Reported in Crosswalk.com:
The Christian Post reports that well-known author and pastor John Piper will be leaving the pulpit for eight months, his first-ever break from ministry in 30 years. Piper stressed that the break is not a resignation from ministry, but a time to address "ongoing character flaws." After his Sunday sermon at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, he said, "The reality check is what will happen to John Piper's soul ... and to my marriage ... and to my future ... when there will be no prideful sipping from the poisonous cup of international fame and notoriety." The 64-year-old preacher continued, "I need to find that out and I don't know any other way to do it." He stated that there is "no whiff of unfaithfulness" in his marriage, but that "several species of pride" have taken an emotional impact on Piper and his wife of 46 years, Noel. He said he hopes to return to ministry for another five years after this period of "fasting."
I'm proud of you, Dr. Piper. That takes boldness and humility to not only recognize the problem, but to take a break specifically to deal with it. Although Dr. Piper's theology and my own have often diverged, I find that his exegesis and his character are of the highest quality.
Showing posts with label spiritual leaders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spiritual leaders. Show all posts
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Arrested for Taking Your Kid To Church?
From Religion Today Summaries:
Chicago Man Could Face Trial for Taking Child to Church
Religion News Service reports that a Chicago man could face prosecution for violating a restraining order by taking his 3-year-old daughter to church. Joseph Reyes, 35, converted from Catholicism to Judaism when he married his wife, Rebecca. According to Rebecca Reyes, they agreed to raise their daughter Jewish. But when the couple filed for divorce, Joseph baptized his daughter as a Catholic without his estranged wife's consent. Following the baptism, Rebecca Reyes filed for and was granted a restraining order to keep Joseph Reyes from exposing their daughter, Ela, to any religion other than Judaism. On Jan. 17, Joseph Reyes entered Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago with his daughter and a television news crew in tow. Joseph Reyes's attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the restraining order violated the First Amendment by choosing one religion over another
Perhaps a case can be made for him that the restraining order was wrong. However, to invite a news crew to church with you means that it isn't about how he should raise his child, but about him using his child to make a point. How different is this than "balloon boy's" dad? Children should be treated with respect, not a pawn in one's hateful relationship squabbles, or to promote one's own agenda, whatever it is.
Jesus said that a father should train up a child in the way of the Lord. Is not that way sacrifice and respect? Certainly going to church this way is not acting in accordance with Jesus' way. He should learn the humility of the Lord before using the church to insist upon his rights.
Chicago Man Could Face Trial for Taking Child to Church
Religion News Service reports that a Chicago man could face prosecution for violating a restraining order by taking his 3-year-old daughter to church. Joseph Reyes, 35, converted from Catholicism to Judaism when he married his wife, Rebecca. According to Rebecca Reyes, they agreed to raise their daughter Jewish. But when the couple filed for divorce, Joseph baptized his daughter as a Catholic without his estranged wife's consent. Following the baptism, Rebecca Reyes filed for and was granted a restraining order to keep Joseph Reyes from exposing their daughter, Ela, to any religion other than Judaism. On Jan. 17, Joseph Reyes entered Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago with his daughter and a television news crew in tow. Joseph Reyes's attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the restraining order violated the First Amendment by choosing one religion over another
Perhaps a case can be made for him that the restraining order was wrong. However, to invite a news crew to church with you means that it isn't about how he should raise his child, but about him using his child to make a point. How different is this than "balloon boy's" dad? Children should be treated with respect, not a pawn in one's hateful relationship squabbles, or to promote one's own agenda, whatever it is.
Jesus said that a father should train up a child in the way of the Lord. Is not that way sacrifice and respect? Certainly going to church this way is not acting in accordance with Jesus' way. He should learn the humility of the Lord before using the church to insist upon his rights.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Anarchy and Government
Thomas writes on the MySpace group "Philosophy":
Governments use violence and force on others to get them to conform to what they consider to be right. The Epitome of Might makes Right. Anarchism does not mean people dont communicate anarchism doesnt mean people do not work together to accomplish tasks. Anarchism simply means that nobody has a monopolization over the use of force. Since not all people are good it is not logical to appoint anyone to be superior over others. Since all people are supposed to have rights of conscience it is unjust for any entities to use violence to enforce their moral standards on others. Without governments such horrific historical events such as holocausts and ethnic cleansings would never have happened. Those things happen because of government and the BLIND supporters thereof. Yeshua was an anarchist he was brutally murdered by government because the government was afraid his teachings would pacify the people. What is it with these people that are so afraid of peace? Gandhi was an anarchist Buddha was an anarchist in fact every single Great spriritual person EVER were anarchists. I cannot be a follower of Gods ways and support government. It is an absolute impossibility. Governments are made by people who choose not to follow Gods ways they want to instead own the world and place people into subjection under them. The ambitious and unrighteous of the world.
1. A government is not automatically "might makes right" if the people being ruled approve of and support the might. I would not say, for instance in the U.S., that everyone supports the "might" that upholds the law, but the great majority do.
2. "Anarchism" is "without rule", not without force. Without rule means that there is no agreed-upon means of rule. But there is always the ipso facto rule-- whoever has the most power makes the rules. Thus, I believe, anarchism reverts back to that foundational principle.
3. I agree with you that democracy does not exist. Never did. That doesn't mean it couldn't. We have the technology. We can make government better than it was. Better. Stronger. Faster. (no, wait...) It is possible via the internet to give every literate adult to participate in the everyday rule of a government. It just has never been tried before.
4. Yeshua was not a supporter of anarchy. He just taught that every government that ever existed was inadequate. He has a new concept of government-- let God rule through him. The real unique thing is that he wouldn't win that rule through armies or through the vote, but through his death, at which time God would hand him the rule.
Gandhi was not an anarchist, as he supported a national government of India.
Buddha, on the other hand... he was probably an anarchist.
Shiva, Kali, Moses, David, Muhammad, Krishna, Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Francis-- none of them were anarchists.
But the ancient Chinese philosophy of the Moists-- that might have been anarchist. I'm not sure.
5. My favorite presentation of anarchism is "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlien. It's really rule by capitalism, but it's still very well presented.
6. I also agree that "governments are made by people who choose not to follow God's ways. " There are two ways in which people understand God: through judgment and punishment of societal sin and through grace, mercy and encouragment to repent. The first is the way of government. The second is the way of Yeshua. You can choose one or the other. But this last comment is religion, not philosophy, so I'll leave this train of thought.
Governments use violence and force on others to get them to conform to what they consider to be right. The Epitome of Might makes Right. Anarchism does not mean people dont communicate anarchism doesnt mean people do not work together to accomplish tasks. Anarchism simply means that nobody has a monopolization over the use of force. Since not all people are good it is not logical to appoint anyone to be superior over others. Since all people are supposed to have rights of conscience it is unjust for any entities to use violence to enforce their moral standards on others. Without governments such horrific historical events such as holocausts and ethnic cleansings would never have happened. Those things happen because of government and the BLIND supporters thereof. Yeshua was an anarchist he was brutally murdered by government because the government was afraid his teachings would pacify the people. What is it with these people that are so afraid of peace? Gandhi was an anarchist Buddha was an anarchist in fact every single Great spriritual person EVER were anarchists. I cannot be a follower of Gods ways and support government. It is an absolute impossibility. Governments are made by people who choose not to follow Gods ways they want to instead own the world and place people into subjection under them. The ambitious and unrighteous of the world.
1. A government is not automatically "might makes right" if the people being ruled approve of and support the might. I would not say, for instance in the U.S., that everyone supports the "might" that upholds the law, but the great majority do.
2. "Anarchism" is "without rule", not without force. Without rule means that there is no agreed-upon means of rule. But there is always the ipso facto rule-- whoever has the most power makes the rules. Thus, I believe, anarchism reverts back to that foundational principle.
3. I agree with you that democracy does not exist. Never did. That doesn't mean it couldn't. We have the technology. We can make government better than it was. Better. Stronger. Faster. (no, wait...) It is possible via the internet to give every literate adult to participate in the everyday rule of a government. It just has never been tried before.
4. Yeshua was not a supporter of anarchy. He just taught that every government that ever existed was inadequate. He has a new concept of government-- let God rule through him. The real unique thing is that he wouldn't win that rule through armies or through the vote, but through his death, at which time God would hand him the rule.
Gandhi was not an anarchist, as he supported a national government of India.
Buddha, on the other hand... he was probably an anarchist.
Shiva, Kali, Moses, David, Muhammad, Krishna, Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Francis-- none of them were anarchists.
But the ancient Chinese philosophy of the Moists-- that might have been anarchist. I'm not sure.
5. My favorite presentation of anarchism is "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlien. It's really rule by capitalism, but it's still very well presented.
6. I also agree that "governments are made by people who choose not to follow God's ways. " There are two ways in which people understand God: through judgment and punishment of societal sin and through grace, mercy and encouragment to repent. The first is the way of government. The second is the way of Yeshua. You can choose one or the other. But this last comment is religion, not philosophy, so I'll leave this train of thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)