holy Trinity, morning after thoughts
Top of the morning to you!
So, if you're still pondering the mystery of the Holy Trinity this morning, perhaps you're wondering WHY it has to be that way? Why not simply remove ourselves from the realm of mystery and simply come down on one side or another--either God is ONE and that's that, or there are three Gods.
Well, in short, this is a classic example of living with paradox. The Scriptures have always presented God as one. The ancient 'Shema' (creed/confession) of Israel says as much: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut 6:4). Yet the Apostle Paul, one of the most zealous Jews who ever lived, states in Col 2:9: "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form..." Hence the paradox. Either the Bible is inconsistent and incapable of being trusted, or it presents a truth/picture of God that is beyond our ability to comprehend fully. I prefer the latter. I'm always ok with it when there's more God than what will fit in my box.
On the other hand, maybe you're wondering why my egg example used with the kids was less than perfect. Well, it gets the message across nicely that there is one-in-three and three-in-one (one egg=shell/yolk/white). The example breaks down, however, when one just looks at the PARTS. In looking at just the yolk, one is not viewing the entire 'eggness'.....one is just viewing the yolk. Ditto that with the white & the shell. In order to see the entire 'eggness' one needs all 3 together. This is not true of the Holy Trinity. In looking at Jesus of Nazareth, even tho he is the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, one is nonetheless looking at 100% of God (as opposed to 33.3%). The Father is likewise 100% God; the Spirit is likewise 100% God; and yet, to paraphrase the Athanasian Creed, God is not 300%, etc. Now we're back to the realm of mystery.
All of which supports my contention that while it is necessary that we are to KNOW what it is that we're supposed to believe, there's really no way we can COMPREHEND it........and in the end, the more important thing is that we've been touched by this God who is mysteriously one-in-three, than it is that we merely say the right things about this God.
cheers,
TM
So, if you're still pondering the mystery of the Holy Trinity this morning, perhaps you're wondering WHY it has to be that way? Why not simply remove ourselves from the realm of mystery and simply come down on one side or another--either God is ONE and that's that, or there are three Gods.
Well, in short, this is a classic example of living with paradox. The Scriptures have always presented God as one. The ancient 'Shema' (creed/confession) of Israel says as much: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut 6:4). Yet the Apostle Paul, one of the most zealous Jews who ever lived, states in Col 2:9: "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form..." Hence the paradox. Either the Bible is inconsistent and incapable of being trusted, or it presents a truth/picture of God that is beyond our ability to comprehend fully. I prefer the latter. I'm always ok with it when there's more God than what will fit in my box.
On the other hand, maybe you're wondering why my egg example used with the kids was less than perfect. Well, it gets the message across nicely that there is one-in-three and three-in-one (one egg=shell/yolk/white). The example breaks down, however, when one just looks at the PARTS. In looking at just the yolk, one is not viewing the entire 'eggness'.....one is just viewing the yolk. Ditto that with the white & the shell. In order to see the entire 'eggness' one needs all 3 together. This is not true of the Holy Trinity. In looking at Jesus of Nazareth, even tho he is the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, one is nonetheless looking at 100% of God (as opposed to 33.3%). The Father is likewise 100% God; the Spirit is likewise 100% God; and yet, to paraphrase the Athanasian Creed, God is not 300%, etc. Now we're back to the realm of mystery.
All of which supports my contention that while it is necessary that we are to KNOW what it is that we're supposed to believe, there's really no way we can COMPREHEND it........and in the end, the more important thing is that we've been touched by this God who is mysteriously one-in-three, than it is that we merely say the right things about this God.
cheers,
TM
Monday, May 12, 2008
Pentecost, morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, in a way I think that we did a pretty good job of wringing out that text from Acts 2 yesterday, so my thoughts this morning are more along the lines of the BROAD picture of the gift of the Spirit. Indeed some of the standout verses in my mind right now are from the SECOND reading, and how they could apply to Acts 2 & also to us today. For instance 1Cor 12:4 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;" and vs 11 "all of these are activated by one and the same Spirit..."
In other words, the point St. Paul is making in that passage is that the DIVERSITY of gifts/talents that we encounter in the Body of Christ (aka the Church), is a result of the working of a single entity, the Holy Spirit of God.
Now let's apply that thinking to yesterday's text in Acts 2. There were roughly 15 major geographic areas mentioned in Acts 2, but given the plethora of individual dialects etc., it is impossible to say how ALL-ENCOMPASSING this miracle of languages was. This is especially true if, as I've maintained, ALL [roughly] 120 members of the Jesus group received this blessing. Yet, however many different languages/dialects it may have been, it's interesting to note that what Paul says in 1Cor about the diversity of the gifts and the unity of the purpose still applies. Even if there were 120 different languages or dialects being spoken during this miraculous event, Acts 2:11b stands out: "in our own languages we hear them speaking ABOUT GOD'S DEEDS OF POWER."
And there you have it.....the DIVERSITY of the Spirit's gifts being used for a UNITY of purpose. ALL of those languages being spoken were for ONE purpose.
Last week we talked about the chronic problem of disunity in the church.
Where this is exacerbated, I would venture to say that people are ignoring the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Diversity within the church is nothing new. It's that way by design. That includes diversity of opinion. With all of those 1Cor 12 gifts floating around, one must expect a diversity of opinion on how to use them. This is fine....even healthy....so long as we always keep in mind our UNITY of purpose. This too is of the Spirit!
Later!
TM
Well, in a way I think that we did a pretty good job of wringing out that text from Acts 2 yesterday, so my thoughts this morning are more along the lines of the BROAD picture of the gift of the Spirit. Indeed some of the standout verses in my mind right now are from the SECOND reading, and how they could apply to Acts 2 & also to us today. For instance 1Cor 12:4 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;" and vs 11 "all of these are activated by one and the same Spirit..."
In other words, the point St. Paul is making in that passage is that the DIVERSITY of gifts/talents that we encounter in the Body of Christ (aka the Church), is a result of the working of a single entity, the Holy Spirit of God.
Now let's apply that thinking to yesterday's text in Acts 2. There were roughly 15 major geographic areas mentioned in Acts 2, but given the plethora of individual dialects etc., it is impossible to say how ALL-ENCOMPASSING this miracle of languages was. This is especially true if, as I've maintained, ALL [roughly] 120 members of the Jesus group received this blessing. Yet, however many different languages/dialects it may have been, it's interesting to note that what Paul says in 1Cor about the diversity of the gifts and the unity of the purpose still applies. Even if there were 120 different languages or dialects being spoken during this miraculous event, Acts 2:11b stands out: "in our own languages we hear them speaking ABOUT GOD'S DEEDS OF POWER."
And there you have it.....the DIVERSITY of the Spirit's gifts being used for a UNITY of purpose. ALL of those languages being spoken were for ONE purpose.
Last week we talked about the chronic problem of disunity in the church.
Where this is exacerbated, I would venture to say that people are ignoring the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Diversity within the church is nothing new. It's that way by design. That includes diversity of opinion. With all of those 1Cor 12 gifts floating around, one must expect a diversity of opinion on how to use them. This is fine....even healthy....so long as we always keep in mind our UNITY of purpose. This too is of the Spirit!
Later!
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
