The poor and a feet wiping

"A rich perfume on Jesus’ weary feet"*

John 12:1-8 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Mary
Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus seemed to get herself in trouble at family get-togethers. On one occasion it was criticism from her sister Martha for sitting at Jesus' feet rather than helping serve. On this occasion it was from Judas Iscariot for wasting what might have helped the poor. On both occasions Jesus defended her. On these occasions and in John chapter 11, we see Mary loved her place at the feet of Jesus.

Before the Passover  Lazarus, Martha, Mary, Jesus and the disciples got together at the house of Simon the leper (Cf. Mark 14:1-9) for a supper with Jesus as the guest of honor. While Martha served and Lazarus supped, Mary brought out an alabaster box with a pound of costly ointment and anointed Jesus. She anointed his feet, and from Matthew & Mark we know she also anointed His head. The ever-vigilant always-pragmatic and not-so-honest Judas took time to notice and to criticize. His criticism was a facade, and yet Jesus took notice of its failure to meet the test.

The feet wiping
Jesus as the guest of honor had great honor bestowed upon Him by Mary. The ointment was costly -- Judas estimated 300 pence -- but she spared none. She poured it all on Jesus. She also did not spare herself, but made her own lovely hair the rag with which to wipe Jesus' feet. Perhaps she did not even fully understand the import of the act as Jesus expresses it -- she presupposed His death and burial and anointed Him in preview. Even the most hard-hearted would not deny the cost of anointing for burial.

The poor
Judas proposed the poor as the reason to avoid such waste, while surely salivating to secure that sum for his scrip. Jesus answer does not discourage helping the poor, but encourages us to get our priorities in the right place. Within a few days He would be dead. The poor would be around always, and "whensoever ye will ye may do them good." If we are not doing the poor good when we can, do not use them as an excuse not to do what we should.

Jesus said Mary had "done what she could." May we, by God's grace, do what we should to bestow a sweet smelling offering upon Jesus our Savior who died for us.


When Mary poured a rich perfume on Jesus’ weary feet,
Her caring filled that humble room; the fragrance there was sweet.

*from the hymn "When Mary poured a rich perfume" by Carolyn Winfrey Gillette © 2001

A meal and a feet washing

Luke 7:36-50 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat. 37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, 38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. 40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. 41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? 50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

A meal
“In Luke’s Gospel Jesus is either going to a meal, at a meal, or coming from a meal,” says Robert Karris, author of Eating Your Way Through Luke’s Gospel. At least nine such accounts are recorded*. An oft-repeated complaint of the Pharisees was that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners (Cf. Luke 5:30 7:34; 15:2). “The Son of Man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold, a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” This story reminds us that Jesus not only ate with publicans and sinners, but also with Pharisees and lawyers (Cf. Luke 14:1-6). Often we only see what we want to see, only what pride and prejudices allow. The truth is that Jesus is no respecter of persons, but if any man will hear His voice and open the door, He will come in sup with him.

A feet washing
At this meal with the Pharisee appeared an uninvited guest – a sinful woman with a dark reputation. Surprisingly the woman weeps profusely and begins to take those tears as water to wash Jesus’ feet. Her hair supplies the rag to wipe them, and with her lips she vigorously kisses those sacred feet. An ointment that cost her greatly is then applied to Jesus’ feet. Simon, the host and a Pharisee, is flabbergasted, privately thinking ill of Jesus – if he really were a prophet, he would know the sinful reputation of this woman and not let her near him, much less wash and kiss his feet. But Jesus did know this woman and her sins (Cf. verses 47-38). Knowing Simon’s thoughts, Jesus puts forward a parable illustrating the source of the woman’s actions – she loves much because she has been forgiven much! The woman, the forgiven, worships Jesus without words. Jesus, the forgiver, justifies her actions by His words. She stood forgiven. She could go in peace. “Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God.”

May we feast with Jesus, may we worship at His feet.

Jesus! What a friend for sinners!
Jesus! Lover of my soul;
Friends may fail me, foes assail me,
He, my Savior, makes me whole.**

*Luke 5:27-32 (Matthew Levi, a publican)
Luke 6:1-5              (In the corn fields)
Luke 7:36-50          (Simon, a Pharisee)
Luke 9:12-17          (5000 fed)
Luke 11:37-54 (A certain Pharisee)
Luke 14:1-24          (A chief of the Pharisees)
Luke 19:1-10          (Zaccheus, a publican)
Luke 22:7-20           (With the twelve)
Luke 24:13-32 (Cleophas and other disciples)
Luke 24:41-42 (With the eleven)
(And many many other lessons involving eating)

** Hymn by J. Wilbur Chapman

The Two Debtors

Luke 7:40-42  40 And Jesus answering said ... I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. 41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

1. Once a woman silent stood
While Jesus sat at meat;
From her eyes she poured a flood,
To wash his sacred feet:
Shame and wonder, joy and love,
All at once possessed her mind,
That she e'er so vile could prove,
Yet now forgiveness find.
2. "How came this vile woman here?
Will Jesus notice such?
Sure, if he a prophet were,
He would disdain her touch!"
Simon thus, with scornful heart,
Slighted one whom Jesus loved,
But her Savior took her part,
And thus his pride reproved.
3. "If two men in debt were bound,
One less, the other more;
Fifty, or five hundred pound,
And both alike were poor;
Should the lender both forgive,
When he saw them both distressed;
Which of them would you believe,
Engaged to love him best?"
4. "Surely he who much did owe,"
The Pharisee replied;
Then our Lord, "By judging so,
Thou dost for her decide:
Simon, if like her you knew,
How much you forgiveness need;
You like her had acted too,
And welcomed me indeed!
5. "When the load of sin is felt,
And much forgiveness known;
Then the heart of course will melt,
Though hard before as stone:
Blame not then, her love and tears,
Greatly she in debt has been:
But I have removed her fears,
And pardoned all her sin."
6. When I read this woman's case,
Her love and humble zeal;
I confess, with shame of face,
My heart is made of steel;
Much has been forgiven to me,
Jesus paid my heavy score,
What a creature must I be,
That I can love no more!

Written by John Newton: Copied from The Christian's Duty, exhibited in a series of hymns, 1791, No. 206

Washing feet blog posts

This morning I preached from the text in Luke 7:36-50, the sinful woman washing the feet of Jesus. Over the next few days I want to post on the subject of washing feet. This first post is links to blog posts on the subject, and my final post will be an interview with Matthew Pinson, president of Welch College and author of The Washing of the Saints' Feet.

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

Feet Washing is not about Washing Feet
Have You Washed Her Feet Lately?
New book, available in July
Once I had a glorious view
The Case for Feet Washing
The Creator On His Knees
The last day of Jesus’ life on earth…what did he do? Why did he do it?
This Do in Remembrance of Me
The Washing of the Saints' Feet book review
Washing Feet – Sharing in Jesus
Waste is Such a Beautiful Thing
What takes the place of foot washing?
What was He thinking?

Is God unmindful

JEREMIAH 19.5 IS GOD UNMINDFUL? By James F. Poole

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind" (Jeremiah 19.5).

God needs no defense from guilt. He stands in no need of the pleas of His creatures to absolve Him of wrong doing or abetting the same by simply not acting.

Let us examine the text and its context and see what is there. Jeremiah 19 is just as much a part of the Bible as John 3.16 or Romans 8.28 so we shall review it accordingly. Verse three tells us to whom the Lord sent Jeremiah, His prophet. He was sent to the kings of Judah , and the inhabitants of Jerusalem . Jehovah had, at that particular time, no complaint with the heathen nations around about Israel . The complaint in Jeremiah 19 was with Judah in particular. (It is interesting, however, that He calls Himself the God of Israel, as though there had never been a division among the tribes.) God’s message to Judah was attended with certain unusual effects; whoever heard the message would experience having their ears tingle. The injunction God laid against Judah pertained to their exceeding wickedness; wickedness such as was hitherto unknown among the fathers (verse four). Their trespasses were alarmingly insidious; so much so, God demanded their attention on the matter. You may be sure He got it. Their sins were enumerated as follows:

• They forsook God.
• They estranged the place, apparently meaning the valley of the son of Hinnom, which was by the East gate (Verse 2).
• They burned incense unto other gods.
• They filled the place with the blood of innocents.
• They built the high places of Baal.
• They burnt their sons with fire.

None dare deny the enormity of the crimes catalogued against the kings of Judah and Jerusalem . They were clearly odious. By any standards they were exceeding wicked. To burn your offspring with a consuming fire as a sacrifice to idols bespeaks wanton abandonment of all compassion and devotion. Further, it denotes full apostasy by the perpetrators. None but those with depraved minds could entertain such practices.

Jehovah made three pronouncements concerning Himself and His relation to the events following His description of Judah ’s sin:

1. “Which I commanded not.” Thus, Judah had no command to hide behind.
2. “Nor spake it.” Judah had no word from God to plead.
3. “Neither came it into my mind.” Finally, it would be inconsistent with the nature of God to even think of granting them such sordid privileges.

Item 3 seems to turn even the most placid religionists into near infidels and God-limiters of the first sort. Their beliefs (or disbeliefs) on this range anywhere from one extreme to another but always have as their aim a denial God knew about this particular sin. More particularly, since God did not know the events, they deny God predestinated or decreed any of these acts, either directly or permissively.

Just what are the possibilities we may draw from the pronouncements God made, and how then may we best sort out the truth from error? There appears to be only two major possibilities. The first is, God was truly unaware or unmindful of their conduct and thus, “Neither came it into my mind” meant God never knew about this sin, at least until it was committed. This would mean that God was deficient or lacking in the knowledge of all things. His omniscience was less than real omniscience; God did not know all at all times. Such a god is no god at all. He is only a being somewhat superior to other beings but, nevertheless subject to limitations as all other beings.

The second plausible possibility is this: it never entered God’s mind to command or speak to these sinners relative to these matters, no; not even to suffer such to be done. Simply put, in the language of man, God said He never, ever, thought of commanding them to practice this wickedness. Had God commanded them so, the command would correspond to His commands to them involving matters of sacrifices; that which was allowable and that which was not. No such command was ever given. They were without excuse.

If one accepts the latter possibility, he avoids becoming embroiled with additional and more complex questions regarding God’s omniscience. For instance, how can an omniscient, or all-knowing, God not know something; in this case the horrible sins of the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem ? If there is a basic premise regarding God which practically all sane persons accept, it is that God is all-knowing. Nothing escapes His wisdom, prescience, observation, knowledge or understanding. All things are naked and open before Him; past, present, and future. God knows all, God sees all. Is a god of lesser capacity worthy of the name, God? Preposterous! 

If by the expression, “neither came it into my mind” means God did not know about the events from some period prior to their actual transpiring, then was God less wise before He learned of them? Conversely, was He more wise, then, after He learned about the events? Could such a thing be possible?

Is God a learner of events as we creatures are? Does He build upon His base of wisdom as events take place like mortals do? Is it possible to say that God did not know of these atrocities until they were committed without at the same time saying God increased in His omniscience with the passing events? What else can we conclude from the noxious idea that God was growing in learning when He said “neither came it into my mind”?

The Word of God says, “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts15.18).” Can this event, where God comes to these sinners and condemns them for this awful abomination, be excluded from His works? How could God know of this action of His from before the foundation of the world and yet He not know what the action would involve? Is it possible that He just knew that something unknown but wicked was going to transpire but that He would have to wait until the event developed to know the details of what He eternally knew of only generally? That may not be blasphemy but it is a second cousin to it.

An additional consideration is involved if one denies that God knew about these terrible actions. How could God address these sinners about their crimes if these same crimes had never entered His mind? Can God speak about what He knows nothing about? Did God know about the sins or not? If He did know about them, then just when did He learn of them? Was God, who is omnipresent, on the scene when the action took place to become a learning spectator, as all other beings? Did He know about them before or after they transpired? Or as they transpired? Can any of these questions be answered according to the Arminian approach without consigning God to a status of learner? Make no mistake about it. God would have to have known less before these events and known more after the same if “It never came into My mind” means He was unaware until the fact. And so, He could not have been telling us the actual fact of His person when He avowed He never changes.

The Psalmist wrote, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven (Psalm 119.89).” Would the word of the Lord to Judah in Jeremiah 19.5 be excluded from this citation? The simple meaning of the text is that it never entered God’s mind to command them to build altars or desecrate their off-springs in the fire.

Is God unmindful? “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4.12-13).” God discerns. Dare any say He discerns imperfectly? God discerns the intents of the heart. Those miscreants in Jeremiah 19 certainly intended in their hearts to do what they did, thus God discerned or knew before the time that which was to transpire. If He knew before, even for one second, the nonsensical argument of the Arminians fall to the dust before the feet of our Omniscient God.

Furthermore, the text says all things are naked and opened unto His eyes. Notice that it does not say they are simply open; they are opened. Opened by His power, His wisdom, His holiness, His will, His knowledge. Is God unmindful? Only in the perception of infidels.

—Elder James F Poole, a condensed version, the entire article can be found in The Remnant, September-October, 1999. Volume 13, No. 5

Thirty day tour of Christian history

On his blog, Timothy Paul Jones is doing a
"thirty-day tour" through the history of Christianity. It sounds like it would be interesting. The first two topics have been on why history matters and about ancient historians mentioning Jesus.

Can faith inform our views on law and politics?

Likely Vice-President Joe Biden is being widely applauded this morning (in certain circles) for his broad liberality. In the debate last night in Danville, Kentucky, he made it clear that he would not impose his religious beliefs on others. Now that sounds right, doesn't it? On the surface, perhaps, but let's consider what the Vice-President actually said, and the implications of it.

Noting both debaters/candidates were Catholic, moderator Martha Raddatz asked “what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.” Congressman Paul Ryan went first, explaining that faith and reason both played a part in his belief system. When his turn came, Vice-President Biden stated “With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a, what we call de fide* doctrine. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christian and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others...”

First, whether the Vice-President actually abides by his church's doctrine is questionable. The Pope not only says life begins at conception, but also concerning abortion law it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” But that is another subject. Vice-President Biden clearly and without equivocation said that life begins at conception and that he believes that. Where he did equivocate, though, is that it only applies to his "personal life" and does not inform his beliefs about national policy or laws. In contrast, Congressman Ryan had previously wondered aloud, “I don’t see how a person can separate their private life from their public life or their faith.” Yes, how can we?

Curiously, in the case of Joe Biden, we have a man who believes that an unborn child is alive and yet we cannot protect it from murder! Why? Because "I just refuse to impose that on others." Would he kowtow so easily concerning a life that is one day old, one year old, 20 years old, 80 years old? Would he refuse to impose his belief about not murdering these on others? Why not? How can he so casually dismiss life rather than protect it just because 'life begins at conception' is a religious belief? Life is life.

I am glad that our forefathers didn't allow murder or theft simply because prohibiting it would be based on their religion. I don't believe murder is wrong because some old dead guys thought so or because it is either a personal or societal benefit -- even though both are true. I believe murder is wrong "because the Bible tells me so." Does that exclude me from sitting at the table of ideas and influence? Most certainly not! It may keep some from believing or accepting my ideas, but it doesn't exclude me from sitting down at the table.

Allowing others to have their faith and make their peace with God (or not) is a hallmark of Baptist religion. We do not impose our faith and practice on others. Yet in the moral development of a society, someone's beliefs will be imposed upon that society through public policy, laws, regulations, and community standards -- whether those beliefs are religious or secular.  Ultimately, many of us have many different reasons for believing what we believe and supporting the causes we support. In a democratic society no one is excluded from the marketplace of ideas because of their reason for believing. Whether their reasons will gain the support of the majority is another question altogether.

* In Roman Catholicism, a de fide doctrine is an essential part of faith and the denial of it is heresy.

Worthless theology?

If your theology (study of divine things or religious truth) does not affect your philosophy (system of principles for guidance) and your practice (what you do and how you act), then your theology is worthless to you.

Touch not the Lord's anointed

A number of so-called Baptist ministers insulate themselves from criticism and correction by demanding the flock "Touch not the Lord's anointed." Then turn around to boldly criticize, correct and abuse the Lord's anointed, his flock. Thomas Williamson wrote about this, concluding, "The command, "Touch not the Lord's Anointed" is for today. In 2 Corinthians 11:19-20, Paul warns against religious leaders who would take advantage of believers: "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face."

Today, among some preachers, it is considered a mark of distinction that they are able to bring their followers into bondage, devour them, take of them, exalt themselves, and smite or abuse their followers. They brag about this sort of thing in their preacher's meetings, and conduct pastor's schools to teach others how to do it and get away with it. But notice what Paul calls such men - he calls them Fools! In the context, it is clear that he is not talking about laymen abusing preachers, although that is also wrong. Here he is talking about preachers who abuse and misuse laymen, and according to Paul, such preachers are fools."

Baptists and the Civil War

Interesting site that intersects Baptist and Civil War history:

Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words

Curious story of church music and a tucking comb

It was at this meetinghouse [of Hickman Creek Baptist Church, Smith County, TN], and under this preaching, when a small boy, I got my first ideas of divine worship, and of Jesus Christ as a Saviour for sinners. And this fact may account for some notions that cling to me at the present time. The first pastor I remember to have met and heard at Hickman Creek was a tall, gray-headed gentleman by the name of Durham. It was under the ministry of this aged servant of God I first witnessed the exhibition of instrumental church music. It was very simple and primitive in its order. The instrument was not an organ, nor melodeon, nor violin, nor flute, nor drum, nor horn. It was a cheap and portable concern, that the pastor carried in his pocket, which at the proper tune (time?) he played himself, thereby saving the expense of a salaried performer.

When the hymn was announced Father Durham drew from his pocket a lady’s tucking comb, to one side of which a piece of brown paper had been adjusted. While the congregation struck the air of the tune, he sung the same notes through the comb, which being reflected by the paper, and broken into diverging and crossing volumes by the intervening teeth, produced a monstrous jingle of sounds, that supplied the place of bass, treble, alto, and all the imaginary notes. Whether scientific or not, the primitive church instrument sent out a novel clatter of sounds, which to my uneducated ear seemed wonderfully melodious.

Little did I dream at that time of living to be a grown-up man; of being transported from those native hills and dropped down among cities; to tread the threshold of majestic Gothic temples, and see the tucking comb transferred from the preacher’s pocket to a spacious room in the gallery, and expanded into the beauty and grandeur of the church organ, with its thundering sounds.

I will not undertake to give an opinion as to the comparative merits of the various instruments of church music. Let those who believe in instruments do this, if they choose. After some years of experience I decidedly prefer congregational singing to all the instruments in the world. Some might attribute this to erroneous education, or the lack of education. Be this as it may, I would rather listen, especially on the Sabbath, to some forty or fifty clear toned human voices, such as may be heard in some of our African churches, where praises spring up from the very bottom of the heart, and pour out in solid sluices from wide mouths; where time is kept not by the rules of gamut, but by the spontaneous swinging of their bodies as they heave to and fro beneath the pulsations of spiritual emotion; I would rather listen to this than to the finest organ in America. What dying Christian in his dissolving hour would not prefer the vocal praises of one single kindred spirit, making melody from the heart, to all the heartless instruments in the world?

[Excerpt from reminiscences of Hickman Creek Baptist Church in Middle Tennessee by a contributor signed “R. J.”. Found in Samuel H. Ford’s Christian Repository, April 1860]

Readings of a political nature

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.


Can a Christian Vote for a Non-Christian Candidate?
Can Christians vote for a Mormon?
How should Christian voters decide whom to support?
Majority of Pastors Disapprove of Pulpit Endorsements
No to Pulpit Freedom Sunday and Political Endorsements
Obama versus Jesus: Black Christians Must Decide
Should I vote for a Mormon?
The Great American Worldview Test — The 2012 Election
Still the truth
Who Should a Pastor Endorse?

Why art thou cast down?

Why art thou cast down?

Be still my heart! these anxious cares
To thee are burdens, thorns, and snares,
They cast dishonor on thy Lord,
And contradict his gracious word!

Brought safely by his hand thus far,
Why wilt thou now give place to fear?
How canst thou want if he provide,
Or lose thy way with such a guide?

When first before his mercy-seat,
Thou didst to him thy all commit;
He gave thee warrant, from that hour,
To trust his wisdom, love, and pow'r.

Did ever trouble yet befall,
And he refuse to hear thy call?
And has he not his promise past,
That thou shalt overcome at last?

Like David, thou may'st comfort draw,
Saved from the bear's and lion's paw;
Goliath's rage I may defy,
For God, my Savior, still is nigh.

He who has helped me hitherto,
Will help me all my journey through;
And give me daily cause to raise
New Ebenezers to his praise.

Though rough and thorny be the road,
It leads thee home, apace, to GOD;
Then count thy present trials small,
For heav'n will make amends for all.

John Newton (1725-1807)
Olney Hymns, 1779

Smyrna Church singing

The annual memorial Sacred Harp singing at Smyrna Missionary Baptist Church, Oak Flat Community, Texas will be on Saturday, October 6th, Lord willing. We start at 10:00 a.m. and  sing until about 3:00 p.m. We use the 2006 Sacred Harp, Revised Cooper Edition, at this singing. The church house is located on FM 2496, about 5 miles west of Mt. Enterprise, Texas. The closest motels are in Henderson, Texas, but Jacksonville and Nacogdoches are nearly as close.

Come join in, and help us to sing.

Readings, again

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

3 Reasons I’m Not a Fan of the “I Went to Heaven” Books
5 Reasons “I Declare” @JoelOsteen Deadly
Divorce Rate Among Christians
Most popular baby names, 2011 vs. 1911
Practical Holiness
The Church Historian as Spiritual Mentor
The Intolerance of Those Who Preach Tolerance

The Neighbourly Way

I usually think of the rural South as a place of genuine friendliness and neighborliness. I'm not so sure that is still true in a widespread way. Old neighbors die or move. New ones who move in that we hardly know. We often think of a neighbor as a person who lives nearby or next to another. Jesus taught us to think another way -- be a neighbor by showing sympathy, mercy and kindness (especially to those in distress). Even the world and the wicked love those that love them.

Luke 10:30-37 tells the story we usually call "The Good Samaritan". In it Jesus tells us of one who was robbed, beaten and left for dead. After the thieves left him, he was encountered by a priest, a Levite and a Samaritan. In the encounter with the thieves and these three others, we learn 3 philosophies of dealing with our "neighbors".

1. What is yours is mine and I can have it. "A certain man...fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead." The philosophy of thieves is that anything that belongs to another is rightfully theirs (the thief's). They will take whatever they can, regardless of consequences, and not worry their conscience about it.

2. What is mine is mine and you can't have it. "[A] certain priest...when he saw him, he passed by on the other side" and "a Levite...came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side." The philosophy of the cheapskate and the tightwad, like the priest and Levite, is not one that necessarily takes from others. It is possessive of its own; it will not share. Maybe you don't have to worry about them stealing from you and leaving you with the consequences -- but they will not help. Will not give. Will not share.

3. What is mine is yours and you can have it. "[A] certain Samaritan...saw him...had compassion on him...and took care of him." The "Good Samaritan" was larger than life, with a heart as open as his pocketbook. He looked not to what he had and how he could it keep for himself, but looked for what must be done. He alone was neighbor to the man who fell among thieves.

"Go, and do thou likewise."

[Note: The "3 Philosophies" is not original to me. I heard and learned this from some unremembered soul years ago.]

More miscellaneous readings

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

First Look at Spielberg’s “Lincoln” Movie
Is Catholicism a Monotheistic Religion?
Should We Fear That We Are Deluded? Comments on Dawkins’ The God Delusion
Theology can be overrated
80% of Churchgoers Don't Read Bible Daily

Same-Sex Marriage Poised To Win Popular Vote

According to Denny Burk, same-sex marriage is poised to win the popular vote in several places. I think he is correct. We are losing the battle for "traditional marriage," culturally speaking. The proponents of traditional heterosexual marriage are much to blame. While defending the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, we divorce, cheat, fornicate, adulterate, "pornographize" and so on. How is that defending the sanctity of marriage? These things ought not to be. In the past "American Christian Conservatives" have really bragged on how homosexual marriage only wins by legislatures and judges exerting their will on the people -- and can't win the popular vote. That is true. But it is coming. Some day it will win by popular vote -- and then again and again, over and over. Then what will we brag about? American Christians have bought too much stock in this culture, and the stock is going to crash. We have spent too much time worrying about whether the United States is a "Christian nation" than on whether we are biblical Christians. We'd better make sure we are on the Lord's side and not culture.

Top 200 Church Blogs

For you interest and enjoyment:
Top 200 Church Blogs 

[I was shocked and amazed that "Ministry and Music" didn't make the list! ;-) ]

Jesus' wife?

At the top of today's religious and irreligious news is revelation of a papyrus fragment referring to Jesus' wife.

One interesting part of the dialogue is that the researchers claim it is not a forgery. I'd be interested in a clearer explanation of what they mean when they say that. Do they just mean this is really from the fourth-century and not something someone has tried to make look like that? Or something else? Some people will have their "faith" shaken because they will now think Jesus must have had a wife. But all this amounts to is someone writing in the fourth century after Christ who thinks He had a wife. No more and no less.