Feeding of the 5,000

Okay. Once again we are back to looking at the doctrine of the Trinity and the more I go through this, the more important I see the doctrine as. I am in a debate at the moment with someone who is saying that how we describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their relationship doesn’t matter. It most certainly does! A non-Trinitarian concept is not just a different religion but a different God altogether. Right now, we are in the gospel of John and going through looking for clues to this wondrous doctrine and seeing how Jesus sees himelf. Today, we are going to be looking at the feeding of the 5,000.

This miracle is interesting as aside from the resurrection, it is the only miracle that is recorded in all four gospels. Not all record the feeding of the 4,000, including John himself, but all do record the feeding of the 5,000. It is John who adds the extra part on that tells us more about what made this event so amazing to the people.

Keep in mind that the people were looking for a prophet like Moses to be the Messiah. One miracle of Moses was that he was the one who God used to provide manna in the wilderness while the Israelites wandered for those forty years. Jesus is encountering now a crowd that has come to see him and is hungry and is asking his own disciples how they are to provide food. Philip tells him that eight months wages would not provide a single bite for everyone that is there. Philip looked straight at his wallet. Of course, can we really blame him? Christ wanted to reveal to Philip the enormity of the situation and if Philip’s accessment was correct, it was most certainly an enormous one.

However, one boy comes forward and he has a small offering with him. For all we know, it could have been lunch for him and his friends. It certainly would not be enough to feed 5,000, and that’s not counting women and children. However, Jesus does accept the offering and he prays over it and then has them be handed out to the crowd that is already waiting.

When Moses gave the manna, each man was to take as much as he needed. When Jesus feeds the 5,000, each man takes as much as he wants. This is something greater than the manna in the wilderness. God’s generosity is extending even more at this point. Each person there eats and they eat until they are satisfied. There are even leftovers. Christ has the disciples go and gather them and from the few barley loaves they gather twelve baskets full of remains.

It is at this point that the people realize the kind of person in their midst and they say that he is the prophet Moses spoke of. While they are correct, their problem is not their correct accessment of Jesus but their incorrect accessment of the Messiah. They were expecting a political leader who would break the bondage of Rome. They were reading their own time into the text. Christ did not come to set them free from Rome. He came to set them free instead from the greater prison of sin.

While we do see Christ’s miraculous ability to provide food here, the main reason for this passage being studied today is that it sets the stage for what comes next. Seeing as we’ve covered the walking on the water already, we will skip ahead instead to the next portion the next time we discuss the doctrine of the Trinity.

Political Correctness and the Death of Truth

I am going to be putting on hold for tonight our usually Trinity series again because I have been pondering more the situation involving the Miss USA pageant between Miss California and Perez Hilton, which I did blog about Monday night. I spoke to an official in this town yesterday on the problem being that of what is called Political Correctness. The answers given are supposed to fall into that category.

There was a time when truth mattered. There was a real world out there and you could know something about that world and what you said about that world mattered. What you said would either be true or false, but it would be one or the other. The goal was to find truth about that world.

A number of things changed over time. Descartes made man the focus of reality first with his idea of “I think, therefore I am.” Man wanting to find truth began with himself then. Would it not be better to say that because man exists, he thinks? After all, there was still reality before I came along and if I got snuffed out of existence, that would not  mean the end of reality. In the end, it leaves man creating the reality as Descartes went by what he thought of as clear and distinct ideas. I have had many clear and distinct ideas in my time. Many of them turned out to be wrong also.

Then we move on through time with man trying to find what is true and we get to Kant who tells us that it is not our knowledge that conforms to the world but the world that conforms to our knowledge. We do not know the world as it is, the noumena. Instead, we know the world as it appears, the phenomena. 

At this point, I believe the idea of truth out there started to die and the seeds of postmodernism was born. God was jettisoned through higher criticism, anti-supernaturalism, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Man was left alone in a cosmos and it was a dangerous one. 

Yet if we cannot know the world, then what are we to seek to do? If there is no truth out there, then there must only be truth that is for me and truth that is for you. There can only be my truth and your truth. 

If truth does not ultimately matter, then what are we to say matters? It must be our feelings. Thus, it is no longer giving an answer to a question that describes the way the world really is in the eyes of the person who is asked. Instead, it is about giving an answer that does not offend people. After all, there is no truth to the answer that matters. 

Suppose someone does believe something truly hideous, such as the idea that *shudders* marriage is meant for a man and a woman. That is fine. Just keep it to yourself. After all, it is your truth. You should by no means make it binding on everyone else. It is personal. It is your world. 

In this way, science also becomes the main authority. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying there are no areas where science is an authority. When I go to see a doctor, I want that doctor to be a scientist of medicine. When I fly on a plane, I want it to be the brainchild of a man who understands the science of flight and how to make a plane that can fly. 

Science can tell me how much my body weighs, but it cannot tell me if I am my body. Science can tell me what reactions occur when a man encounters poison in his system, but it cannot tell me if I ought to have put the poison in that man’s system. Science can tell me how life arose, but it cannot tell me if life is good.

Religion is seen as none of that as it is seen as that which we cannot know. God is included in the noumena. If you want to have a religious belief, that is fine, but it is your religious belief and it is true for you. It must be something subjective as there is not truth out there in the matter that can be known.

This is the kind of thinking going on behind people who say “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.” It is akin to saying “Don’t like murder? Don’t commit one.” It is as if morality is a personal taste and we do something just because we don’t like it. Why yes. That is why I live a life of chastity. I just get such a great thrill out of it every single day. 

It is the reason we dare not offend someone. In the past, if you called someone a fool, it could be because they truly were a fool and it might have been the best thing you could do to point that out. Debate opponents in the past did not hesitate to let their opinions be known of the ideas they were debating and the persons they were debating. Let’s not forget that our Lord had strong words as well both for his opponents and his own disciples. 

If there is no truth that can be known however and only feelings matter, then such talk cannot be allowed. Do not dare call the heretic a heretic! The ideas that he holds are not what matters. It is how he feels about himself that matters. 

We live in a world of subjectivism then and as long as we live in this world, we might as well try to get along. Do not think of the good, the true, and the beautiful. The good is not out there when moral relativism holds the day. We speak of progress but not in any particular direction. We do not ask what anything is any more and especially not if it is good. Truth is a weapon that is used to bludgeon others and truth claims are seen as oppressive and arrogant. As for beauty, it simply lies in the eyes of the beholder. If you see something as beautiful, then to you it is beautiful, but there can be no beauty in the thing itself.

Hence Political Correctness. Do not say what offends. Say what people want to hear. Do not try to make your ideas conform to the world. Instead, try to conform the world to your ideas. There can be no rational discussion. If someone is against homosexuality, it is for purely religious reasons. There can be no other reasons and religion is something that cannot make a claim of truth. Thus, you are being oppressive and trying to push your truth on other people.

If it is purely subjective, then there is nothing to discuss. Instead, point to the person’s character in each case. Try to paint them as a villain being oppressive to the world around them. Try to have them be seen as tyrants with the truth. How dare you impose your morality on me! Who are you to judge?

Enter an area without proper study. After all, it is simply your truth vs. another person’s truth. Do not seek to learn for there is nothing out there to learn. There is only experience. Naturally, we do not question another person’s experience normally. I do not question that the Mormons have a burning in the bosom. I question the proposition they wish to see affirmed by that burning in the bosom. 

What’s the solution to this madness?

I suggest we start with what most of us realize before so-called higher-thinking gets a hold of us. That there is a real world out there and that we can know things about it. We do not know it exhaustively, but there are things that we can know. If we are wrong, we find out through the appropriate method be it science, history, philosophy, theology, or any branch thereof. 

This includes truths about things other than the physical world. This means that theology is a science. That there are truth claims that can be made about God as he is seen in a religious belief and some of these claims could actually be true and we can use the minds that we have, and that he maybe even gave us, to try to figure this out.

Let each field learn its own place. I believe philosophy is great for finding philosophical truths and science is great for scientific truths. Now of course there can be overlapping as each helps the other. Science can show me the universe had a cause. Philosophy can tell me the nature of causality. Theology can tell me the nature of the cause. History can tell me how that cause revealed himself in the space-time continuum. These are not fields opposed to each other as truth cannot contradict. If there is truth in one field, it will not contradict truth in another field. They are simply different tools with the same goal.

If we offend people, we offend them, but we must remember that the goal is to correct their faulty thinking. It is not most important how a man feels about his ideas. It is most important whether those ideas are true. We Christians are to be people of the truth. If an idea is true, we need to affirm it. If we have to call a spade a spade in order to get them to the truth, then so be it. Our Lord did after all.

I look forward to the day when man again begins a quest for the good, the true, and the beautiful and this time does not look within him but outside of him. All of these things are greater than he is. He is the servant of them. They are not the servant of him.

John 5:41-47

Hello again everyone. Today, we are going to be continuing our look at the doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture. We’re in the NT now and we’re in the book of John. Our goal has been throughout to try to see the self-understanding of Jesus and try to see the inter-relations that are going on between the three persons of the Trinity. The more I learn the doctrine of the Trinity, the more I am amazed with it and my recent encounter with Jehovah’s Witnesses, which will continue Saturday, left me in even more awe. 

Our text tonight is John 5:41-47.

41“I do not accept praise from men, 42but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

 45“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Jesus does not accept the praise of men? How does this go with the Trinity. He is not talking about worship here. He is talking about rather the endorsement. He does not go to humans to get his credentials. He goes straight to God. Jesus did not go around seeking glory in the eyes of the crowd but rather in the eyes of God. 

This is what Christ condemns them on and let it be clear that Jesus was tough with his opponents. Where did we get this idea of gentle Jesus meek and mild? Look at the accusation he gives starting in verse 42! He’s talking to the Jews and telling them that he knows that they don’t have the love of God in them. 

In fact, he makes it as a knowledge claim! Look at these people! These were the ones following the Law of YHWH meticulously! They were studying the Scriptures as Christ himself acknowledged. They were living in defiance of a pagan empire and resisting all that was coming in from it! They had been willing to die in faithfulness to YHWH and Jesus says they don’t have the love of God in them?

We Christians must learn to take the words of Christ seriously even if we don’t like them at times. Some of us may feel our feathers ruffled a bit in our Politically Correct society. Jesus was not Politically Correct. My friend Ergun Caner once stated “If it’s politically correct, it’s probably biblically corrupt.” PC is a cancer killing our society as it kills truth. It does not allow real discussion of the issues because that could hurt someone’s feelings.

Christ looks at that generation of Jews and tells them that the love of God is not in them. Now this is not a charge against all Jews for all time, but just the ones that denied who Jesus is. The same could be said of any Gentile also who denies who Jesus is. No one should get special condemnation for being Jewish, but they don’t get special benefit at the cross either.

Jesus tells the Jews that they’re ready to accept anyone else in another name, but they don’t accept him. The implication is that if they believed the Father, they would believe him. They are looking to look good in the eyes of one another, but they are not seeking the praise of God. This must have been an amazing claim to the Jews listening at the time.

However, Jesus takes it further and says that he is not their accuser. Instead, their accuser is Moses. What he says is remarkable. First off, it implies that he knows that Moses wrote about him. It also implies that he knows what Moses will be doing on the last day. Finally, it implies that the listeners who paid so much attention to the Law did not believe what Moses wrote.

At this point I conclude with the thought of if we’ve really looked at Jesus and how he must have seemed to his contemporaries. Have we really considered these words or have we just read them from time to time without letting them reach us?

Perez Hilton and Miss California

We’re interrupting our regular Trinity series to talk about an event that has been the discussion on a number of blogs today and that’s the story of Perez Hilton and Miss California. Miss California was given a question from Perez Hilton on Vermont’s recent approval of same-sex “marriage.” In speaking of this he asked “Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” 

Miss California’s answer was that she was raised that a marriage was to be between a man and a woman. She did not want to offend, but that is how she was raised. 

A video of that can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1XScBKlv2E

First off, congratulations to this girl for standing up and truly saying what she believes in. Some might be tempted to say she it would be seen as highly unpopular, but it seems the audience didn’t think so. It seems even a liberal state like California in their recent elections don’t think so either. Perez may say she got booed, but I sure heard a lot of applause.

Perez Hilton put up a reply. I will warn you all. It has profanity in it so if the kiddies are around, don’t listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_QhM3TK2UE

What was his answer? His answer was that she is a dumb….well…I won’t say that next word here. Perez described her as someone with half a brain. Now he may say it’s not because of her answer on the topic of homosexual marriage. Personally, I’m not buying it.

I have also heard that Perez has since apologized for what he said about her, but I wonder why? Did he apologize because he doesn’t think that’s what she is? Does he think then that it could be that she really does have a brain?

There’s something about this that amazes me. This is always the crowd that we’re told we should be tolerant of. Strangely enough, when you disagree with the tolerance crowd, they’re not so tolerant. If you present an idea that is contrary to theirs, they no longer want to listen to you.

Indeed, the comments I see about this lady on Hilton’s blog are hardly flattering. (To be fair, some from our side are saying a number of things about Hilton that I wouldn’t recommend. Biblically, I do believe that homosexuality is a sin and one the Bible mentions in saying that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, but I don’t think telling him he’s going to Hell or calling him terminology other than homosexual is really going to make a difference.) I’m sitting here watching this and wondering “Where is the tolerance?”

True tolerance is not like this. In biblical tolerance, you disagree with the idea and you defend the person’s right to say it. You accept the person in fact as a person without accepting their behavior or ideas. Here’s a novel approach for the debate. If you disagree with your opponent, tell them why they’re wrong and then have them discuss why they disagree with you.

Some people might think some people are only against homosexuality for religious reasons. In fact, this is usually the assumption that is given today. However, does this excuse really work? For one thing, if the religion is true and it really does come from God, then I would say if he condemns homosexuality, we really ought to listen. It won’t work to write off the religion entirely just because it disagrees with you.

Second, while I do agree the Bible condemns homosexuality, I don’t think homosexuality is immoral because the Bible condemns it. I think the Bible condemns it because it is immoral and there’s all the difference in the world between those ideas. When I argue against it, I argue from natural law.

Perez also speaks of how he thinks Miss California should have answered. No Perez. Here’s how Miss California should have answered. She should have answered with her opinion like she did. She should not have given an answer you wanted to hear just because it would be PC or something you wanted to hear. When you ask someone for their opinion on something, you should expect to get their opinion on it and you should accept that it’s their opinion. Now you can debate them on that opinion, but it’s childish to ask their opinion and then whine because that’s what you got.

Perez has said that it should be left to the states to decide. Okay. Does that include California? The state recently spoke. Does that mean the homosexual activists are going to drop the idea of going to the courts instead? If you think it should be legal, then accept it for now and argue in the public square and maybe you can get another election on the topic.

However, that is also not the point. The question was asked if states SHOULD follow suit. It’s a moral question. Even if every state does follow suit, does that mean that every state should follow suit? The only reason they should allow it is if the people believe it to be moral or at least morally neutral. The only reason to disallow it is because it is immoral.

Miss California spoke her opinion. It’s what she was asked for. The homosexual community wants me to believe that I should be tolerant, but by their own definition of tolerance, many of them don’t follow suit. Now I hope there are some out there who are homosexual who while they disagree with Miss California, they have a greater problem with Perez Hilton for his response. 

Now some may ask if I’m tolerant. You bet I am. I just am not accepting of immorality. I will not look at immorality and call it morality just to please some people. If I think something is immoral, I will call it immoral. Now you have all right to debate me on that issue which is the way the system works, but I will still call it such. However, it won’t stop me from viewing the person as one who holds the image of God and someone Christ died for and who God loves and who I should also.

Do I expect the homosexual community to agree with my opinion on marriage? No. Of course, if some do and want out, great. There are a number of Christian groups out there who are delighted to help out. However, until then, we simply come together and discuss the issues. Perez may think Miss California is bringing division. She is not at all. It is those who refuse to go to the public square who are divisive.

Furthermore, let’s suppose she is causing division. So what? What is she causing division over? I would rather be divided with someone over the truth than united with them in lies. Is the idea of the unity one where all accept homosexual marriage as legitimate? If that’s the case, then count me out. I will be as divisionary as I can.

For Miss California, I say that I applaud her for not only saying her opinion, but also for saying one I believe to be right and one that she had to know would not be popular with some in the crowd. Cheers to you Miss California. I believe that in reality, most of America is on your side as well.

John 5:31-40

Hello everyone. The blog will be a little bit earlier tonight. The roommate and I are going out tonight due to the generosity of a friend of ours from church who is enabling us to go see a murder mystery play. Before we tackle that mystery, I shall write tonight about the mystery of the question of who the Son of Man is. We’re going through the New Testament now looking for clues of the Trinity and the self-understanding of Christ and right now, we’re in the gospel of John. Tonight, we’ll be looking at John 5:31-40.

31“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. 32There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. 33“You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

 36“I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

In the Jewish system, there was a legal requirement that a matter had to be settled by two witnesses. Thus, Jesus has made some extraordinary claims up to this point and he is going to be making his defense. Let’s keep that in mind. He wasn’t making self-abasing claims for which he would not need to call forth witnesses really. Witnesses would be called for extraordinary claims. Jesus has spoken much about himself, but why should the unbelieving audience take his words as is?

The first one is John the Baptist. Jesus says that the Baptist pointed to him but then says “Not that I accept human testimony.” This would indeed have to be a grandiose claim. Jesus is setting himself up in some way above humanity. Of course, he was fully human but he was not merely human.

He then points to the Father as testifying through the works that Jesus was doing. The miracles were not done just to attract a crowd. The miracles were done to point to the nature of the kingdom. He then says that the Father has testified of him and tells the Jews that they have never heard his voice or seen his form.

Implication? Christ has.

Do we really stop when we read the gospels to consider the claims that Christ is making and how unique they are? We’ve become so familiar with them that the story is just a story. Instead, it is the greatest story of all and should hold us in wonder. Consider what the incarnation means. God the Son, who needed nothing, knew no suffering, and already had an existence of complete joy, took on the human nature that you live with, though not with its sinfulness of course. He entered a world of suffering and pain and death and took upon himself the worst of it. Why? It cannot be need. It can only be want. John 3:16 does say it best. It’s because he loved the world.

Shame on us for not being in awe.

Yet there is another way the Father has spoken and that is in Scripture. Jesus tells them that they are diligently studying them for they think that by them, they have eternal life, yet the Scriptures testify of Christ and they do not come to him for eternal life.

Let’s consider this.

First off, Jesus is saying that the Bible talks about him. Again, either this claim is true or it’s totally false and Jesus would either be the ultimate deceiver or on a major ego-trip. Second, he claims to be the one who can give eternal life. He is greater than the Scriptures. Coming to them cannot give eternal life. Coming to him can.

Tomorrow, we shall close out this chapter.

John 5:24-30

Hello everyone. We’re back on discussing the Trinity again. It’s quite appropriate for now as I spent the early afternoon today with a wonderful pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses and got to speak to them about who Jesus is according to the Bible. Wonderful time. Speaking about the Trinity just fills me with the awe of worship and the wonder that Jesus came and did what he did. The Word became flesh. Those are truly words that should leave us in awe once we believe them

Today, as you can see from the blog title, we will be looking at John 5:24-30. Here is the text.

24“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

 28“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. 30By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

For some of you who might be thinking eschatology will be a big discussion on this one, no. I don’t do that here at Deeper Waters. I do have my own eschatological viewpoint, but this blog is about mere Christianity and about the viewpoints that we hold in common and not the ones we differ on.

To begin with, Jesus is basing your eternal destiny on his words. If you hear his words and believe in them, you will not be condemned. You will instead have eternal life. In fact, when the resurrection comes, it is his voice that will cause the dead to come out of their graves.

Some people see a problem with the Father granting the Son to have life in himself. Why? The Son is begotten of the Father so it fits in perfectly with a Trinitarian concept. The Son and the Father are that inter-connected and all that the Son has, he has because of the Father. Trinitarians agree with that.

The Father has also given authority to judge to the Son of Man. When the time of the last day comes, he will judge. This is quite stupendous that Christ is making such a claim. The Jews would have thought God would be the judge and here Jesus is saying that he is going to be the one who is to be the judge. You will be raised to eternal life or you will be condemned and which one it is depends on what the Son says.

Jesus also says “By myself, I can do nothing.” How is this going against the Trinity? Do Trinitarians believe that Jesus can be a rogue agent acting independently of the will of the Father? That he can go and do his own thing while the Father does something different? Not at all. This instead shows their intense unity.

When Jesus judges, it will be the will of the Father also for he will judge according to what he hears and his goal will not be to please himself but to please the Father. When we read these passages, we should see the deep relation that is shared between the Father and the Son. We might think it’s against Trinitarianism on face value, but I would suggest some who think that see what it would mean if Jesus said a point opposite to what he really said.

In truth, we have powerful evidence of the Trinity. The more one sees how Christ saw himself and his relationship to the Father, the more convinced one should be of the Trinity.

Susan Boyle: The 1:24 Critic

Yesterday, I blogged on Susan Boyle and in listening to her today on YouTube, I saw consistently remarks being made about the girl at 1:24 in the video. The term used often to describe her is one I will not use here as I prefer this to be a blog that is family-friendly. I’m sure my readers can use their imagination and realize what that term was. The girl at 1:24 can be seen here in this video of Susan Boyle’s performance on “Britain’s Got Talent” which you should see if you haven’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

The problem people have with this girl is that she was rolling her eyes at the thought of Susan being a great singer before she said anything. She had pre-judged her wrongly. Personally, I agree with that. I am not here to condone that. If something is wrong, there can be reasons why it was done but never justifying reasons why it was done. You cannot justify an evil action. God does not justify sin. He justifies sinners.

However, what sickens me about this is that I’m sure this girl is regretting the action that was done enough. There don’t need to be any reminders of that. What also sickens me is that while we sit here and condemn her for how she was acting, let’s be sure that many of us were in the exact same boat. There is a reason Susan Boyle was a surprise. No one was expecting it. This includes the judges. The judges made it clear that the audience had been internally laughing before she sang and that everyone there was against her.

This girl in the audience is just like the rest of us. We’re cynics today that are quite superficial. No one was willing to give Susan Boyle a shot for so long. Everyone had pre-judged her. Could it be that in wanting to go after the girl in the video, we’re instead really wanting to go after a scapegoat so we can excuse ourselves for having the exact same attitude?

Those of us who are Christians should be especially aware of this. How many of you all know your past sins? Do you really need to be reminded of them? Do you really want them put on display for everyone to see? This girl did something wrong and unfortunately, she happened to be the one the camera was on at the time. I seriously doubt the other people in the audience were much better. Does that excuse what she did? Again, it does not. It should make us realize that we could easily be caught under the microscope unawares and we don’t want our sins to be broadcast.

Instead of condemning this girl, which has already been done, maybe we should take some time to examine ourselves. Are we any better? Still call the sin wrong, but remember the sin is not the sinner. We don’t know this girl’s spiritual state. She could be a Christian. Let her know the forgiveness of Christ again. She might not be. Are we showing her the love of Christ?

Susan Boyle is to be honored, I agree. However, let us make sure that we are being real with how we deal with others. Are we any better?

Susan Boyle: Incredible!

I said today we could return to the topic of the Trinity unless something happened.

Well, it did.

I heard a program today talking about Susan Boyle, this lady who blew away an audience that was entirely cynical so I thought I’d go and give a lesson. Now I consider myself one with a tin ear and some of my favorite words to hear in church are “You may be seated.” Thus, I’m not expecting something. I figure I’ll listen and say “Eh. That was nice.” Then I’d go on with my day.

Well, if you’re like that, take a look and see what you think. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

Something I love about this is that Susan Boyle is an underdog. Everyone I’ve shown this video to who hasn’t seen it has been entirely cynical just like the audience was. When you see it, they start rolling their eyes. It’s unbelievable it seems to think that this frumpy lady will actually have any musical talent at all.

Within 10 seconds of her singing, the tune had changed incredibly.

Soon, the mocking whistling was turned into whistling of cheers. Soon, the eyes were no longer rolling but were standing there mesmerized. Soon, the smiles were not smiles of playfully humoring Miss Boyle, but of intense delight at what was being witnessed before them.

Susan Boyle has blown a hole into the cynicism of our age. Everyone else in the world had been passing up this lady. Now I understand she sang karaoke at local bars and was singing in the church choir so her village knew about her talent, but was there any chance of her making it on a national scene? None at all. Take a look at her. You think she can do anything?

Well yes. Yes I do.

And I will confess I am quite sure I would have been just as cynical had I not known.

And I pause when I think about that to wonder what a crazy connection. Why is it I am thinking physical appearance somehow has something to do with musical talent?

How many people have we rejected? I emailed a friend of mine to tell him about this and he replied that he’d been doing Bible Studies and had just got to the passage where it talks about man looking on the outside but the Lord looks at the heart.

How many years has Susan Boyle been overlooked?

But notice what she says? She knows when she goes out onto that stage that she is going to rock that audience. At the same time, one sees a great humility in her. She is so stunned when she hears how much she is being praised and is hesitant to admit what Simon says that we all recognize, Susan Boyle is a little tiger.

I see Susan’s talent as also further evidence of objective beauty. Sorry to all you people out there who think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the ear. If you hear this and do not think that her singing is beautiful, you are wrong. Yes. There is truth content to statements about beauty and the audience knew it. This has been one of the most hit YouTube videos and as I was on Facebook today, I saw that she already had 89,000+ fans. I wouldn’t be surprised if by now that number is past 100,000.

Because everyone knows beauty when they see it even if they can’t define it.

Susan Boyle reminds me of the transcendent. She enables me to reach a place outside myself it seems. While I described myself as having a tin ear, I get near to teary-eyed listening to this lady sing. Something about her moves me dearly.

In calling to describe it to my mother who had seen her on some of the TV programs, she said something that I had considered. I can probably get great joy out of this lady because like many of you out there, I can relate to her.

Many of us are seen as the underdogs in this world. When I was preparing to go off to Bible College, a group was funding me for disability and was telling me to not go into ministry. I could not handle preaching. I wish they had been there when I did my senior sermon before my entire student body. Today, I am where I am not because of a disability, but in spite of it. I have worked and read and studied to be where I am.

Yet I know what it’s like to be overlooked as I worked at a job for over three years I didn’t like with people just assuming less of me when they saw me. Finally, I have a chance and I’m somewhere where my ability is being recognized. People judged by appearance alone when appearance had nothing to do with my ability. I’m suspecting my story can be quite similar to many of your stories.

For all of us who go on in spite of the opposition reaching for our dreams, Susan Boyle is an inspiration. I thank God that there are women out there like that who reach for their dreams and inspire the rest of us to do so.

Susan Boyle. I don’t know if you’ll ever read this. I’d be honored if you did. Let me say this to you. May God richly bless you in your continuing career. You have been a voice for many of us as well in our own paths. Since you sing at church, I assume you’re a Christian, and I wonder what it will be like after this life to get to hear that beautiful voice of yours in the heavenlies. We may not be able to hear that yet, but you can rest assured your performance on “Britain’s Got Talent” brought some of Heaven to us.

After The Tea Party

I’m one of those many Americans who went to a tea party today. If you did, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did mine. Today has been an interesting day as a result. I found myself in places I normally wouldn’t be and got home to find a final post in a debate I’m in with the debater making a slanderous remark about autists. Many of you will know about the blog I did on Obama, Socialism, and my story. I do not take such lightly so I wish to let you know I am quite livid about this tonight. Am I personally offended? Not really. I am offended on behalf of all those out there like myself and some who are unable to defend themselves. 

Which is one reason I decided to forego the usual blog tonight, which is what we will be returning to very soon. I say that instead of tomorrow because anything could come up. I doubt it, but it could. Tonight, I’d like to post on my thoughts after the Tea Party. As I do, I don’t want it to be a political blog really. I’d like to tie this in with the church today. 

It was quite exciting to see so many people come out in support of a cause. The numbers were tremendous and it would be great to get a full count. All of these people are coming out because they don’t like what’s happening in their government. In one day, numerous tea parties showed up all over America.

I’m not against that. I think a grassroots movement is wonderful. I think it’s excellent that people are taking their own time, such as my taking my own PTO from work, to come to these parties and let their voices be heard. 

I think it’s so wonderful I ponder “Why isn’t the church doing anything like this?”

Wouldn’t it be great to see the church one day also organizing all across America at rallies speaking out against the evils we see in culture? Let our voices be known about the homosexual movement. Let them be known about the abortion movement. Let them be known about the removal of prayer from schools. Let them be known about the way we are treated in the mainstream media.

If bad politics gets us angry, and it should, we should be all the more angry at the sin that is destroying our culture. Just last night I had a conversation with a good friend of mine who I believe is allowing the poison of relativism to creep in. The main position I saw presented last night was that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s a shame so many Christians are buying into that and maybe after this Trinity series we will see some blogs devoted to that topic.

We Christians tend to talk a lot about changing society as well. The only problem is we rarely seem to do anything. Strangers all across various cities came together and united because they didn’t like the politics going on. One of our speakers I believe got it right. It’s a moral problem at the start. That’s something the church needs to address. 

The church is called to be salt and light in the world. It’s not a suggestion. It’s a requirement from Christ. Spreading the gospel is not an option. It is a command. If we can unite across the country for a political cause, surely we can do so for a Christian cause.

John 5:19-23

As I write this, I am pondering the great need for Christian thinking today. I’m in a debate with a friend right now who is trying to convince me that beauty is an example of relative truth. Frankly, this is the kind of thing that terrifies and saddens me both. It is a form of relativism that is poisoning our society and reminds me that we need to get back to good Christian thinking.

That’s one of the reasons for this long series I’ve been doing. One aspect of thinking Christian is the proper thinking about God and Christianity is unique among the religions of the world in the teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity. Right now, we’re studying it in the gospel of John. Follow along in your Bibles in chapter 5.

19Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

A lot of people would look at the first verse and think that this is a verse that disproves the deity of Christ. It’s quite the opposite! It’s a very strong verse for who Jesus is. The Son does not do anything of himself, but rather he does what the Father does. The two are consistently acting in joint unison. Can we imagine how it would be also if Jesus were to say “The Son does what he does by himself and he doesn’t need the Father for anything!” If that were the case, we’d have a totally different system of thought going on. 

The Father also shows the Son all he does, which would point to a pre-existence of the Son and an eternal one at that. The Son has been there to see all that the Father is doing and the Father is in an intimate relationship with the Son in that he truly reveals himself to the Son, which is the kind of relationship hinted at in John 1:18.

Verse 21 gives the power to raise the dead to the Son and to give life to whoever he wants. The power of giving life which was seen to be in the hands of God in the OT is also seen to be in the hands of the Son in the NT.

The other action attributed to God in the OT that is given to the Son also is judging. Jesus claims though that the Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son. Either Jesus is fully deity or else he is the hugest egomaniac ever usurping the rights of God and claiming them for himself.

The last point is that the goal is that all will honor the Son as they honor the Father. I remember presenting this to a Jehovah’s Witness once in an online conversation who immediately realized that he had a problem. Lest you think I’m putting words in his mouth, he told me that he was having a problem. I don’t know anyone who denies the deity of Christ who can follow this verse.

It’s also again either a most egotistical statement or a great truth. Jesus is claiming to be honored as God is. It is statements like these that make me realize that we do not often realize what Jesus said. Ben Witherington once said that he’s not surprised that Jesus was crucified after three years of ministry. He’s surprised he wasn’t crucified earlier!

Surprising indeed.