Class summary and continuing conversation

In case you were not able to be in class on Sunday, here is a quick summary of what we talked about, so hopefully we can keep the comments coming from where we left off on Sunday morning:

We have been studying this idea of the everyday God, meaning how do each of us see God in the things we do everyday, whether it’s work, hobbies, school, etc. – God shows himself in numerous ways, and we have been using difference teachers in class to voice how God shows himself to them through the things they are passionate about.

I have some tentative agreements from a few people including Mike Kirksey and Scott Allen that if we continue on this study, they would join us for some guest teaching. We would also need to secure more teachers as well.

The curriculum that the rest of the church is starting was something developed specifically for us by Dr. Fred Aquino at ACU titled The Humanity of Jesus or this idea of living a New Humanity.

How I introduced it on Sunday was that the idea of our humanity is so different and opposite than what the worldly humanist philosophy is. Our lives don’t reflect a give-and-take attitude like the world is used to, but rather a sense of giving because that’s what Jesus would have done, and not caring about the reward or what we will receive.

So I will open it back up to conversation and comments about which way to go next. Some of the prevailing thought on Sunday was that we should do both, just which one first. There was a slight majority in taking to people that we should do the Humanity series now because we have always talked about being more in line with what the rest of the church does.

So what do you prefer and why do you prefer it? Does one make more sense for us now over the other? What if there were opportunities to join in with other classes from time to time on this study? Would that be beneficial?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

RK

Theology Question

Mandy and I were visiting her grandparents church in Fort Worth this past Sunday. The sermon was about Christians and government. The preacher brought up a point that I have been wrestling with for three days now and I wanted to hear your thoughts. He stated (from scripture) that all governments were put in place by God. He stressed ALL governments…even someone like Hitler or Pol Pot. He implied that even if we don’t understand it, God has his purposes for installing some governments. I am sort of OK with that point (not really, but it wasn’t what bothered me most). He backtracked on himself and said that God works in two ways. Basically his argument went like this. If it is a good and just government then God actively worked to put it in place and if it an evil government then God passively allowed that government to take power for some reason. I just can’t get my head around that. It seems to me that either God is working actively in the world to bring about His purposes or He is allowing things to happen on their own and working through those events. I just don’t think that you can have it both ways. It seems like by doing that we are giving God a kind of revisionist history, making Him exactly what we need Him to be without Him becoming too scary or reproachable.

Any thoughts…please?

Jeremy

Speaking of Rick Warren…

I don’t know if any of you caught this during your busy weekend, but Rick Warren, pastor at a California church called Saddleback, hosted the Saddleback Civil Forum with both presidential candidates. It was essentially a one-on-one interview between Warren and McCain and Obama individually, free from religious speak, rhetoric or evangelism. Just a candid talk with the two men who will be running to discuss some of the issues that are on the front of many evangelical/spiritual/protestant voters’ minds.

You can find plenty of Youtube clips and press coverage about the event, which drew a very large audience and worldwide praise for Warren in his ability to be fair, concise and probing at the same time, but one thing stuck out to me when I heard it.

As you can see from this article and from countless other places around the web, McCain was asked a series of questions about evil in this country and around the world. He used Sept. 11 as an example of evil that must be defeated. Then, when asked what he would do to counteract this evil, should he be the nominee, McCain said he would follow Osama Bin Laden (whom he stated is responsible for Sept. 11 and many other attacks) to the gates of hell to bring him to justice.

This, of course, drew some supportive applause from the crowd. And while I am sure most men or women in his situation would have said the same thing, I want to turn the tables around on us and ask our group that question.

So, what do you think? You are now in charge of defeating this “evil” and deciding what to do with this man. How do you respond? As Christians, do we bring this man to justice with any means necessary because he represents something that can destroy our freedoms and livelihood or do we “put away the sword” and try some other form of creative negotiation or meeting of the minds while forgiving him of what he has done?

Just looking for your thoughts because it seemed like a fascinating question McCain was forced to answer.
RK