Family,
I am not a fan of musicals, typically, but i do think that some musicals have a story to tell that can speak to us, today. If you have spent any time with me, you might hear me state that the only musical i like or can stand to sit through is, "Fiddler on the Roof." But. There are many others that have something to teach, if we let them. One of those, for me, happens to be "Oklahoma." Why? Because i feel it speaks to how damaging conflict can be.
It is a love story, as any and all Rodgers and Hammerstein are, but it centers in on a historical reality: the conflict of farmers and ranchers in the great plains. Before ranchers owned vast amount of land, they would drive their cattle from Texas to Kansas or other plains states, and as Oklahoma became more and more populated, and people began to settle there, issues arose.
Farming played and still played an integral role in Oklahoma's development, but if there are cattle crossing, often, fresh crops, well the trampling alone could destroy the life blood for a farming, not including if the cows got hungry. So the farmers began to think of ways to stop the tresspassing on their land, because, in their view, the land couldn't handle both. What did they come up with? Barbed wire. Many a cow and cattle driver found themselves wrapped up in barbed wire, and quite a few lost their lives to the metal barbs acting as a deterrent. What happens?
The cattle drivers fight back, and we have an all out fued over land, land rights, water rights, and many other issues. A fued, which seemingly had no chance at reconciliation. Perhaps this is what Abram and Lot's crew dealt with. One crew, Abram's, was more successful. They were the veterans, the ones with seniority, and im sure, as people are prone to do, they reminded Lot's crew, often, of where Lot's crew stood. And perhaps Lot's crew wanted to make a name for themselves, or they simply wanted to survive, but whatever increased the feud, one issue started it: lack of land that could inhabit both large groups.
There was simply not enough water, land, or resources to care for the flocks, so one would have to go on, while the other got the pristine land. But who? Abram was the natural choice, and i imagine his crew felt a sense of right to the land, so they would fight to protect that right. But the young and zealous crew of Lot probably felt they had to stand out, separate from Abram, so they fought with the energy of being young, to get what they wanted. Reconciliation seemed impossible. Until Abram proves wiser than all.
He gives Lot a choice. But why? Why would Abram give Lot a choice? Why would Abram give Lot a chance to take the promised land/blessing? Why would Abram, willingly, sacrifice his own chance at status and wealth, so that Lot could get first choice?
Our group suggested Abram viewed Lot as a son, more than a son, and Abram wanted to preserve the relationship and face, so he did so by giving Lot the chance to succeed or fail. If Lot succeeded, Lot did it on his own. If he failed, Lot was solely responsible. And Lot would find trouble, very soon. But when Lot finds trouble, or trouble finds Lot, does Abram abandon him? No. He rescues Lot. Love seems to be the foundation for Abram's choice. But could it be more?
What did Abram do when he left Egypt? He returned to the site of the blessing, a site where Abram had built an altar to God and listened to God. What was Abram's first duty? Listen to God. Glorify God. Be patient on God. Abram's wisdom, quite possibly, came because he did what so few of us do, waited on God and let God lead. But there is more to Abram's story.
His whole well being was established by finding good land, good water, and a good place to care for his flocks. He had been a nomad his entire life, and now he settled. Pitched his tent. Set up a permanent base to be his home. He made a radical change, because God made it clear it was time, and because of his faith, God blessed Abram. What does this have to do with us? Everything.
If we need to know how to reconcile, it begins with listening to God's voice. If we need direction, wait on God, ask God. And if we want to honor God and each other, it begins with loving each other so much that we, honestly, put the needs of each other ahead of our own needs. When this happens God is glorified and our relationships remain strong. We dont have to be like the farmers and ranchers in "Oklahoma." We can and have the ability and faith to mirror Abram, when we do, mountains move. Amen.
Shalom,
jerry
As with most organized religions there have been and will always be a number of hotly debated issues. “The question was recently posed on August 02, 2009 by Jerry during Sunday morning service concerning the age old question of what is the Church of the Brethrens stance on homosexuality? This brings up many underlying points to consider; Is homosexuality an inborn disposition or a free choice? Should states outlaw or endorse same sex marriages? Should gays be ordained to the Holy Ministry? Should churches bless same sex marriages?” The COB does not have an official statement on these issues as of yet but from what I have seen so far our public teaching and practice is based on what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality. Some people think that this could cause a split in the church, they would be correct. I would think that in order to make a conscience decision, we should be informed. Even Christ points out that we should count the cost.
ReplyDeleteThe Cost of Being a Disciple (to become Christ-like) Luke 14:25-34
25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'
31"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
34"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Are we in the business of pointing people to the church or pointing souls toward Christ who is the head of the church. If it is indeed the later, the acceptance we should look for is not whether or not this topic split the church because we know that Christ came to divide already.
Christ came to divide Matthew 10:32-36
32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
Please continue reading on the next comment.
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
ReplyDeleteDiscussions based on issues of our time with the word of God that spans all time
The best place to begin a discussion of the issue is with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, because this passage emphasizes both the lawfulness of Gods right hand and the gospel elements of addressing this issue with the forgiving power and learning that His method of acceptance comes from acknowledgement and repentance.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
On the basis of this and other passages of Scripture we must draw the following conclusions about homosexuality.
Scripture declares that homosexuality is a sin, which is contrary to God's intention in creating man and woman. Sinful resistance to the revealed will of God is a factor in this sin. People may become slaves to this sin (Romans 1:18-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Many factors contribute to individual acts of sin: the sinful nature we are born with, the weaknesses of our bodies, evil influences in our environment, temptations and encouragement from other sinners, and our own sinful choice join together to lead us into sin. All of these factors contribute to homosexual sin. The proportionate role of these various factors may vary from case to case.
We must warn the impenitent that homosexuality, like all sins, excludes people from eternal life (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The church, therefore, must not, bless same-sex marriages or unions, since these are contrary to the will of God. Anyone who wishes to save the church in unity by changing or explicitly proposing that we should not follow the will of God really needs to read Matthew 10 again. The church must not place into nor retain in the public ministry of the Word people who defend, condone, or persist in words or actions that are contrary to God’s law.
We should be happy to assure the repentant who are struggling against this sin that they have complete forgiveness through the blood of Christ. When Christ died for all of the sins of the whole world, he gained forgiveness for homosexual deeds, for homosexual desires, and for the inborn sinful nature that produces these sins (1 Corinthians 6:11). Please continue reading on the next comment.
We should sympathize with all who are struggling against this sin, remembering that we too have "pet sins" that may have a strong hold on us. We should warn against a “selective morality” that harshly condemns homosexuality or other sins that we observe in others while regarding those sins which are present in our own lives more lightly (Matthew 7:1-5). Get the log out of our own eye first. This does not mean that we should support same sex marriages or condone homosexually leadership. Would we allow a person who is actively involved in adultery with no intention to change, to continue in the ministry, of course not? We should be impartial and unbiased in warning against all sins.
ReplyDeleteWe all look forward to the resurrection of the body. Then all the weaknesses of body and soul which now lead us into sin will disappear forever. Then all of us will be able to serve God perfectly and purely in everything we do.
Homosexuality as innate or chosen
I agree that some advocates of legal and religious tolerance of homosexuality claim that homosexuality has a genetic cause. Some reports claim that some homosexual men share a particular pattern in the X sex-chromosome that they received from their mother. Other researchers have claimed the existence of other types of biological similarities between homosexual men. These researchers acknowledge that their discoveries cannot account for all homosexuality and may merely be associated with homosexuality rather than being a direct cause of it. Most researchers conclude that the origins of homosexuality are complex and varied and may never be fully understood.
How should we evaluate such claims in the light of the biblical teaching of sin? Is homosexuality a free choice or an inborn tendency?
Like many such either-or questions, this question poses a false dilemma. Every sin is both a choice of the will and the expression of an inborn tendency to sin. Our sinful will is guilty of consent whenever we sin in thought, word, or deed. As a result of our sinful nature we take pleasure in our sins and defend them. This universal tendency is apparent also in the efforts of gay rights activists to condone their homosexuality and to deny that anything is wrong with it.
Although the consent of our sinful will is present in every sin, it is also true that we are born as slaves of sin. We may also yield to a particular sin so often that we no longer control the sin, but the sin controls us. We may find ourselves yielding to sin even when we don't want to.
Sin infects both our body and our soul. The body we now have is not the perfect body that God created for Adam and Eve. It has been contaminated by the effects of sin. There is no reason to maintain that the specific effects of sin have been identical in each one of us or that we are all equally susceptible to every sin. Our individual degree of susceptibility to some specific sins may be due in part to differences in our bodies. Please continue reading on next entry.
Abuse of alcohol and a hot temper are just two examples of sins that may be affected by the chemistry of our bodies. Few would deny that the pressure to sexual sin is greater at 18 than it is at 8 or at 88 and that a primary reason for this is the changing chemistry of our bodies. It may well be that a person's susceptibility to homosexuality or to certain other sins depends in part on bodily differences.
ReplyDeleteEven though the weakness of our own body may be one factor that leads us to sin, God holds us responsible for all of our sins, even those sins that enslave us and those sins that we are not aware of. We need God's forgiveness even for those sinful desires that we resist and do not act upon. These desires too are sin. (Read Romans 7 for a treatment of slavery to sin.) Christ’s forgiveness covers every form of every sin for the repentant.
Christians and civil laws pertaining to homosexuality.
How should Christians respond to campaigns to pass laws either protecting homosexuality as a civil right or laws restricting it? Are opposing laws that grant status of homosexuality as a civil right or supporting laws that restrict homosexual practice an attempt to force our religion on others by means of the law?
We must distinguish between our duties as members of the church and our duties as citizens, though the first may have an effect on how we carry out the second.
Our Christian duty toward homosexuals (and toward the sexually immoral, thieves, swindlers, murderers, slanderers, and drunkards, and any violators of God's will) is clear—to confront the impenitent with God's law, which condemns their sin, and to comfort the penitent with the gospel, which offers forgiveness.
As good neighbors and citizens, our duty is not to pressure people to accept and practice our religious beliefs, but to promote laws that protect individuals and society from harm. If reason, evidence, and the natural knowledge of God's law, which remains in people even after the Fall, all testify that stealing, murder, drug abuse, sexual immorality, abortion, and homosexuality or condoning of same sex marriage are harmful to individuals or to society, we as citizens should work for laws that oppose those evils. We do this not to force our religious beliefs on others, but rather to work together with other people who share a natural knowledge of God's law in order to protect society from actions that are harmful to society. The fact that stealing is forbidden by the Seventh Commandment and murder by the Fifth Commandment does not mean that we as Christians cannot support laws against stealing or murder. The recognition that these acts are wrong and harmful is not peculiar to the doctrine of the Church of the Brethren nor to Christianity. It is based on a natural knowledge of God's law and on experience. This knowledge, therefore, is common to all people, except where sinners have suppressed this knowledge. (Read Romans 1:18-32.)
As Christian citizens we should work for laws that will protect society from the harmful consequences of sin. As citizens we promote such laws on the basis of reason and natural knowledge of the law. If the state tolerates moral evils, which violate God's law, we will continue to oppose them on the basis of God's Word.
Please continue reading on next entry.
As a member of the church my goal is to win people's hearts and guide their lives by God's Word. As a citizen my goal is to regulate people's conduct so they do not harm themselves or others. Many of the moral principles of God's law are relevant to both goals and may be used in both spheres, but for different purposes. As a member of the church I use all of God's law as a mirror, a curb, and a rule. As a citizen I see parts of God's law used as a curb against conduct that reason and natural knowledge of the law recognize as harmful to society.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with Jerry, controversy makes people think, however something that has this amount of volatile potential has the makings of degradation also. My sole intent here is not to create controversy but rather let each person decide in their own hearts, based on scriptural basis that which is or is not right in the sight of Gods word for themselves. We are not called to controversy exclusively but to be peace makers - that is my goal with this information. In trying to propose information from all things scriptural, I would hope it is seen as a presentation to make informed decisions based on the spirit of Gods word; not just the inclusion of our sinful thoughts which are contrary to what I have presented.