Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Angels, angels everywhere?


I think one of the reasons I like to think of the self as that over-arching sense of the patterns which form our sense of continuous existence points me to the luxuary factor. It's so easy to just let things be the way they are. Change, however, is not quite so easy. It often forces us to question things we faced, answered and put to bed. Of course, some of these life questions come more often than others. Now, what in the world does this have to do with my post? Only a little, but, I see the patterns of what we expect to be as forming a lot of our mindless behaviour. If we choose to actively ignore, that is to say, not question, our ways, we can mosey along quite contentedly without reason for looking back. Then, as Murphy's law would have it, things sometimes force us to turn around.

So, the point of all this: angels. While in the ER recently, I saw Perry Stone. Mannafest? Anyone ever hear of it? Kerri and I used to watch it all the time in Baton Rouge. Now that we are all metropolitan-that's economically challenged, if your pronounce it phonetically-and live in Dallas, we don't have high falutin thing like cable, so, that's out. Anyhow, something about the show made me think of angels. I literally walk around all day, particularly when I am somewhere outside my normal course of events and pattern of affairs, wondering, is the next person I meet going to be an angel? Perry Stone was talking about fallen angels (no my topic), and, in the teaching he said that angels can take the form of men. Now, many Christians might instantly scoff at this. Some might say, oh yeah, I think I remember something like that. Others are already on the same page. Yeah, I wonder, how many other people really walk around with this kind of mentality, really wondering, is the person I'm talking to a person or the Lord or a demon? Perhaps it sounds crazy, but, biblically speaking, this is a sound way to look at life. Does anyone else wonder about the folks their speaking with, or am I all alone here?

Spiritual amoeba


Last Sunday our pastor preached his last sermon of a series from the psalms. For some reason, I got sidetracked and started getting into Jeremiah 14:23. Well, there is no Jeremiah 14:23. So, I read Jeremiah 14:2-3. It didn't really strike me as anything particular. I know for myself, I have found that a particular verse, when given to me with a little nudge, typically means I should keep reading. In this case I did. I felt that so much of what was said in this spoke to our country right now. I also wondered if it spoke to where we are at or where we are going as a nation.

This reminded me of a vision I had several years ago. While praying with a prayer group, I saw an image of an amoeba approaching the United States and then slowly absorbing it. I didn't see much more than this, but, that was enough. At first, I didn't know what to think of it or how to pray about it. I asked Barbie about it at the next Streams class I got a chance to go to (the 202) and she said to pray the opposite, to pray blessing. Fast forward several years and I see a country in the tubes. I just wonder how we are going to get freed of this oppressive, life-sucking spirit. Blessing, repentence, national leadership, coverage, prayer, prayer, prayer.

Dreams and visions


During my Streams classes I recall hearing about the difference between dreams and visions. For some reason, it came to mind again today. The one thing that came to mind, and I don't think this is textbook Streams, just a thought of my own: visions frequently show events in the past, present or future that the recipient would have had no way to actually experience themselves. The difference here is that the events, in this case, are real events. Understanding visions requires little interpretation. (Of course, that's not to say it doesn't ever require interpretation. That would be totally unbiblical.) Dreams, however, as Joel infers, are something for people advanced in spiritual maturity levels. At least that's my reading of the phrase "old men". Anyhow, I was thinking about it because I get more dreams than visions. No, this isn't to say that I have either of them often, but, dreams seem to come more than visions. I just wonder what this means? I know people who are seers more than dreamers. Just an intriguing question I got while using a razor blade to saw into my sheetrock this afternoon.
While driving home tonight I heard a radio spot talking about the typical role of evangelism in Christianity. The illustrator went on to talk over the sounds of a seventh grade symphony playing Beethoven. The comparison was pretty obvious as to where it was going, but, it made sense. People often misjudge Christ based on the fact that they see his followers and think, "If this is how people who follow Christ act, why would I do it?" The spot went on to say that it would be impossible to know Beethoven was a genius based on the performance of an unskilled, imperfect actor. Likewise, watching Christians would make it impossible for anyone to truly appreciate Christ's gloriousness. Christ calls people to know him, not his followers. It was a good analogy. I think the commercial was over the top, but, I really like the point and will hopefully get to use it sometime...at least some time other than here.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

I've heard the argument that people put up, "God gave me a brain, it'd be a sin not to use it." This is a rationalization for soulish behavior that justifies the belief that intellect (one third of the soul) has greater power than the spirit. This argument drives me nuts. People act in such pride and harsh ways with this belief is scares me. The same argument gives people the mentality that they can base their acceptance of God on whether they get God or not. The way this appears is that people refuse to accept certain tenets of faith based on whether it is understandable to them or not. God isn't a respecter of man. Why should he be a respecter of man's logic? Our minds are gifts from God, parts of our being which are to be used to glorify him. Using our minds to do things which defy God's laws and spirit is contrary to God's intent. This kind of ties in with my older post on the nature of love and giftedness. I really am seeing, though I think it's certainly not the main way Paul intended for this relationship to be considered, that our concepts of how gifts are meant to be used by the body of Christ differs greatly with what worldly, selfish purposes will have us do.

God and sense


During some of the Streams classes a while back I remember them talking about how to restrain your spirit. Often times proptetic people will have three types of temptations, the three G's: 1) guys/girls 2) gold and 3) glory. Folks with the guys/girls temptation will be guilty of reading people's mail and gaining unpermitted knowledge or pleasure from using their spirit on others. As I thought about this I considered that, in this culture, in this worldly culture, touching is taboo, but, looking is okay. To me, as a follower of Christ, I don't necessarily see why this works, based on the Bible.

I recall a dialog Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves had in the Devil's Advocate that went like this, "Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow." Now, in context, this was a pretty dangerous dialog, but, I think it so perfectly embodied what I am trying to point out I had to use it. If you accept one of these things, then, the next is so easy to justify, so, slippery a slope it is. And, that's the whole danger, one thing so easily leads to another.

In our over-sexed culture, people, both young and old, are constantly exposed to the visual bombardment of flesh and lust. There is a constant paradox. We are told to neither look nor touch, but, we are constantly in an environment where our eyes are given basically no choice but to see. So, here we have one sense, sight, that is forced to be exposed to horrible things and another, touch, that is supposed to be held sacred. It's such a paradox. Why is it okay for one sense to be immersed in lustful forces, and, another which is not?

Biblically, it's not. Culturally, they are permissive, so, who cares?...as the logic would go. Job made a covenant with his eyes to stare on no young women. Christ said even thinking lustfully is sinful. With these kind of examples, I have to contend with our culture: it's not okay to make such an arbitrary distinction. No one sense is any more "permitted" to be emersed in lustful forces than any other. Heck, our world suggests empiricism, as the most basic form of logic by which to test things, relies solely on the senses. If we rest solely on the senses, all we know of the world comes through what see, feel, taste, etc. So, again, using such a simplistic view of the world, why allow one sense to be okay with sin, but, not others?

The whole thrust of this post was to point out that sight is really no different from touch when it comes to immorality and abusing spiritual gifts. Whether we "touch" or "look" lustfully on another, it's still lust. The effects are still the same on the spirit. Our age needs to know that our spirit is not restricted to these "boundaries" the world deems as being okay. Likewise, how our spirit behaves must operate by God's rules, not the world's since we don't have a clue what we're doing when it comes to try to substitute our concepts of right and wrong for God's.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Caffeine is evil. Okay, that's a little harsh. Having grown up the son of two people who own a vending company, I can hardly pretend to be not be the child of caffeine peddlers. My shady history having been revealed I must admit I recently was shocked, perhaps more at my lack of awareness than anything else, that caffeine, technically speaking, is a drug. Now, drugs, to me at least, carry with them the association or marijuana, LSD, pills, booze, etc. The hard stuff. Then, when I think of caffeine, Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper, tea, puppy dogs and babies...it's hardly something to lump in with the hard stuff. I guess that association is part of what worries me the most. I, being a very stereotypical person will reach for the first can of soft drink to tickle my taste buds and wake me up all at the same time. Nonetheless, it became clear, doing this is a socially acceptable form of drug usage. It may be recreational drug usage, solely geared towards a jolt to my brain and lagging consciousness, but, it's drug usage nonetheless.

So, off I went trying to rethink how I live. Coke and drug usage. Okay, the double meaning there doesn't help. Dr. Pepper and drug usage. The two just don't seem to really mix. That reluctance to consider caffeinated soft drinks--and more dangerously, coffee, tea, pills, etc--as a negative worries me. Nothing has ever suggested soft drinks are bad except the sugary side effects. Chronic overstimulation of the CNS has a whole host of problems. I know wikipedia is just bad academic form...which makes me glad to not be an academic. Get past the basic history and pharmacology on the caffeine entry and read near the bottom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine I honestly don't see much redeeming value to the stuff.

And I confess my continued use of it. I guess that points to a larger, scarier issue. People today would rather ingest more of something that has harmful and deleterious effects, rather than live an alternative life style. Think, seriously for a moment. How many people do you know who don't use caffeine in some form or fashion? Think again, if the dangers of caffeine, though largely ignored in today's culture, were made known to someone, would they likely stop? Most people I know would rather keep on doing what they're doing. That's the rub. I, thinking myself, in theory at least, savvy enough to change my life when I come to grips with something harmful, I see the poison of caffeine and still use it. The propaganda of this drug is powerful and it's placement everywhere almost impossible to refuse, even if you try.

Kill you coffee pots people. Break the addiction. (Realize this is a little tongue and cheek if it's lost on you to this point, but, only about 5%.)