|
Tuesday, 06 April 2010 |
|
I know; it’s a silly question. Of course the church cannot save us. Only God can do that. We usually feel compelled to ask the opposite question: Can we save the church? That is usually what many, especially those of us who rely on the church for employment, are concerned about. Especially in our western postmodern culture we wonder if perhaps we are about to enter a post-church era. Religion today appears in many forms with conflicting trends. On the one hand most church organizations appear to be thriving. The mega church phenomenon may not get the attention it once did. But large churches still exert considerable influence on the way we think about and do church. On the other hand, many, especially in the generations X and Y, tend to avoid or at least modify established forms of religion. The house church movement is on the rise and traditional denominational boundaries of doctrine and culture mean less and less. Ironically, some of the recent trends have “discovered” older forms of worship. The house church concept, for example, comes directly out of apostolic and early church times. What is it about “church” that leaves us torn between enthusiasm and ambivalence, allegiance and scorn? Our criticism of “organized” religion is itself fraught with contradictions. As a pastor, my response to critics of organized religion is, “you think organized religion is bad? Try disorganized religion!” When our schedules fall apart, offerings are down, people don’t show up as promised, the sound operator is asleep at the switch, the babies (of every age) are all crying at once, the potluck generates more drama than fellowship, and my sermon feels DOA, I’m tempted to give up on organizing anything having to do with religion. Yet, by God’s grace we continue, often in spite of our efforts to do better. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Thinking About Human Nature |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 |
|
By Mike Leno Things are not what they are supposed to be. The truth, which we all recognize in one way or another, is that human beings are in a predicament. Even if you subscribe to the “this is all there is” sort of belief, life continues to present what we call “big questions” regarding our nature and function. In the previous article I utilized concepts from computer function, genetics, and brain theory to illustrate ways of understanding human nature (See “What Did Jesus Have to Prove? http://mikeleno.net). I also applied these concepts to the nature of Christ in order to show how difficult it is to be specific and meaningful about the effects of sin on humans generally and the person of Jesus specifically. I concluded that regardless of how or to what extent we as humans suffer from the effects of sin that Jesus’ life was in no way a competition with ours. It was, rather, part of a rescue operation in which God does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Such an explanation, however, raises more questions than it answers; which I hasten to add is not a bad thing. But in answering the big questions of human nature, we inevitably find ourselves attempting to go beyond what we know. All knowledge progresses beyond what is already known. But the questions regarding human nature have proven particularly resistant to definition. All I can hope to do here is attempt some sort of introduction to thinking about the problem. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 28 September 2009 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
What Did Jesus Have to Prove? |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 03 September 2009 |
By Mike Leno “Did Jesus have an advantage over us?” The question struck a nerve and I winced inwardly. During a discussion on signs of the end, our mid-week study group had observed that Jesus’ knowledge of the future did not include the time of his second coming. He said in Matthew 24:36, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” The fact that Jesus did not have access to the same knowledge as the Father led us into a vigorous discussion about the nature of Christ. Was he human, completely? Was he divine, and if so, to what extent did he experience his divinity during his thirty-some years on earth? |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Friday, 31 July 2009 |
|
By Mike Leno I grew up hearing and memorizing texts from the King James Version. So even today, after decades of using multiple versions of the Bible in both church work and personal study, I still hear the good old King James in my head when reading or quoting certain passages. There is no doubt that this English translation of scripture remains one of the all time great works of literature and expressions of God’s word. Today, however, in spite of my respect and long history with the KJV, I rarely regard it as a first choice for public presentations or for in-depth study of the text. The reason is simple. There are better options for textual accuracy and readability. Because we stand on the shoulders of great textual scholars from several centuries we know more about the biblical text than ever before. That combined with relatively recent manuscript discoveries, means we can have even more confidence in the authenticity of “The Word of God.” This does not diminish the value of the KJV. But it does mean that some of our modern English translations more accurately reflect the original writings of scripture. The bottom line is we have more and better Bibles than we have ever had in history. |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 01 August 2009 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 1 - 8 of 105 |
Blog