Approximately sixty years ago, it was my good fortune in the providence of God to be adjudicated by the Juvenile Court of MN and placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer whose name I cannot recall and who subsequently effected my residence in The Victory Farm for Boys in Ortonville, MN.
The ministry of the Victory Farm for Boys did not last long after my departure in 1955; maybe another 5 years.
At that time, Jim and Barb Larsen were the resident house-parents, both of whom came to be my surrogate parents, to my great delight and good fortune.
Words cannot do justice to their impact on my life. Each served as a role model. Jim, as a father and husband; and Barb as a wife and mother.
Through their lives and ministry I came face to face with the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, again, in the good providence of God had my eyes of understanding opened to the Truth.
Through their lives I was able to experience a "normal" childhood.
At the same time, I must acknowledge the gracious acceptance on the part of my classmates at Ortonville High School. Without their acceptance, life would have been miserable. With their acceptance, life was awesome.
For their acceptance and contributions, (the Larsen's most especially and my classmates as well) the extent of which I only came to appreciate in my later Adult years, I am eternally grateful.
May their tribe increase.
Pearcey Report
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, October 10, 2011
Well, then. What Next?
Well, then: what does that mean?
Bottom line: every man does that which is right in God’s eyes!
Immediately, one expects to hear cries of “Anarchy”!
I personally find it strange when folk cry “anarchy” while at the same time holding to Romans 2:14,15 AND Common Grace.
Admittedly, Adam’s Stain is deep and pervasive.
Still, the goodness of God is such, IMO, that ADAM never completely governs creation. If such were the case, i.e. Adam’s stain completely obtained, it ought to be “hell on earth”.
Irrespective of the awfulness of sin’s impact in time, it cannot be compared with the horrors of Hell, how long those horrors obtain!
Believers are never, can never, be managed by “anarchistic” tendencies. Believers are ever and always subject to “…the law of Christ…”.
The question needing to be addressed is: how does the Law of Christ manifest itself in the life of a believer living under Mao, Benito, Adolph, Margaret, Ronald, GW. Hugo C, or whomever?
Typically, IMO, Evangelicals have trumpeted “passive submission” to authority, with the implication of servile obedience. This mind-set, IMO, only served the advance of evil, however well intentioned.
Bottom line: every man does that which is right in God’s eyes!
Immediately, one expects to hear cries of “Anarchy”!
I personally find it strange when folk cry “anarchy” while at the same time holding to Romans 2:14,15 AND Common Grace.
Admittedly, Adam’s Stain is deep and pervasive.
Still, the goodness of God is such, IMO, that ADAM never completely governs creation. If such were the case, i.e. Adam’s stain completely obtained, it ought to be “hell on earth”.
Irrespective of the awfulness of sin’s impact in time, it cannot be compared with the horrors of Hell, how long those horrors obtain!
Believers are never, can never, be managed by “anarchistic” tendencies. Believers are ever and always subject to “…the law of Christ…”.
The question needing to be addressed is: how does the Law of Christ manifest itself in the life of a believer living under Mao, Benito, Adolph, Margaret, Ronald, GW. Hugo C, or whomever?
Typically, IMO, Evangelicals have trumpeted “passive submission” to authority, with the implication of servile obedience. This mind-set, IMO, only served the advance of evil, however well intentioned.
The believer and Government
Passive Obedience and the New Covenant.
Does the New Covenant inculcate a mind-set of passive obedience on the part of the believer as it pertains to the issue of submission to “the powers that be”?
Under the Old Covenant administration, obedience was the watchword since God was the Ruler of an ethnic entity under His divine tutelage administered via Covenant Document, King, Priesthood and His servants, the prophets.
But, all this changed that last evening when the Lord Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant; a Covenant distinctly different from the Old Covenant. This difference was signaled in Jeremiah’s prophecy, Jeremiah 31:31-34 and during Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7: but I say unto you…).
One suspects this change, its impact and associated implications were not immediately apparent to “the twelve” when uttered by the Lord, Jesus and their subsequent understanding grew during the unfolding years following Pentecost.
One might be justified in recognizing the cautionary admonitions of Paul (Romans 13:1ff), Peter (1 Peter 2:13), and Titus (Titus 3;1ff) given the developing conflict with Rome on the part of the Jewish nation. I say cautionary in that none of the three explicate the implications of “submission” vs. “obedience”.
At that historical moment I suspect the typical auditor would equate the two as synonymous.
Yet, they are not.
For nearly two millennia, “Passive submission” has been the prevailing mindset of not only the believing community, but that of the non-believing community as well.
Might I be so bold as to suggest “passive submission” is not an aspect of a “leavening influence”?
“Passive submission” might also be known as conformity, compromise, adaptation?
I readily acknowledge the value of conformity, compromise and adaptation but only to the degree that truth precedes. If truth does not precede, then error, in its multitudinous forms obtains or holds the day.
“Incrementalism”, as a political strategy is legitimate, IMO, insofar as Truth leads error or Pragmatism.
But, in almost every instance where Truth has yielded to Pragmatism, Truth has been lost.
Does the New Covenant inculcate a mind-set of passive obedience on the part of the believer as it pertains to the issue of submission to “the powers that be”?
Under the Old Covenant administration, obedience was the watchword since God was the Ruler of an ethnic entity under His divine tutelage administered via Covenant Document, King, Priesthood and His servants, the prophets.
But, all this changed that last evening when the Lord Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant; a Covenant distinctly different from the Old Covenant. This difference was signaled in Jeremiah’s prophecy, Jeremiah 31:31-34 and during Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7: but I say unto you…).
One suspects this change, its impact and associated implications were not immediately apparent to “the twelve” when uttered by the Lord, Jesus and their subsequent understanding grew during the unfolding years following Pentecost.
One might be justified in recognizing the cautionary admonitions of Paul (Romans 13:1ff), Peter (1 Peter 2:13), and Titus (Titus 3;1ff) given the developing conflict with Rome on the part of the Jewish nation. I say cautionary in that none of the three explicate the implications of “submission” vs. “obedience”.
At that historical moment I suspect the typical auditor would equate the two as synonymous.
Yet, they are not.
For nearly two millennia, “Passive submission” has been the prevailing mindset of not only the believing community, but that of the non-believing community as well.
Might I be so bold as to suggest “passive submission” is not an aspect of a “leavening influence”?
“Passive submission” might also be known as conformity, compromise, adaptation?
I readily acknowledge the value of conformity, compromise and adaptation but only to the degree that truth precedes. If truth does not precede, then error, in its multitudinous forms obtains or holds the day.
“Incrementalism”, as a political strategy is legitimate, IMO, insofar as Truth leads error or Pragmatism.
But, in almost every instance where Truth has yielded to Pragmatism, Truth has been lost.
The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization
My first experience with Vishal’s work and am prompted to explore more.
Having just completed for the 3rd time Carey’s bio by his grandson, I was encouraged to read the author’s observations and will read his personal work on Carey.
The book is well written, each section promoting a thesis and illustrated with personal experiences. I felt as if I were reading Barzun, Stark, Paul Johnson with a touch of Schaeffer lurking in the background. Certainly, non-evangelicals will bristle as they read but, for me, an enjoyable experience on my birthday.
Sat down to read and continued to the end. Will obviously recall this birthday experience among the decades of others.
Having just completed for the 3rd time Carey’s bio by his grandson, I was encouraged to read the author’s observations and will read his personal work on Carey.
The book is well written, each section promoting a thesis and illustrated with personal experiences. I felt as if I were reading Barzun, Stark, Paul Johnson with a touch of Schaeffer lurking in the background. Certainly, non-evangelicals will bristle as they read but, for me, an enjoyable experience on my birthday.
Sat down to read and continued to the end. Will obviously recall this birthday experience among the decades of others.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Have you given thought to the subjectivity of the New Covenant Imperatives?
Love God.
Love your neighbor.
We know, via the Old Covenant, certain parameters relative to “loving God”: 1) He is to be Supreme, 2) We are prohibited from using images to represent Him, and 3) we are to “sanctify” His Name. Those represent the negative side, that is the “thou shalt nots”. But, what of the “shalt” side? Yet, is this not the very side whereby we “judge one another”? He or she doesn’t do…X…therefore, they don’t Love God.
John has been a believer for 40+ years and has never missed church or Sunday School. Yet, in all those years he has never read the Bible through, cover to cover, and couldn’t, for the life of him, recite other than John 11:35. Tom, on the other hand, is grossly infrequent at Sunday service, seldom at Sunday School, yet has read the bible through, cover to cover at least once a year since his conversion; has memorized in excess of 500 verses, and can quite adequately defend The Faith. Which one loves God?
Without beating a horse to death, I suspect you see the point. Evaluating another in terms of the negative aspects of The Faith is quite easy. Yet, when it comes to the positive affirmations, it is an equine of a dissimilar hue.
Might I be permitted to lodge the idea this very aspect is part and parcel the genius of the New Covenant?
Love your neighbor?
If such might be the case on the individual level, what might be the circumstance on the communal level, i.e. “government”?
So soon as I lift my eyes beyond my personal concern, a “neighbor” intrudes.
What is it to “love” this one?
What is “love”?
Again, we are confronted with the subjective.
What is “loving” to John, or to Tom, or to Eileen or Sarah?
Why are we not presented with a definition of Love in the text of scripture? All we have are examples of what seem to be “loving acts”.
Might it not be the case God expects us, you and me, to deduce from these examples and scriptural statements to construct a definition of Love whereby we, individually comport ourselves as Salt, Light, and Leaven?
Love God.
Love your neighbor.
We know, via the Old Covenant, certain parameters relative to “loving God”: 1) He is to be Supreme, 2) We are prohibited from using images to represent Him, and 3) we are to “sanctify” His Name. Those represent the negative side, that is the “thou shalt nots”. But, what of the “shalt” side? Yet, is this not the very side whereby we “judge one another”? He or she doesn’t do…X…therefore, they don’t Love God.
John has been a believer for 40+ years and has never missed church or Sunday School. Yet, in all those years he has never read the Bible through, cover to cover, and couldn’t, for the life of him, recite other than John 11:35. Tom, on the other hand, is grossly infrequent at Sunday service, seldom at Sunday School, yet has read the bible through, cover to cover at least once a year since his conversion; has memorized in excess of 500 verses, and can quite adequately defend The Faith. Which one loves God?
Without beating a horse to death, I suspect you see the point. Evaluating another in terms of the negative aspects of The Faith is quite easy. Yet, when it comes to the positive affirmations, it is an equine of a dissimilar hue.
Might I be permitted to lodge the idea this very aspect is part and parcel the genius of the New Covenant?
Love your neighbor?
If such might be the case on the individual level, what might be the circumstance on the communal level, i.e. “government”?
So soon as I lift my eyes beyond my personal concern, a “neighbor” intrudes.
What is it to “love” this one?
What is “love”?
Again, we are confronted with the subjective.
What is “loving” to John, or to Tom, or to Eileen or Sarah?
Why are we not presented with a definition of Love in the text of scripture? All we have are examples of what seem to be “loving acts”.
Might it not be the case God expects us, you and me, to deduce from these examples and scriptural statements to construct a definition of Love whereby we, individually comport ourselves as Salt, Light, and Leaven?
Thursday, July 7, 2011
New Covenant “Political” conduct
Under the Old Covenant administration, the individual watchword was “obedience”.
God was the nation’s sovereign under the guidance of a Divinely selected King and dynasty, along with a divinely ordained teaching order, explicating a written covenant.
Then, things changed and, radically, with the institution of the New Covenant and promised through Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Under the tutelage of the Old Covenant, God dealt with Israel as with children whereas with True Israel (Galatians 6:16)
God now deals with spiritual adults.
No longer are we, the members of the New Covenant, provided detailed and specific guidelines for various circumstances; but, in their stead are three adequate guidelines: 1) Love God, 2) Love your neighbor and 3) utilize the former administration as principled examples ( 1Corinthians 10:11 & Romans 15:4).
Such are the parameters for New Covenant believers in any governmental context.
God was the nation’s sovereign under the guidance of a Divinely selected King and dynasty, along with a divinely ordained teaching order, explicating a written covenant.
Then, things changed and, radically, with the institution of the New Covenant and promised through Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Under the tutelage of the Old Covenant, God dealt with Israel as with children whereas with True Israel (Galatians 6:16)
God now deals with spiritual adults.
No longer are we, the members of the New Covenant, provided detailed and specific guidelines for various circumstances; but, in their stead are three adequate guidelines: 1) Love God, 2) Love your neighbor and 3) utilize the former administration as principled examples ( 1Corinthians 10:11 & Romans 15:4).
Such are the parameters for New Covenant believers in any governmental context.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Eye of the Red Tsar
Want a good read?
Sam Eastland’s Eye of the Red Tsar is one you will not put down, once begun.
I began the book without reading the data regarding his historical research, suspecting as I read, “this man has done his homework”.
Having read on this era for 40+ years, I was amazed at his insights and attention to detail. So much, so, I couldn’t put the book down!
His conclusion has me waiting for the sequel!
Pick it up.
I suspect he is going to develop for us a side of Stalin we haven't considered, yet will give evidence of what some theologians designate as God's Common Grace manifest amongst the worst of us.
A concept we generally seek to deny and or avoid
Sam Eastland’s Eye of the Red Tsar is one you will not put down, once begun.
I began the book without reading the data regarding his historical research, suspecting as I read, “this man has done his homework”.
Having read on this era for 40+ years, I was amazed at his insights and attention to detail. So much, so, I couldn’t put the book down!
His conclusion has me waiting for the sequel!
Pick it up.
I suspect he is going to develop for us a side of Stalin we haven't considered, yet will give evidence of what some theologians designate as God's Common Grace manifest amongst the worst of us.
A concept we generally seek to deny and or avoid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)