Extemporaneous Ramblings

To go ‘wild’ or not to go ‘wild’, that is the question - with apologies to William S.

In the discussion about ‘Wild at Heart’, a comment some time ago, unrelated to this book, from a Christian brother came to mind. This is a man who has a number of adult children, including several sons, and thereby lots of experience. One day in conversation I was joking about the propensity of his offspring (all solid believers) to indulge in extreme sports and other adrenilin pumping passtimes. His comments were interesting.

To summarize, he felt that the lure of risk was programmed into the youth by our Lord for His own purposes. Youth were drawn to risk so that they could risk for the Lord. They could step out in risky ways that old believers were unlikely or unable to. With no Christ-centered outlet for this risk taking (eg. evangelism) in many modern senarios, the urge was miss-channeled by society into other areas. This remade the youth into consumers of one sort or another in seeking an outlet in other types of risk.

So the proposition is that the risk taking is by design, and that it is designed to allow them to step out for the Lord, possibly dramatically.

An interesting idea indeed!

While I have taken my share of risks when a youth (many inappropriate by this analysis), I am well past that now. Nonetheless, the idea, when applied the current popularity of eXtreme sports, would tend to see them as an abberation. That is intriguing.

It is also very different indeed from the Eldridge-ification discussed earlier…

We need Doctrine today more than ever, not less - particularly the youth.

Have you noticed that doctrine has fallen from grace in everyday church life, and from the pulpit? Maybe you haven’t noticed since the process is gradual and easy to overlook for a while. Doctrines may at times talked about, even referred to, but it is seldom if ever actually preached or offered as a significant part of church school.

In church society what appears to be happening (or already has happened) is that doctrine is being made synonymous with dogma. Dogma is a four letter word in the mind of relativistic, pluralistic society, equated with authoritarian control and the like. The evangelical church seems to be subtly adopting the same attitude, in what appears on the surface to be the fear that it will alienate non-Christians and reduce potential growth. The church would certainly differentiate itself from overt expression of this secular view, but living in the world brings a quiet inflow of ideas, attitudes and approaches. One of these is rejection of the fixed framework that doctrine represents (erroneously) to many people.

What does this indicate about the true attitude towards the Sovereignty of God in all these matters? What does it say about belief and dependence on the sufficiency of scripture and the sufficiency of the fundamental ideas therein?

In church life today it seems dated to insist that there are any fixed benchmarks aside from basic belief. As such, demoninational distinctives, and the rich history that preceeds them, are passe and are quietly jetisoned in favour of more up to date presentation and applications. But it bears remembering that a building in which the foundations are eroded by inattention, will weaken over time and eventually fail.

Before we expand into too wide a discussion, let us look narrowly at basic beliefs. I look from the point of view of a Reformed Baptist, but I suspect that most evangelicals would find the same symptoms to one degree or another.

If you were to ask the average church goer or even member:
What are denominational distinctives?
What are theirs?
Would they know why?
Would they think it was irrelevant? Dated? That they are all the same?
Would they know what a confession of faith is?
In this case would they know what the Westminster Confession is?
Would they feel that the doctrinal beliefs of church leaders were important?
Would they know what those leadership beliefs and tenants were?
Would they feel that leadership job performance was the over-riding criteria?

Do you see where this is headed? It is headed to where history, the structure of belief, and therefor the ability to defend or hold on to those beliefs in the face of adversity, comes into serious question.

The beginning of an answer to this is sound doctrinal preaching and teaching. It is not up to date. It does not utilize todays ‘relevant’ examples (it is timeless). And it does not necessarily directly address modern application. But it is absolutely essential for a faith based upon bedrock.

Nowhere is this more critical than in the church youth. No group is more challenged by society. No group is more suseptible to its wiles. Yet in no church group is the education in the structure of our beliefs and the reasons for them often more lacking.

The danger is that what may be created is a wonderful, vibrant, dynamic ministry that is built on sand. When the flood comes, and we all know that it will in some (worldly) form, a foundation of reinforced concrete is needed, not sand.

In the comments on hunting, a similarity between the New Age Movement and the current Wild at Heart movement was drawn. For those involved in or familiar with the present group, this may well raise some eyebrowes. Yet for those who have seen both up close, it is absolutely clear that they are parallel in both ideas, and sadly IMO, in fundamental error.

Both posit, at the core, that to realize or actualize their masculinity, men must return to the wild. Also, implied directly or indirectly is that they are most comfortable there once they realize it and that they must do so in the sole company of other men. These manly things, and the realities held therein, are solely for men and available only to those who ‘realize’ the reality of it. Strong words, but when you cut to the core in the both groups, that is where you end up. The classic humorous anecdote of course is about men in loin clothes running through the forest to find themselves. We may chuckle at that extreme, but the reality is actually just a more ‘civilized’ version with the same belief set.

The current Christian reworking of this belief set is VERY close the previous interation, a fact not realized by most involved, and which would no doubt upset them.

The entire mindset is a boys’ getto, both then and now. Though it seeks to find an ephemeral freedom in human roots (which could yield another interesting around Christian subscription to an evolution base paradigm), it in fact creates a very narrow world view. To suppose that our Lord created man with such a narrow vision for his potential just seems silly, to be honest.

Admitedly this view has some seductive qualities, mostly based in freedom from fear in a limited world. But those in the end this limit the potential of a man, not expands it.

Now, does this mean that I am disregarding the fundamental differences in the roles and functional capabilities of men and women as created by our Lord? Does it mean that I do not feel that that there are fundamental difference between them? Not for a minute. I am, in fact, arguing that within what the Lord created and modelled, men (and women) are not required to return to the wild to find actualization of their potential in the world or in relationships with the opposite sex.

In the secular New Age groups (as I have seen them), these limiting views do not build enhanced relationships between men and women. They segreagate them. In the Christian life, the acting out of the biblical model layed down for men and women neither requires nor is enhanced by segregation of experience as a preequisite to becoming whole. The bible would seem to indicate precisely the opposite in the case of couple who are “one flesh”.

Let me state clearly, however, that I am not discrediting wildness experience as a wonderful one, nor the company and fellowship of the same sex as less than encouraging to growth. But these experience are most certainly NOT the magic bullet to self and relationship to God that they are oft subtly presented as.

I would challenge men (and women) to examine what these world views are really appealing to and form opinions based on that.

So what, you might ask, of the seeminlgly built-in propensity we see in many (particularly the youth) for risk taking and extreme experiences? That we will explore shortly…

This Post could also be called “Arm the Moose”, and I will no doubt offend some people, but you can’t please everyone…

I just don’t ‘get’ hunting. Actually I never have.

What is proven by taking high powered modern weapons, and using them to blow away animals in their natural habitat? How does this make a man more manly? How does this demonstrate any sort of ethical behaviour as a steward of the planet? In my complete biased view, it does exactly the opposite.

It certainly may demonstrate skill in the act of sneaking covertly about in the bush, and also in the precision of shooting. There is also the wonderful fellowship which participants report that they enjoy. All that is arguably commendable. But it is the obsession of the kill that we are talking about here, not the window dressing.

In secular terms, people today are usually obsessively concerned with ‘fairness’ in all things. Without entering the debate about the appropriateness of ‘fairness’, how can killing animals as they stand unaware in the wild be considered ‘fair’. Thus we have my subtitle of “Arm the Moose”. Or let the hunter hunt with a knife and naked. That would be closer to ‘fair’.

There was most certainly a time historically when hunting was a necessity of life. In that context it was wholly appropriate, and I definitely ‘get it’. Today, however, that is not the case.

Today it is not a necessity either in term of survival, nor in terms of providing male identity. If it is, then the associate definition of identity is pretty trivial indeed. This could lead us to the whole area of Male actualization - expressed 20 or so years ago in the Male New Age movement, and repackage very successfully recently in the Eldridge phenomena. We will deal with that in due time, but suffice to say that it is not a justification.

In Christian terms, I do not see it as good stewardship, since it is not a necessity for survival, nor for successful character actualization.

Now, am I saying that shooting itself is a problem? Not at all. I see nothing inappropriate in target shooting, sheet shooting, and so on. I am also neither an NRA aficionado, nor a vehement gun control advocate. Lastly, I am not saying that you shouldn’t shoot the bear that is about to attack you.

So there we have it. The guns are on the table, to be issued to all Moose. Once that is done, I don’t think that I would object to the hunt at all!

Comments ( no shooting, please)?

I have continued to be sidetracked by the medium, at the momentary expense of the message.

After moving the site to the new domain, I have been adding a few odds and ends underneath the hood, to hopefully make it a tad easier for people to find.

There are some really neat add-ons out there. One really nifty one (thanks to Lorelle for writing about it) adds a little note pad to the system. This allows me note items for future posts or projects, and subsequently convert them to drafts. The side effect of installing it was that once I transferred various notes from little scraps of paper on my desk it became obvious that I should stop fooling around and get typing.

Nonetheless, working on the medium is fun.

The move is complete - latest software version and moved into the new domain name.

If you noticed anything wierd this aftenoon when trying to view the site, it was because we were in mid-move. All appears to be operating well now. Over the next few days you may also notice some short or longterm changes in the overall site look as I try a slightly different layout. Time will tell…

If you came to the old address, you were automatically fowarded here by the web server (or you wouldn’t be reading this ).

Please update your bookmark for us to http://www.ThoughtPaths.com.

Now I can hopefully get back to the writing that I have been making notes about (so i wouldn’t forget the topics) for the last couple of days.

Moving away from the juggling analogy (Juggling and the Christian Life), where the perceptions of an error and it’s effect on participants can be clearly dealt with, let us concentrate on the discussed similarities in the Christian life. Here the lines are less distinct and divorcing oneself from the effects more difficult.

In comparing our perception of our personal walk with the Lord and the expectations directed at us from others in the guise of responsibilities (read that as optics), let us look for the end game. That would be the conflicting messages often propagated not only by non-believers, but in churches, and then adopted by extension through others in the Body.

Observation would indicate that the delivery of these contradictory messages is both consistent and common, with no surface indication that the deliverers have any insight into the conflict being communicated. That in itself is hard to fathom.

What am I talking about, you ask?

A believer is frequently exhorted to always act in a manner that will reflect wonderfully on the church and show the joy of Christian life. It is made a ‘responsibility’ of the believer by implication to show that conversion will bring clear outward indication of the “hope that is within us”. This demonstration is to draw the non-believer to see the value in conversion in the joy of the believer. This is certainly what the Lord said at various times, but the way it is interpreted in the Christian community can be a problem.

At the same time, the same believer is warned that the necessary correction, calling to attention of problems, pruning and regrowth of character, etc. will involve often great difficulty in life. This will at times render the believer rebellious and struggling, all for the glory of the Lord as the development later bears fruit, but nonetheless problematic at the time. In a nutshell, we often resist change and act badly in the throws of it. Since these are often big changes, the associated difficulties and behavioural struggles may also be big.

Do you see the problem?

On the one hand one is to act perfectly and reflect the beauty of thier calling, being made to feel guilty if they were to do otherwise. At the same time, one is exhorted to embrace difficult change in the clear realization that you may initially react and/or act badly. This is a Catch 22, and there must be fundamental error somewhere in the interpretation active in this situation.

I do not propose to have the complete answer, but part of it must be in the safety of the irresistible Effectual Calling of the elect. We are indeed called to preach the Gospel to the unsaved. But we are call to do it from where we are now - where our Lord has placed us. We may be fraught with problems and not act the best, but that is who we are in the Lord at that time. And that is okay! The Calling is His.

The responsibility for the conversion of others is the Lord’s, not ours. Not even a little bit is ours! If they are to be called, then they can not successfully resist any more that we can be other than who we are, in His process, at that moment. If the truth of us in the Lord meets with them, then we are presenting exactly what the Lord intended, irrespective of what a bystander might think. And they WILL be called if it is His will.

So to those who proposed that the believer put on a perfect face, presenting things in a better light – get over it. We are certainly called to reflect the Lord to the best of our ability, but that is as ourselves, as we are now. We may be rejoicing in his Calling but still not rejoicing in life at that moment. Some may say that is what they are saying. Possibly true, but from the pews what is often being ‘heard’ is the precursor to personal guilt and stress. That is error, plain and simple, and does not further the Kingdom

All Glory to our Lord.

The site has now grown to the point where a recognizable name might be useful. That is easier than explaining the current address. Thus began the great domain name search.

The search was for something catchy, quirky, spellable and at least tangentially meaningful. After all that, it had to be something that someone else hadn’t already thought of and registered. Turned out to be a project for thesaurus, lots of domain lookups and suggestions from readers and friends.Then with a few in mind, lots of indecision and other silliness.

Eventually, enough is enough prevailed and the decision was made. The name ThoughtPaths.com has been registered. I hope you like it.

The site will be moved there shortly. The name is operational now and refers to the old address. Once moved, the old address will forward to the new one indefinitely.

On we go…

Having talked about underlying skills sets and fundamental Faith, we can move to the more pressing issue of outside reaction to the realities of errors in juggling and in Christian life as we learn and grow.

As has been explained by implication, one of the first things that neophyte jugglers must learn and grow comfortable with is the reality and inevitability of dropping. That reality is that dropping is NOT negative and is NOT a problem. In fact, it is part of the activity. Without that knowledge there is no joy or no freedom in the work.

The same is true of the believer. We are brought to faith and then taken on a lifelong journey of development with our Lord. We are assured that the processed will absolutely included at times extreme extension, challenge and growth. That can not happen without error, and we are provided explicit mechanisms for dealing with that and moving on in His service and love. So, error (or dropping) in the Christian life is reality and part of the process.

Now for the tricky part…

In juggling, non-jugglers generally regard errors and drops as negative, not only to be avoided, but reflecting poorly on the juggler. Further, errors immediately cancel the positive regard of other demonstrated skills. The juggler has to learn to overcome and ignore this attitude in others, and to resist any adoption of it personally. Other jugglers can and should be supportive in this.

In the Christian life we have a VERY important parrallel. Christians may, and hopefully do, come to learn that as the Lord pointed out, life in His company will be challenging, we may well stumble, but we have a redemption mechanism when we do. We can therefor rejoice in the continuity of the process, and in the overall safety in His grasp. Non-Christians, though, usually will not see it this way. They see a stumble as failure, and may say that quite clearly. Though we would like to present the best view of the life our Saviour has brought us, we nontheless are not responsible for the non-believer. We do not cause his attitude and the Holy Spirit is the only active agent that can alter it. They will be called to Faith, if that is the Lord’s will, by Him, and not by our perfection or error. If that is not embraced by us, then we can not grow as He would have us grow. And THAT is the real goal for which he has called us to Himself. Therein we Glory Him.

Our true endevour on the Lord’s behalf, errors and all, is the only truth we can present to others, demonstrating among other things the Grace he continues to extend to believers as we are molded. This is in plain view and we are not caused to be anything other than completely transparent about it.

Now, does this appreciation of the process in either case mean that we do not strive completely for excellence or perfection? Not in the least. But without participating in the process as a whole we are limited, and can not fully abandon ourselves joyfully to it.

Let us truly rest in Jesus, trying on His behalf to excel within the commands he has provided, honestly seeking forgiveness as He provided when necessary, that the world may glimpse the power of this ongoing transformation and He might received the Glory.

In juggling, there are a number of basic physical patterns. These patterns express in a vast number variations, that to the non-juggler’s eye appear to all be different. The juggler, however, can see these basic truths expressing in each variations. He or she also knows that without the basic patterns, irrespective of how deeply they are emerced in the variation, the juggling simply wouldn’t be physically possible.

The same is true of props. Juggling balls, clubs or rings (to name just a few common categories that include many more) all exercise that same fundamental set of patterns discussed above.

In exercising pattern and expecially in extending them, errors or drops are inevitable. They are, in fact, a required part of learning and skill extension. Compensating and overcoming them is a direct result of the underlying skill set supporting the activity.

Yet again, in group juggling, such as the club passing that gives us such great enjoyment and fellowship, the activity and the recovery from learning errors depend almost entirely on the underlying skill set.

In the final analysis, without the base patterns, no matter how they may be hidden in any situation, the activity and related growth would not be possible.

Let us then turn to the Christian life and the body of believers.

The faith that we hold, by the Grace of our Lord, provides a support of infinite strength in which to grow in life. There will be errors and miss-steps, as there must be in any development process. As we are called to grow more and more, these errors may at times be large and difficult. But it would not be possible to grow and extend in safety without the underlying grasp of our Lord. This undercurrent supports us just as the base pattern supports the juggler, but though changes beyond the reality of the present.

We learn the juggling pattern, but the pattern of Faith is a gift of God which we, being of the flesh and not of spirit, could not obtain ourselves. It brought us to the point of realising that we have received it as a gift, and it will sustain us despite worldly situations. It will allow the pattern to persist, despite evidence to the contrary at times.

What a joy to juggle and rest in the basic skills, but what a greater joy to rest in the free gift of Faith through Grace, sustained in the pattern established in Him and for His glory.

“Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it!
Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb;
Redeemed through His infinite mercy,
His child and forever I am.”

At the end of a recent conversation with a brother I said “The Elect are elect, period.” He responded “Now that in itself is scary.”

Surely not! For the believer, the place of rest is surely in the safety of Perseverance of the Saints. There we rest in the certainty that we are His and have been since before the beginning of time (Ephesians 1:4), and that no-one shall be able to pluck us from His hand (John 10:28-29).

For those taking the opposite view, what is there? If our calling and continued assurance of salvation was dependant in any way whatsoever upon our natural, worldy selves, then any realistic appraisal of the situation would leave one in constant anxiety and fear. What a nightmare.

What of those who walk away, some might ask? Did our Lord not warn us that some of the sheep would not really be sheep, and that there would be tares among the wheat?

But let us not dwell on that which is not of us, nor upon erroneous and fearful views that the world would use to tempt us to worry and fear. Let us sing the wonderful refrain above from Fanny Crosby, and rest in the assurance of Scripture and the joy of His grasp.

I recently heard an opinion about Grace which gave me concern as I thought about it. It concerned the responsibility of the believer to extend the Grace which they had received on to others. It proposed that failure to do so would likely make the Father unhappy, and would possibly engender some sort of correction. I have no fundamental problem so far.

It further proposed that the extension of Grace telegraphs from believer to believer, with the action of each believer being required so that Grace can pass to others. In illustration, it was suggested to see a string running from believer to believer, joining the body. Grace would telegraph through this chain, extending outward and reaching those downstream. Should the Grace not be relayed by a link, the string would be cut, the Grace would stop there, and those downstream would not receive the intended Grace.

Although I would certainly agree that it is stated biblically that it is the responsibility of believers to extended Grace to others, and that failure to do so may be credited to their heavenly account, the implications made of mans’ position in the distribution of Grace are in error.

The extension of Grace is a sovereign matter. It is of God and not of man. Though we can extend Grace, as it was extended to us, that extension is for our benefit and has no effect on the actual Grace that the Lord has deemed will be extended to another. To posit otherwise is to deny a key part of Devine Sovereignty and make ‘works’ a key part of salvation (and thereby evangelism). This to me is a serious error indeed.

As a sovereign act, the distribution of Grace will occur, no matter what any or all believers should do. It is, again, all of God and not of man. My, or your, actions in extending Grace may be part of our development under the hand of the Spirit, and may make life in the Body a little more pleasant, but it will not play a part in the action of Grace being received by another, or not.

Think of it this way. If Grace flows via a string, that string goes to each of the elect from the Lord. Maybe the agency of that direct link is you and I, but the link is to the Lord. Our actions are for our development within His plan for us, and maybe for another, but the actual action is always from Him.

Since Grace flows from the Father, by means of the Spirit, the actions of one believer have no real relevance upon another in that respect. To propose that extension of Grace is dependent in any way upon the activity of men means that it can be thwarted by those actions. That is to deny God’s absolute sovereignty therein.

So why split hairs over a simple view of Grace? Viewed from a perspective of absolute faith in the Sovereignty of the Lord in this matter, one may draw the correct conclusions. If that is not the case, however, and if the listener (as was likely the case in the situation under review) has a shaky base in the Sovereignty of God and other tenants of the Reformed faith and/or they have an underlying base of ‘works’ theology, then the message here is fraught with possible misinterpretation and seriously wrong conclusions.

“Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil” (Prov 3:7).

Am I advocating a cessation of critical thinking? Far from it. However, as we are natural men by nature, our Lord wisely provided a sphere of safety for believers within the Scripture. That provides a safe home from which to analyze, discuss and live. We have true freedom therein.

Once one steps outside that zone, as is the case it this senario where the wisdom of man is used to redefine that of the Lord, one steps outside that safety net which the Father has so graciously provided. That is clearly not as He wishes.

As with all events, these senarios play out for the benefits of the Lord’s plans. The question that must be asked is whether denial of the authority of the Lord’s Word (let us make no bones about it, for that is what this all implies) is the hallmark of those who are actually His…

For believers, the only acceptable safety is in His hands, and He made it clear that being in His hands involves the acceptance of His rule. The rule is not related in any way to our common sense, nor anything else of us.

All glory be to Him.

My recent posts about the “Alone’s” and the reality that all is solely for the Glory of our Lord, lead me to recount an experience of a few months ago. These experiences leave me not only with dismay at the events themselves, but with concern that what they represent is more common within our Christian circles than we might think.

Through some para-church activity I met a fairly senior clergyman from a mainline denomination, a denomination that variously professes a reformed belief set. With many years experience and solid credentials, I made what I considered reasonable assumptions about his beliefs (we could jump to a new thread about ASSumptions, but we won’t go there for now).

In the course of events and interactions, and because of my own reformed persuasion, I asked casually one day in conversation about a doctrinal difference that had arisen. Let me also add though I hold strong views on the subject, my way of approaching this is to ask for clarification, as in “I think such and such, but I am eager to hear alternate doctrine base upon scripture”.

What I expected was a discussion of scripture or doctrine or the like, possibly with alternate thoughts on interpretation or even translation. Call me naive if you will, but what occurred shocked me.

The one and only explanation he gave was that “God has common sense. God and scripture must be seen with common sense within our context”. No theology, no scriptural reference to the matter at hand or the situation, nada. Just belief above all else that interpretation must be based on God’s common sense in relation to the situation at hand today.

Now folks, common sense is nothing of God. It is absolutely of Man. With that in mind, it could be renamed Natural Sense, as in, coming from the natural man - “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor 2:14).

So this fellow is basing his life, theology and ministry on beliefs relative to man’s common sense (presumably his common sense in most instance, but that is actually irrelevant). This is relativism in a both seductive and insideous form! There are no real precepts from the Lord that can not be conveniently re-thought in this mindset. Faith and the action based thereon is now in man.

We have been warned and admonished about this repeatedly in scripture: ” Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding” (Prov 3:5), “Do not be wise in your own eyes” (Prov 3:7), and that the ways of God are not the ways of man. There are many other instances, but the natural man’s common sense is demonstrate to in many case to be antithesis of the ways of the Lord. Sola Scriptura!

In the situation at hand, on the surface, it looked like a simple dissagreement over biblical interpretation, and the effect of that on the activities of church life. What it was in reality was the illumination of Spiritual Warfare, and the subtle inroads of Satan in the body of believers. Does that go too far? I don’t think so.

The effect is actually massive, for once that Relativistic view is taken, many tenants of obedience fall quickly away. It is the first domino falling in a long series. Scary indeed.

Does this imply that there is no room for family discussion within the body of believers? In the words of Paul “May it never be” (Rom 6:2a). But let us hold fast to the Word as the only source, interpreted by His grace alone.

“O God, our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home”

As I was writing the previous post in this thread, on the “Alone’s”, the words of the wonderful old hymn above were running through my mind. Only through His grace and calling do we have this privilege to express ourselves to the Glory of God. Our help, our hope, our shelter, our home - it is all of Him and Him alone.

It is our hope to glorify Him in our lives, not because we can, but for the larger reason that He made us and called us specifically and solely for that purpose.

As we glorify only Him, He is truly our hope and home, stretching from the past into times to come.

Let us share that with others, thereby again glorifying Him alone.