All Activity

Jesus’ words to the woman in verses 10-13 seem to imply that all people are spiritually thirsty. What has been your experience? Does the woman seem spiritually thirsty at this point? What caused her deep thirst to surface? What does this teach us about our own witness? I do not think the woman at the well was spiritually thirsty. She was only trying to figure out what Jesus was saying and hadn't yet connected enough ideas to grasp the spiritual message He was conveying. (I wonder why Jesus continued to speak on one level while the woman was understanding at another. It is almost as if His goal was NOT to communicate but, maybe, to leave a message to be recorded in the Bible? ) Spiritual thirst has a spiritual source -- the Holy Spirit within. Similarly, salvation has to be prompted by the Spirit within. I wonder, then, if everyone has a tiny remnant of the Spirit within their minds, or is that heresy? Does the Spirit come and go: alighting in this person and then in that one, here today, gone tomorrow? The idea I have is that the Spirit dwells in Christians permanently, that nothing can/will separate the Christian from his indwelling Spirit. But, in the case of the woman at the well, she was not a Christian or even a Jew. She did have some of the scriptures, Pastor Ralph wrote, but not all of them. Thus, her understanding of what Jesus was saying was quite limited. So, how do people who know NOTHING of Christian theology, beliefs, history, etc., understand what He is talking about? A few thoughts ... 1. I've known a few highly trained/educated people who knew Christian theology and thought very, very, very well, yet were not Christians. Obviously, they were able to grasp the intellectual dimensions of what Jesus was teaching. Had they been that woman at the well, they would have argued with Jesus, perhaps persuasively. Thus, it is possible to understand what Jesus is talking about without having faith ... it is possible to know about God without having the Spirit's illuminating power within. 2. I do believe all people are spiritually thirsty but most are satiated with untruths to such an extent that their thirst is never felt ... they're thirsty and don't know it. It's as if I were thirsty and drank cooking oil instead of water, then felt satiated. 3. I don't know why the Holy Spirit doesn't re-orient the thirsty to the right "drink." If a person is thirsty and feels satiated, isn't it the Spirit's "responsibility" to try to grab that person and re-orient him toward real thirst? If we can't come to faith except by the Spirit's prompting, then perhaps the Spirit should prompt a bit deeper ... at least more dramatically? (The pat answer about free will doesn't apply. When Paul was blinded on the Damascus road, was God worried about Paul's free will? I think not. Free will has to apply all the time or it's just a ruse). 4. I'm torn between believing that salvation is wholly a gift of the Spirit, prompted by the Spirit and actuated by the Spirit, AND the belief that as a human on this earth, I have to witness to others, to give them the modicum of information needed to be saved. Why am I in this process at all? If the Spirit can floor Paul on the road to Damascus without the agency of others around him, then what is my role? Dual agency? God does this and I do that ... makes no sense. The bottom line is that God does not need my flailing about, searching for words, in order to explain Him. He can explain Himself. And yet, He asks me to "do my part." Why? If people metaphorically go to the well because they are thirsty, that thirst can only be filled by the Spirit. Not my lousy explanations. Thus, I witness, but wonder why. I was pulled to faith alone. By the agency of books. Someone did come to me to pray with me on the beach when I was a young woman, even going so far as to baptise me in the ocean, but had that person not arrived, I think I would have come to the same point by myself. The Spirit was prompting me. Pulling me. Maybe others are not guided in this way ... I don't know, but it seems that most people come to know Him through the words of a sermon or person who witnesses, not solely inner spiritual prompting.

Jesus made a point of taking the shortest route through Samaria. He could have opted to go other more “proper” routes, but instead chose to cut through Samaria. Pastor Ralph suggests He did so because Jesus had a “divine appointment” with the woman. Of course this is true. Every aspect of His life – and ours? – is predetermined or appointed. These circumstances in Samaria, then, were expected. Looking at it this way, the woman’s social status pales in importance to Jesus chugging through his appointed tasks and events. Furthermore, I’m not sure He noticed who she was, at least at first. He saw a woman in need, a woman with a checkered past, a woman who was in the heat of the day pulling up water, and He served her by asking her to serve Him. Many clusters of questions bubble to the surface at this point. Where were His disciples? Why didn’t they come with Jesus? Who, then, recorded this story? The apostles were not there, presumably, so was this story recorded from the woman’s point of view? If so, it’s remarkable. She didn’t gloss over her past. Secondly, why didn’t Jesus draw His own water? Why did Jesus do this? Yes, He was tired, but how difficult is it to draw water from the bottom of the well … unless He didn’t have a bucket? Perhaps He was so exhausted that He couldn’t pull up water, OR, more likely, He was just resting next to the well when the woman came along, to His surprise (?). I’m not sure Jesus knew, in his humanity, that He’d encounter this woman though he knew, in his divinity, that His entire life was a series of divine appointments. So, when He unexpectedly encountered the woman, he could have ignored /shunned her but chose, instead, to interact. This is Jesus's typical behavior as we know it: He encounters the off-beat and shunned in society and gives them a fair hearing and conversation. This was his modus. He didn’t do anything differently with the woman than He did with others. Social norms exist to give people a baseline set of expectations that we share and obey when interacting with other.s They’re not all bad! But they are norms … mere rules, thus meant to be broken. They are not social “laws” but “norms,” that is predicted and typical behavior. When our faith conflicts with any norm or when we feel led to extend His kingdom via evangelization by ignoring or tweaking norms, we should do so. Peaceable cultures can be oppressive. We may do society a good turn by selectively and carefully jettisoning norms.

Gideon asked for one gold earring from each of them. As this was the way soldiers were paid back then, I don't think what he did was wrong. I could see him asking for nothing in return as he was simply obeying God and serving Him.

I don't know how God combined love and wrath in His one person, but perhaps it's like loving a person in spite of his or her flaws, acknowledging the flaws (and hating them) while also acknowledging the blessed traits (and loving them). It's difficult to know how they're combined within a person's heart, but both good and evil exist in most of us. God sees us as we are. I wonder if there is anything good in us that hasn't been washed over, as by a paintbrush, by the tint of sin. Maybe God sees us as grey-tinged -- tinted or toned. Maybe He sees the bright good parts next to the bad parts without any crossover. In either scenario, God has both love for us and wrath toward us at the same time, in the same Being. Salvation is a willing blindness, on the part of God, when looking at us, to not see the flaws and horrible aspects. That willing blindness is based on Jesus' act on the cross. Jesus took from God, in a sense, the ability to see evil as it is. Honestly, I don't believe God doesn't see evil in us or in the world. I think He sees everything "as is," but makes the choice, based on the death of Jesus, to overlook what He sees.

Gideon does not accept the kingship over Israel because Israel already has a king, God Himself. This relationship of King and His vassal was established in the initial covenant between God and Israel after He delivered them from Egypt. As an Israelite, accepting the kingship would be treason against God, who is King over Israel and Gideon's king. The Israelites failed to see this as treason maybe because they couldn't physically see God, and thus, it was harder to put their faith entirely in Him and too easy to forget Him and their covenant with Him. In the same way, they failed to see that the One who won the battle against the Midianites was not Gideon, but God. Gideon was just God's instrument. I guess, to understand this, we would need to understand and be honest with ourselves about why we constantly lift people up as great, almost to the point of worship. We want to do this. It is all over society. Does it come back to Adam and Eve's first sin, that of pride and desiring to lift up ourselves rather than give all the glory to God? Also, for some reason, we want to, almost have a need to put our faith in a person rather than in God. Maybe it all comes down to the possibility that our faith in God isn't as strong as we would like to believe. And if we're not putting our trust in God, well, we have to put our trust in someone, either ourselves or someone else. I've realized something though. It's that we don't fully realize how complete and fulfilling God's love is for us. We're looking for love and don't really realize how completely and without condition He loves us. He loves each of us for who we are. This can be one reason why we lift others up, usually believing them to be more than they really are. Even from afar we see that person as someone who could love and value us when the only One who can completely and truly is God. He fills that need for love, our desire to be recognized, loved, and valued for who we are. And that's what He wants us to know.

I don't think answering these questions is as easy as first appears. In the Christian life, we increase, not only spiritually but in our abilities and accomplishments. As persons, we become bigger and, hopefully, have more to give as we mature, make mistakes, grow from those mistakes, become more proficient at particular skills or abilities, etc. Secular people also increase for the same reasons, so there's nothing particularly faith-filled about increase. Healthy cultures revere the elderly by assuming that older individuals function as cultural repositories of knowledge and wisdom. Older, wiser people point not only to the past, but to a way of living well in the future. What they say matters in every generation because true wisdom is timeless. But ... and this is decidedly Christian, we also shrink in ways that have to do with volition or self-will. We opt not to do/think things that we would, left to our own inclinations, prefer to do, and, conversely, we do things that we would have avoided in the past. Our will submits to His will in this way. We change essentially. Deep within. We decrease. This decrease is decidedly Christian. Seculars can't do it. The way we decrease, that is, is a Christian way. We decrease our will, the motive force within. The will is not superficial but defines who we are. In a very real way, our will IS us. It defines us. Makes us. To decrease in our ability to will independently of God is to change our inner selves. The irony, of course, is that we must will to not will! We must decide/will to cease willing before we can decrease. At this point, a miracle occurs. As we choose/will to not will, which is humanly impossible as well as makes little sense philosophically, He enters. He does so because we can't un-will our own wills! It's impossible. So God steps in and begins the unspooling process of unwilling our will. He hears our plaintive bleats, that of his sheep. He knows we don't understand what we're saying when we ask to be "unwilled." And yet, He answers our silly prayer. Always. As we age, then, we more quickly and thoroughly give up our will. Practically speaking, this means a "willingness" to be/do somehting foreign to us, to be like Him. Though we were created in His image, we are also fallen. Such fallenness impacted the will. Thus, our wills have to be redeemed. Made right. Set on a new course. And that's sanctification, as I now see it -- the process of willingly un-willing before a God who re-wills us in His image. .

Gideon slays the Midianite leaders because they killed Gideon's own brothers and back then, it was expected that one should seek vengeance for the deaths of family members. In those times, he was just in his actions. The Law itself states that if someone murders another on purpose, that person should be put to death and by the person avenging the murdered individual's death. However, today, Romans 12:19 prohibits us from taking vengeance because it is God who will do so as He sees fit. Romans 12:19 says that God will repay for the wrong. Instead, we are to get rid of our anger and do the very opposite of vengeance: feed and give drink to our enemy if that's what is needed, to meet our enemies' need ... just as our Lord, Jesus, did.

a. They built an idol, a golden calf and worshipped it as their god. They also honoured it as the god who brought them out of Israel. b. Anger is a God-created emotion. It is not a bad emotion in itself. It’s useful in the face of unrighteousness where we’re challenged to take action instead of remaining passive. If we’re made in the image & likeness of God, that means God is capable of anger in regards to injustice and unrighteousness, especially when we consider his holiness. c. I don’t have a full understanding of God’s holiness and man’s sin so this is difficult for me to truthfully answer without that foundational knowledge.

I have a difficult time drawing a parallel between the relationship which John has with his cousin Jesus and the relationships I have with other people. It just seems so far-fetched to think that normal human relationships can be similar to that of John and Jesus. But, then again, Jesus is fully human. As is John, of course. I can honestly say that I've never met anyone I would regard so highly that I would consider myself to be his/her forerunner. I have met many admirable people ... but they're not THAT admirable! So, John's joy in Jesus' success isn't like normal human relationships. John simply relishes in his appointed duty, to be Jesus' forerunner. ON a personal level, yes, I'm competitive, admittedly, but not in spiritual matters, gifts, etc. It seems that when others are successful in their callings, it reflects well on the rest of us. It's uplifting. Reading about missionary lives, for example, is inspiring even though I'll never be called to such a great task. Knowing our calling and being absolutely certain of it's boundaries helps keep our minds focused on what we have to do. When callings overlap, which happens, God has a reason. It's not necessarily a sign that someone is stretching the boundaries of his/her calling. We may not like such an overlap, but if we focus on our calling by doing our best in the limited scope in which God allows us to work, competitive desires wane. When pastors compete with others, it's pride. Pride causes us to think that we're better than our calling, that God should open the doors a bit wider and let us do something "worthy" of our natural talents. I AM very guilty of this. I beg God for a bigger life and ministry, one that widens and doesn't trap, which honestly is how I feel right now. I feel constrained by God. Imprisoned, even. Isolated. I want so much more ... Is this wrong? Maybe. Maybe it's pride. Maybe it's striving to serve Him. Probably it's a mixture of both.

These questions made me laugh, honestly. I think this is called "stealing sheep." In some cultures including the American frontier, cattle rustling or sheep stealing was a felony-tier crime. But not in the church. I really don't care if one church "succeeds" while others slowly close. The ebb and flow of churches is part of His ways -- some increase, others decrease. Churches are supposed to be temporary and ephemeral just as our lives and relationships on earth are short and evanescent. Building a church "to be around for generations" is akin to aiming at the wrong goal. Our purpose as a church is to serve NOW, not later. When our NOW service has ended, it makes sense the church would fold ... or morph into a new form. This doesn't happen enough. There are thousands upon thousands of churches that have lost their vision and persist, like B-grade country clubs, on long-ago endowments and memories. If they closed, nothing would be lost. If the people in those churches moved onto more vital, focused congregation which rekindled their faith and enabled rubbing shoulders with people who were on fire for the Lord, it would be a great thing. But people cling to the familiar and comfortable. Many people don't like change. They see churches that close as failure rather than success. It is a success to have done one's calling well and then move on to whatever God asks of you. I find it upsetting to see empty churches or cathedrals that scream of a faith that died. The churches in Paris, for example, are mere memorials to the tragedy of secularism. They point to a time when Catholicism was the centralizing force of French culture and are now run by the state. Both larger churches and smaller ones have their place. They each speak to a certain sort of calling. ALL churches, however, have an obligation to reach out to unbelievers -- to evangelize -- and not merely "steal sheep" with fancy programs and enticements. If the only new people coming into a congregation are those from other congregations, the church leadership should do an inner "survey" to figure out why the Lord isn't expanding His kingdom on their watch. On a personal level, "He must increase, I must decrease," could be the Christian's credo, one tattooed on our minds. God must get bigger in us. We need to make space for Him to take over our lives, for though a church is corporate and involves many, the increase of God also happens within us.

I actually am not sure why they refused to aid Gideon and his army. It doesn't seem like providing bread is too great of a sacrifice, and aiding Gideon in completely defeating the Midianites would seem to benefit them as well. All I can think of is that they were hedging their bets, afraid of helping Gideon in case he failed and the Midianites returned to exact retribution. It could also be pride, though I don't understand how pride would lead to such a decision. Yet in life, we see many instances of people having a chance to aid others, but they don't. I think that's usually because of some personal agenda. Gideon punishes them because they are going against what's expected of fellow Israelites. I don't know if it's in the Law, but I would expect God desires them to be hospitable and charitable to each other. I think Gideon is just in exacting punishment, but his punishment seems rather harsh, especially destroying the tower that protects the people. Whenever a Christian is met with another's need, but refuses to help, that is the same sin.

Q7. (Isaiah 59:1-2) How do disobedience and lack of repentance prevent our prayers from being answered? Our iniquities, i.e., our immoral bad behaviour have separated us from God, and our sins have hid His face from us. This prevents our prayers from being answered. According to verse 2, who is causing the separation from God? We ourselves, as we give in to immoral behaviour and harbour sin in our hearts. How can it be corrected? By repentance and turning away from sin. Calling on God in true repentance. He will hear and forgive.

Q6. (Isaiah 58:13-14) In these verses what positive actions align themselves with a true keeping the Sabbath? Honour - we honour God by keeping the Sabbath Seeking God - we seek to please God with our lives Delight - relax, rest and enjoy God Conversation - not just give way to idle chatter. What negative actions should be avoided in a true keeping of the Sabbath? Making it a ritual with your heart not being in it. Making it a get together where slander, idle talk, backbiting, etc is the order of the day.

Q5. (Isaiah 58:9b-10a) In what ways are people injured by backbiting, judgmental attitudes, and harsh criticism? How are they injured by false accusations and slander? How can we change our church cultures to banish this kind of behavior? What would it require of us to really "spend ourselves in behalf of the hungry"? What would this look like for an individual? For a congregation? Backbiting, judgemental attitudes and harsh criticism breaks a person down completely. Many times, in ways that they do not recover to functioning normal again. They might already be hurting by something that people are not aware of and then false accusations may make them turn away from seeking help and certainly from trusting people enough to look for help. Their motivation to look beyond that place is broken and you find that they end up as 'loafers' or tramps. We need to get to the point where no accusations are made. Get the real facts and then try and help the person as someone created by Almighty God and marred by the evil in this world. Firstly give up the extras that we pamper ourselves with and use that to either support an organization that helps care for the homeless, or give that to a needy person. Time is also something that can be shared. Personal space is also something of value that can be shared. Hungry is not necessarily only for food. It can be for fellowship, for acceptance, for friendship etc. Compassion for those who are different and do not fit in. This could result in meeting needs of the individual, then the families of the individual, the friends and then community. A ripple effect is caused.

Why did Jesus baptize? -- It is impossible to get to know someone without time spent together. Friendships are built, not pronounced. Knowledge comes in fits and starts, not suddenly. It takes time, often a lifetime, to know someone well including Christ. We are to be like Christ. We cannot be like Him unless we know Him well. That's the Christian's life goal.

Gideon must vanquish the entire army, I'm assuming, because, otherwise, they will have enough soldiers to build up into another army and return. Also, by conquering the entire army, Gideon instills such fear in them that they're unlikely to return and attack again. If we only deal with problems halfway, the problem is not solved and can cause further problems in the future.

Q4. (Isaiah 58:6-7) What kinds of injustice does Isaiah condemn in these verses? Oppression and involuntary servitude, i.e. exploiting the servant workers. Not paying them a proper wage. Jahweh demands fairness and justice for workers and mercy towards those who cannot work. What excuses do we use to rationalize not being generous to the poor -- in our communities or in our families? We pass the buck as it were and pass it to the government or the church. Another excuse is that we think they are lazy, i.e. they beg because it is so much easier than finding a job. There are organizations that handle hand outs etc., because it is so easy to become targeted once you help some people and unfortunately one can only help so much. By supporting such organizations , it should keep beggars (many druggies) off the roads and stop them from being a danger to motorists and themselves. In what ways is "tough love" important to help people? In what ways could it hurt them? By teaching them to fish instead of continually giving them the fish, you actually boost their morale and they are able to face themselves again and feel worth something. Unfortunately tough love can also be taken up as being not loved or being rejected and not wanted. Both sides of the story need to be revealed to be able to come to an understanding of how to go forward or how to resolve a situation.

Q3. (Isaiah 57:15) What things do we learn about God in this verse? He is the high and lofty one. He inhabits eternity. He is holy, i.e. set apart from all sin, from the everyday and the common. What is the great paradox here? He humbled Himself to live with those who are prepared to repent of their sin. (Jesus emptied Himself and became a man . . .) Why does God care so much about the downtrodden and the contrite? They are humble and repentant. They need to be revived. Their spirits need uplifting. Do you and your congregation care for the downtrodden and contrite with the same intensity? I don't think anyone is able to measure up to God. Yes, the congregation is involved in various projects.

Q2. (Isaiah 56:2) Why does keeping a sacred day of rest honor God? God gave the Sabbath as a day of rest ; a day to cease from labour. He ordained it to be so, and if we do so, we are being obedient. Christians practice this different ways: (1) Sabbath worship and rest, (2) Sunday worship and rest, (3) Sunday worship, no rest, or (4) no worship, no rest. Which of the various options might best honor God? Sabbath or Sunday worship and rest. Which of these might dishonor God? No worship, no rest Which of these keep the spirit of one "who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it"? Sabbath worship and rest.

Q1. (Isaiah 56:3-8) What is the significance of God's welcome of believing and ethical foreigners and eunuchs to full status in His temple? What are the implications of that for the church? Who does your congregation tend to exclude from its fellowship -- if not explicitly, then by emphasis and focus? What could you do about this? The significance is that everyone is welcome. No one is excluded. Ethical faith of justice and righteousness, as reflected in Micah 6:8 . . . act justly love mercy walk humbly with our God.

John 3.16 is a great verse which is probably why it's so well known. Many other verses, however, well describe salvation and God's plan via Jesus. Biblical verses, like all that is publicly shared, have a preference cascade that reinforces the use of some to the detriment of others. Just sociology. Pastor Ralph emphasized straightaway two strong verbs used to describe God's action -- so loved ... and gave. This verse teaches, then, firstly, that God loved not just humanity but the entire kosmos, and secondly, that His love was so intense giving "His only son" was His way of expressing such love. I find it interesting that love has to be expressed. Regarding salvation, this verse assumes a need for salvation without explaining or defending this assumption. Salvation is needed in order to avoid dying eternally. God's love makes it possible to not succumb to the inevitable. Implied, here, is that the "normal" state of humanity is one that is unsaved as well as on route to hell. The "abnormal" state of humanity is one with a choice between unsaved/damned and saved/redeemed. This verses teaches nothing about the Kingdom of God. It does tell us, however, what we'll avoid eternally -- perishing.

I believe Gideon asked the Ephraimites to intercept any Midianites fleeing south across the Jordan. They were angry because Gideon did not ask for their help when he initially went to fight Midian. Gideon had called on the other tribes to help, but not Ephraim. Gideon appeased the Ephraimites by pointing out to them that they committed greater deeds by killing two of the Midianite leaders, greater than his own smaller successes as he expresses it to them. As a leader with more to be concerned about than the hurt pride of his allies, Gideon seeks to appease them, to keep them as allies, but also to quickly end the conflict with them so he can move on to more important matters. Many of us, in exasperation with the Ephraimites, might want to argue or put them in their place, but much like Jesus, Gideon didn't defend himself. He ended the matter by complimenting them and soothing their hurt pride. He didn't defend himself or make excuses or harangue them. By restraining himself, he was showing humility, which is actually fully knowing he had done right, what God wanted him to, but not defending himself by saying so. I think too often we say too much, more than is needed or is even wise because we either feel a need to defend our actions or make others understand our decisions. But if we are following God's directions, we really don't need to explain ourselves at all. Gideon saw what the Ephraimites needed, to be consoled, and provided that, sacrificing his own ego and reputation.

The verb is BORN, not dipped or washed. When the earth was created, it was created out of a void that was watery. From those waters, God created the earth. In a way, we’ve all been created from or within water. I don’t see any reference to cleaning, purification or repentance here. John chose to use the verb BORN to describe something to Nicodemus. The context is getting into the Kingdom of God. To get there … to get inside, one has to be born of water and of the Spirit. This could mean that a Christian who enters the Kingdom of God does so with both a body and soul, a created earthly/corporeal body and a created Spirit. Perhaps this is Jesus’ way of countering the idea that only spiritual beings can be godly, or the flesh has to be denied or “mortified.” There’s a strong strain of body-disgust in Christian history to which He could be prophetically teaching us not to succumb. But if this was His intent, I’d think He’d hit it more head-on – why so vague? But note, too, that Jesus is saying that a person who comes into the Kingdom of God has to be born of both a body and Spirit. No, that’s wrong. It’s not a passive verb but an active verb. These things aren’t birthed into us, but we must experience them. Thinking more … to be born of someone means he or she is your parent, the parents who gave you life. Jesus is saying that to enter the Kingdom of God, the elements that gave us life … or the ability to get in, are water and Spirit. Flesh and Spirit.

I believe this has to be taken as a corollary to spiritual rebirth which is in the Nicodemus section that directly precedes this one. Thus, To be born again/anew has to logically follow from Jesus' response to Nicodemus. Looking at it this way, both meanings of the word make sense. Honestly, I have no idea which is correct.

Gideon divides his army into three companies in order to spread out and surround the Midianite camp so that the Israelite army appears to be larger than it is. I'm just guessing that from a logistical standpoint, it may have been easier to manage the men in smaller groups. I'm assuming there were "captains" assigned, but I think the main reason was to spread out the 300 men to surround the camp. Likewise, the strategy with the torches, jars, and trumpets were to make Gideon's army appear much larger than it was. This combined with the Midianites' fear of Gideon and God's causing them to turn on each other led to success. In a sense, their fear of Yahweh and Gideon killed them. From the dream Gideon overheard, it is evident the Midianites feared Gideon and his God. The illusion that Gideon's army was immense fed that fear, and then God Himself caused the Midianites to turn on each other, which evened the odds quite a bit for the Israelites, even giving them the advantage.