Well, it's 3:2o AM and I'm here typing a blog... why? Because of "germy bugs" as Caleb likes to call them. Last night around 3 am, Caleb came running into our room crying because he had thrown up in his bed and had to again. Well, he only threw up once and then seemed to feel a lot better during the day, though he still didn't have much of an appetite. So, I thought he was all better. But then again tonight around 1:30 AM, the same thing again... he came running to our room again crying because he was sick again. So, right now, he's resting on the couch watching Nemo and trying to go back to sleep while I type this blog (in a different room).
I'm pretty familiar with stomach viruses, especially the 24 hour kind. I probably got one once a year when I was growing up. Seriously, I had them on a regular basis. But I've never seen one like this, where you throw up once... go 24 hours nothing... and then all of a sudden you throw up again. (By the way, if you have weak stomach skip down to the next paragraph). And what really concerns me about this is the nature or consistency of his throw up. Not intending to be too gross... but his didn't look like it came from the stomach, it came from deeper than that... like it should have gone the other way if you know what I mean.
I intend to call the Dr.'s office tomorrow to see if something is going around, and if there is anything to be concerned about. I hate throwing up with a passion, so it breaks my heart to see my little boy hurting like this. I really hope none of the rest of us get it, especially little Taite. Things like this are so much easier to handle when you're able to at least partially communicate with your children.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Can't Judge a Book by its Cover - Literally!!
So, I received this book in the mail today, A New Testment to be specific. It was entitled, "The New Testament: Recovery Version." What was this? I had never heard of it before. So, I read the card that came with it.
"Dear Pastor...
As noted in the preface, the Recovery Version 'embodies extensive research into the meaning of the original text and attempts to express this meaning with English that is to the point, easy to understand, and readable.' Complete with over 9,000 explanatory notes and over 13,000 cross-references, the Recovery Version crystallizes the understanding of the divine revelation possessed by God's people throughout the past centuries."
I thought, "Wow, this sounds pretty good. This must be some new version that really opens up the original languages to the English reader." So, I turned to a very familiar verse John 3:16 and read:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life."
That sounds pretty good. Whoa... wait a minute. Let's reread that. "that everyone who believes into Him..." Now, what does that mean?
Ok, so now I'm officially suspicious. Where did this "new testament" come from? Who published it? It was distributed by "Bibles for America," but I have never heard of them before. But there is another reference... "Living Stream Ministry" But I've never heard of that before either. But then I got a real big clue. In the front of this "new testament" it is written, "outline, footnotes, charts, and references written by: Witness Lee"
For all of you who do not know, Witness Lee is associated with a cult called "The Local Church," which was founded by Watchman Nee. It sounds thoroughly Christian... even on the website, the statement of faith sounds orthodox and true. But that is because they use the same words but change the meanings. When you really dig into what they really believe, you discover that there are some major problems with their teachings.
For example: The Doctrine of God
Their view: They believe in Modalism (Modalism is the teaching that holds that God is not really 3 distinct persons, but only one person who appears to people in different "modes" at different times).
The Truth: Modalism is heresy. God is indeed One God, but is revealed in 3 distinct persons, and has been since all eternity.
Another example: Doctrine of Jesus
Their view: God as a man; after the resurrection He became the Holy Spirit or the "Lord Spirit"
The Truth: Jesus was the God-Man, but he was still distinct from both God the Father and God the Spirit. Jesus did not turn into the Holy Spirit; He sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples, while even now He Himself is at the right hand of the Father in glory.
G. Richard Fisher, nicely sums it up in his article, "Watching Out for Watchman Nee"
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html
A few of the problems in Nee's teachings:
Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru.
One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real.
Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous.
Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory."
When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee.
"Dear Pastor...
As noted in the preface, the Recovery Version 'embodies extensive research into the meaning of the original text and attempts to express this meaning with English that is to the point, easy to understand, and readable.' Complete with over 9,000 explanatory notes and over 13,000 cross-references, the Recovery Version crystallizes the understanding of the divine revelation possessed by God's people throughout the past centuries."
I thought, "Wow, this sounds pretty good. This must be some new version that really opens up the original languages to the English reader." So, I turned to a very familiar verse John 3:16 and read:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life."
That sounds pretty good. Whoa... wait a minute. Let's reread that. "that everyone who believes into Him..." Now, what does that mean?
Ok, so now I'm officially suspicious. Where did this "new testament" come from? Who published it? It was distributed by "Bibles for America," but I have never heard of them before. But there is another reference... "Living Stream Ministry" But I've never heard of that before either. But then I got a real big clue. In the front of this "new testament" it is written, "outline, footnotes, charts, and references written by: Witness Lee"
For all of you who do not know, Witness Lee is associated with a cult called "The Local Church," which was founded by Watchman Nee. It sounds thoroughly Christian... even on the website, the statement of faith sounds orthodox and true. But that is because they use the same words but change the meanings. When you really dig into what they really believe, you discover that there are some major problems with their teachings.
For example: The Doctrine of God
Their view: They believe in Modalism (Modalism is the teaching that holds that God is not really 3 distinct persons, but only one person who appears to people in different "modes" at different times).
The Truth: Modalism is heresy. God is indeed One God, but is revealed in 3 distinct persons, and has been since all eternity.
Another example: Doctrine of Jesus
Their view: God as a man; after the resurrection He became the Holy Spirit or the "Lord Spirit"
The Truth: Jesus was the God-Man, but he was still distinct from both God the Father and God the Spirit. Jesus did not turn into the Holy Spirit; He sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples, while even now He Himself is at the right hand of the Father in glory.
G. Richard Fisher, nicely sums it up in his article, "Watching Out for Watchman Nee"
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html
A few of the problems in Nee's teachings:
Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru.
One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real.
Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous.
Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory."
When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
What To Do With Santa?
Recently my wife and I have been doing a lot more talking and discussing about what to do with Santa Claus. As good parents wanting the best and most fun for their kids, we want Caleb and Taite to have many fond and very fun memories of Christmas. But at the same time, we're also extremely dedicated Christians, and desire to make sure they understand the real meaning behind Christmas. I guess every Christian parent has to deal with this issue at some point. And right now, our Caleb is at the age where we're going to have to really address it one way or the other. My wife recently wrote a very good blog about this issue from her perspective, to read it just follow this link: http://dreawd.blogspot.com/2007/12/santa.html
Personally, I really do not want to do Santa at all. And the reason may surprise you a little. It's really not about keeping the main thing at Christmas about Jesus... because we're going to do that anyway. The real issue for me is Integrity. The Santa Claus game or legend is not truth. I mean, let's face it... It's a lie. Now, I know that people will say, "but we're just pretending; it's a game." And I would have to say, "To you, it's a game... But to the child that you're convincing of it and even using it as motivational tool for good behavior, it's not pretending... it's real!" And in my opinion thats when pretending becomes deception... and for me, that's the issue.
My Experience
I remember when I was growing up, my parents did the whole Santa Claus thing. I wrote letters to Santa, left cookies and milk out for Santa, I can even remember my mom giving me a Santa-Chore chart to help me keep track of my chores and if I was doing good or not. The more gold stars I had the better! We're talking motivation here!! Now, I didn't like sitting on his lap at the mall or something, somehow I didn't think that was necessary. In my little mind, Santa was like God... He could just see you and He knew instinctively what you wanted. And I remember seriously believing in Santa until I was like 9-10 years old. And I remember even arguing with adults who expressed doubt in Santa. In fact, I believed with all my heart that I had actually seen him one time, and so I would argue with people about his existence. I'd look out my bedroom window on Christmas eve and believe I saw just a glimpse of his sleigh (probably a jet or plane). And so with all of that in my background... Can you even imagine how betrayed and how utterly FOOLISH I felt when I came to understand that it was all FAKE!
One of My Goals as a Parent
Now, taking that experience... look at it from my perspective as a Christian parent who is desperately desiring to teach my children about our great Faith. My parents were Christians and they taught me how to be a Christian, mostly through their actions. But they never aggressively taught me hard-core Christian doctrine from early childhood. Me, on the other hand, one of my goals is to pour out my Faith and all the truth I've learned about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Salvation, Sin, the Church, etc, etc... into my children. I want them to be extremely educated in the Christian faith. I want them reading and understanding things in high school that I never even heard of until seminary. I want them memorizing Scripture. I want them knowing the Bible backwards and forwards. I want them being able to recite catechsimal questions that teach systematic theology. I'm serious... I want my kids to be able to keep their youth minister and Sunday School teachers really on their toes, because their Daddy has taught them the truth.
The Dilemma
Now here's the question... How can I teach them so diligently about God and all these important spiritual things one minute and then turn around and lie to them about a jolly man in a red suit coming on Christmas Eve to bring them toys if they're good the next? Honestly, in good conscience... I just can't. I can teach them about the real St. Nick who was a strong believer, but I just can't convince them of something that is a blatant falsehood. I would rather my boys be able to confess to anyone one day that their Daddy never lied to them. And so when I'm teaching them about the real things of life, they won't ever have to stop and question if their Daddy is being serious or just "pretending."
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)