You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘pastor’ tag.

John F MacArthurMany unbelievers and some lukewarm believers think that fearing God is unhealthy.

They also think that God is somehow ‘bad’ for encouraging this fear.

Yet, the fear of which the Bible speaks is an awe that we mere mortals, prone to sin, cannot comprehend.

To believers, ‘fear’ and ‘dread’ differ in meaning from the way we understand these familiar words in a secular context.

John MacArthur has a useful blog post on the subject called ‘The Gravity of Sin’, well worth reading in full.

The section called ‘The Fear of the Lord’ stood out for me and it might help us explain this holy fear to others (emphases mine):

Although God is loving, merciful, and forgiving, He nevertheless holds believers accountable for disobedience. Like John, Paul understood well that “if we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–9).

Knowing that he serves a holy and just God, the faithful believer will always live with “fear and trembling.”

An important Old Testament truth is “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; cf. Proverbs 1:7, 9:10). It’s not the fear of being doomed to eternal torment, nor a hopeless dread of judgment that leads to despair. Instead, it’s a reverential fear, a holy concern to give God the honor He deserves and avoid the chastening of His displeasure. It protects against temptation and sin and gives motivation for obedient, righteous living.

Such fear involves self-distrust, a sensitive conscience, and being on guard against temptation. It necessitates opposing pride, and being constantly aware of the deceitfulness of one’s heart, as well as the subtlety and strength of one’s inner corruption. It is a dread that seeks to avoid anything that would offend and dishonor God.

 

John F MacArthurJohn MacArthur’s blog post of June 30, 2014, ‘Sin and the Work of the Spirit’, warns Christians against easy conversions and describes what conversion really means.

MacArthur takes the epistle 1 John for his primary text and supports it with passages from Paul’s letters and other books of the New Testament.

He explains:

John’s portrait of true faith highlights the conflict between sin and saving faith. Over and over, he makes clear that true believers cannot and will not continue to live in open, unrepentant sin after salvation.

Adding:

The new birth—what John calls being “born of God”—epitomizes the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:3-8). The Spirit implants in those He regenerates the essence of His divine life, which John pictures as a “seed.” Just as a human birth results from an implanted seed that grows into new physical life, so also spiritual life begins when, at the moment of regeneration, the divine seed is implanted by the Spirit within the one who believes.

Also (italics in the original):

The new birth is also a monergistic operation, which means God’s Spirit alone accomplishes it (as opposed to synergistic, which means that human effort participates in the process).

MacArthur’s post is a good one for Christians to read and understand, especially if they are new or returning to the faith.

With regard to St John’s epistles — letters — I did a series on them two years ago. It is a pity that the Lectionary editors could not include more in their readings for public worship.

They can be found on my Essential Bible Verses page and are as follows for 1 John. Many of them contain excerpts from John MacArthur’s sermons and reveal John the Divine’s blueprint for Christian living:

1 John 2:3-11 – Commandments, obedience, light, darkness, love of neighbour

1 John 2:12-17 – speaking to converts as they are in sanctification, countering worldliness

1 John 2:18-29 – antichrists, false teachers, belief in Christ

1 John 3:9-13 – sin, love one another, unbelievers, Cain, first murder, hate

1 John 3:14-18 – love one another, hate akin to murder

1 John 3:19-24 – assurance, conscience

1 John 4:1-6 – discernment, antichrist, the world, faith, belief

1 John 4:7-13 – Christian love, Christ as propitiation

1 John 4:14-21 – perfect love, God loved us first

1 John 5:7-13 – Holy Trinity, unbelief, Christ’s blood and water

1 John 5:14-21 – truth of and confidence in Jesus Christ, faith, prayer, sin, Satan and the world, beware of idols

John F MacArthurJohn MacArthur’s most recent post on the Grace To You blog is called ‘Who Is Responsible For Your Spiritual Growth?’

Many readers will find it useful, especially as he cites a number of passages from Paul’s epistles.

This paragraph, in particular, stood out:

God is responsible for supplying everything you need for life and godliness, and you are responsible for actively using that power to grow in sanctification for His glory. The paradox is found in the believer being both fully responsible, and yet fully dependent on God’s supply. We may not fully comprehend the paradox, but we can exercise faith that it is resolved in the infinite wisdom of God and respond in obedience to His commands.

Please take a few minutes to read his article in full.

One of the drawbacks of being a church member is putting up with busybodies.

We all sin and churchgoers are no exception. Few things are as irritating or dispiriting as the church member who enjoys butting in to others’ business and pointing out their weaknesses.

Yes, they cite Scripture. Yes, they’re probably right.

But what if the person they are criticising is already aware of their own particular shortcomings?

We can become impatient with others’ sins, mainly because we sin differently.

I often wonder, however, if church busybodies criticise others they see as less gifted in the faith in order to make themselves look better.

The Revd Matt Kennedy is an Anglican priest and rector of Good Shepherd Church in Binghamton, New York. He is a regular columnist at Stand Firm.

His recent article ‘Speaking into Someone’s Life’ has seven excellent questions we should consider before interfering in someone else’s affairs.

Kennedy cites the verses troublemakers often use in order to justify their interference: Galatians 6:1-2 and Galatians 5:16-24.

His article has something for all of us, even if we do not fall into the category of busybody or troublemaker.

What follows are his seven questions someone should answer before interfering. Notional ‘love’ may come across as spite or one-upmanship, both of which hurt:

1. Is what I am planning to say true in an objective sense or just reflective of my own feelings? (expressing your feelings and speaking the truth are not synonymous. Scripture is the guide here, not your heart)

2. Is the person caught up in a sin or is he/she merely getting on my nerves? (a personality clash is not a reason to “confront” someone)

3. Do I have a past history of strife, jealousy, enmity or anger with this person? (If so, you probably aren’t the person to “restore gently”)

4. Do I genuinely want to help the person…am I willing to invest the time to meet, discuss, share my own struggles, and help this person escape from the sin I’ve observed? (if not, you’re not qualified to speak)

5. Is it something that the person knows about already and is trying to work on? If so, how would it be helpful for you to point out again what he/she already knows?

6. Do I have the ability to speak with gentleness and kindness or am I a battle axe? (if you don’t know, ask your wife, husband or closest friends. If you’re not kind, leave it for someone else)

7. Have I been praying for this person in private regularly? (If not, chances are that your heart is not in the right place)

How many church busybodies have examined their consciences in this area before opening their mouths?

That said, St Paul counsels the Galatians (Galatians 6:1):

But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

No doubt, the time will come when most of us will feel the need to criticise or interfere unprofitably. This is why Mr Kennedy’s questions — and our answers — are so important.

praying-handsThe closest I get to praying for those who have seriously wronged me in the past is to send a blanket prayer of asking God’s blessing on everyone in the world.

I mean it. It is sincere and I do hope God blesses them. That includes my enemies.

However, for those of us who are our own worst critics, finding out that someone else is piling on the dirt needlessly is, well, nearly unforgiveable. Yet, Scripture tells us we must forgive those who offend us. And those words are in the Lord’s Prayer.

The Revd Walter Bright has an excellent post on the subject called ‘Bitter Free’.

In it, he says that the best way to reach them is not by lecturing them but by showing them a godly and Christian example.

What follows is an excerpt, so please be sure to read his entire post (emphases mine):

The hardest thing to do is to pray for people who don’t like you, could care less about you and are mean-spirited toward you. It’s even more difficult to preach or teach to these same people without being bitter toward them in your sermons. Our calling is to pray for the people of God and not punish them for their sins toward us. We easily fall into sin when we fail to do the first thing – commit to prayer. You will never fulfill the second part of this calling if you fail to obey the first. A lot of pastors use their preaching as pay back to mean-spirited church folk. I have done that before and it is wrong

º Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
º Be angry and sin not
º Don’t let the sun go down on your wrath
º Give no opportunity to the devil
º Let the peace of Christ rule your heart
º Cast all your anxieties and care upon Jesus – He cares

His post contains a very useful compilation of ways we can commit to praying for our enemies — and, possibly, encourage them to mend their differences with us.

If you, like me, find praying for a specific nemesis — past or present — difficult, this is a post well worth consulting.

Samuel Rutherford St. Andrews.jpgIn the early 1990s, one of London’s principal museums had an exhibition on death as represented in art of the 16th and 17th centuries.

I spent an afternoon looking at all the paintings and reading the explanations underneath. Nearly all the paintings of families included a small memento mori of children or parents who predeceased them.

Although this Dutch family portrait was not among the exhibits, it is typical of what I viewed that afternoon. The two small reclining figures to the left of the mother’s head are her children who died in infancy.

The exhibition also emphasised that people at that time believed a ‘good’ death was essential. This meant that one mustn’t die in violent circumstances — brawl, stabbing — because it could mean that the deceased might have been engaging in sin (e.g. drunkenness, anger, revenge) which caused his demise.

A prominent Scottish Presbyterian minister of the day was Samuel Rutherford, made Professor of Divinity at St Andrews University in 1638.

He wrote (emphases mine):

What you do amiss in your life today, you may amend tomorrow; for as many suns as God maketh to arise upon you, you have as many new lives; but you can die but once; and if you mar that business, you cannot come back to mend that piece of work again; no man sinneth twice in dying ill; as we die but once, so we die but ill or well once.

Rutherford, incidentally, was diligent in serving his congregation prior to his appointment at St Andrews. He was known for his Bible study, scholarly preaching and visiting the sick.

Those of us who have Christian blogs will be heartened to read this of Rutherford during the time he lived in Aberdeen:

‘his writing desk’, was said to be, ‘perhaps the most effective and widely resounding pulpit then in Christendom’.[4]

May we pray and strive for the same result.

Pastor Ashcraft of Mustard Seed Budget has a thought-provoking post on a few famous men of letters.

In it, he says (italics in the original):

It amazes me that people can read Hemingway and not turn to God. They embrace his hopelessness and rail against God. His message led him to commit suicide at 61. The Bible says: You will know the tree by its fruit. In other words: Before you buy into someone’s message, see if it worked for that person, at least.

Fellow Christians cannot help but agree. Some would say not to read the writings of such men, yet, Ashcraft enjoys Hemingway as a storyteller, not as someone whose outlook on life should be followed.

Please read his post to find out more of what about happened to Hemingway and other faithless men of letters such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche.

I noticed in the Telegraph jobs section that their job of the week (May 12, 2014) is for the Rector of St Bride’s in the City of London.

The current incumbent, the Venerable David Meara formally retired as rector on Easter Day 2014 but will stay on in a pastoral capacity until the end of July, at which time he and his wife Rosemary will return to Oxford.

Most Englishmen know that St Bride‘s is the church of those who work in some capacity with the written word — most recently in its history, journalists and photographers, even if newspapers moved out of the Fleet Street vicinity further east to Canary Wharf over 20 years ago. Their memorial services page includes the names of several journalists.

Historically, prior to the Reformation, communities of monks, such as the Blackfriars, lived near St Paul’s Cathedral, which looked much different before the Fire of London in 1666. As was true throughout Europe, these monks were responsible for creating manuscripts, some of which are in museums around the world, especially the British Museum.

When the printing press was invented during the Renaissance — also the time of the Reformation — William Caxton established his printing business in this same part of London because the cathedral and clergy would require books. By the 17th century, authors and poets lived in the area. They included John Milton, John Dryden and Samuel Richardson, among others. Richardson, incidentally, was a publisher prior to writing the first modern English novel, Pamela.

Today, St Bride’s is not only the church for those involved in media generally but is also affiliated with several of the ancient City and Livery Companies which grew out of the mediaeval guilds, specialising in nearly anything and everything to do with craftsmanship, from glovers to shipwrights.

Therefore, the future rector of St Bride’s needs to be able to communicate effectively not only with the great and good from the City, London’s oldest borough north of the River Thames, but also with a broad congregation of Londoners who worship there.

The new rector also needs to respect the church’s history, structure and worship traditions.

He must also be a strong, godly leader.

Of course, his primary responsibility is to preach the Gospel to all who enter St Bride’s and to pursue outreach work in Christ’s name.

To give you an idea of how Mr Meara carried out these responsibilities, an article on their website says:

He has greatly enjoyed his ministry at St Bride’s, during which the church has maintained and grown its links with the newspaper and wider media industry, completed a successful £3.5 million re-endowment appeal, expanded its involvement with the City and Livery Companies, grown its volunteer base, and maintained and enhanced the Sunday worshipping congregations served by their splendid professional choir. The fabric has been conserved and improved, and the first phase of an ambitious £2.5 million restoration project successfully completed.

As Archdeacon of London, David has overseen the development of thematic and pioneering ministries in a number of City churches, modernising their governance structures and raising the amount raised by City churches towards the Common Fund to nearly 100%.

A long-standing worshipper at St Bride’s, journalist and PR man Ernest Bevin, wrote an open letter of thanks to Mr Meara, who is also Archdeacon of London. It says, in part (emphasis in the original):

You will leave our famous Wren church, surely a gift from God, in even better shape than when you inherited it. Since your arrival, you must hold the world record for presiding at memorial services for the great and the good of the media world and beyond, not to mention the almost weekly baptisms, numerous weddings, other special services and the daily Eucharist. And then there were your many connections with the Livery companies in the City of London.  During all of this time, you demonstrated, without wanting to, what a gifted priest you are, with not a glimmer of faux grandiloquence either in meeting parishioners, or delivering your fascinating and often inspiring sermons.  I always felt, and many others agree, that your mission in life is admirably suited to your calling.

I was terribly impressed when you led the team to organise the Queen’s visit to St Bride’s in 2007 – which was almost 50 years to the day after she was in the church for its rededication. During the run up to that historical and wonderful event, it was almost as if you swapped your dog collar for a white shirt and a Guild tie, becoming Mr Unflappable without the slightest hint of panic in your voice or body language, riding us over problems as if they didn’t exist!

It came as no surprise when the Bishop of London appointed you to be his right hand man, which promoted you from Canon to Archdeacon. Now historically in the Church of England, Archdeacons have a bit of a reputation for being pompous, aloof or sometimes, bon viveurs.  But not you, David, you carried on preaching the Gospel as if nothing had happened, although we all knew that so much was happening in your ecclesiastical workload, but your beloved St Bride’s went from strength to strength.

The Bishop of London, the Right Revd Richard Chartres, sums up the type of person who would serve St Bride’s well:

What is required in my judgement is someone who is first and foremost a priest and pastor of character and commitment. The opportunities for ministering to those who operate in the stressful sphere of journalism are very great and the post requires someone of considerable talent.

I pray that St Bride’s finds a suitable new rector soon.  The post will require an extraordinary person!

You can read more about the job here.

 

stained glass teaching-scriptures-720641 genxrisingcomA few days ago, I was disappointed to read a few mainstream Protestant ministers saying that not much Scripture needed to be read at Sunday and weekday services.

Although I did not bookmark the link, so as not to embarrass the denominations or those pastors, the comments, as paraphrased, would have read as follows:

Almost every family has a Bible at home, therefore, not much needs to be read in public worship.

It’s the printing press that brought the Bible into everyone’s home. I’m not going to worry much about it on Sundays.

However, that is not the point. How many of us have a family heirloom tucked away for safekeeping — cherished, but never looked at?

Many of us have a copy of the Bible on our bookshelves, but how many of us actually read it? These days, not many.

Therefore, to those naive (sorry to say) pastors and lay leaders in churches, the best thing you can do is to encourage public hearing of Scripture accompanied by a good exegesis — faithful interpretation using well known and reliable commentary — which can be accommodated to any age group.

Another useful tool is to get youngsters in Sunday School to learn parts of Scripture by rote. This does not have to be a length of verses, but perhaps one or two in several significant books of the scriptural canon, beginning with the New Testament.

Gradually, those verses along with a study of the chronology of Christ’s ministry and that of the Apostles post-Pentecost will accrete to a rather good knowledge of the Bible. The New Testament will explain the Old, particularly the many ancient prophecies which refer to Jesus.

It is no more complicated than learning multiplication tables or spelling. Furthermore, there is nothing mysterious about it, provided learned and discerning teachers start with youngsters who have minds eager to absorb knowledge.

Of course, better yet is if parents or other relatives steeped in good Scriptural knowledge begin the process with young family members. It is not so much a matter of interpreting literally as interpreting wisely, which is where reliable commentary comes into play.

I’ll pick up on this again at some point. Unfortunately, circumstances prohibit me from doing so at present.

 

Depicting Christianity, Bible stories and Jesus’s life in film is never without controversy.

A relatively recent example is the television series The Book of Daniel (2006), which aired on NBC all too briefly.

SpouseMouse and I are the only people we know of who saw it when it aired that summer on one of the ITV channels in the UK. We were so disappointed to have been left hanging with the sixth episode. I then found out it had been cancelled in the US and that was all we were going to get. The DVD box set has eight episodes.

The Book of Daniel was a superb series. As I was also wrestling with two major problems in my life at the time, I found it comforting and inspiring. SpouseMouse, not a fan of religious-themed programmes or films, also found the show worthwhile.

Imdb.com sums up the plot nicely:

St. Barnabas’s Episcopalian vicar Daniel Webster has a wealthy parish. Yet his family life constantly complicates everything. Peter is Daniel’s model son and med student, but struggles with being a semi-closet gay. His adopted brother, ethnic Asian Adam, is an incorrigible rascal. Daniel’s father in law is also a bishop, and the ‘discre[et] best friend’ of Daniel’s bishop. In-laws and parish benefactors attract further trouble on top of the regular pastoral work. A hippie Jesus Christ inspires Daniel in cheeky visions.

One has the impression that Mr Webster’s life was going well until he and his congregation took the decision to build a school. Webster’s optimism quickly turns sour as the school’s construction unfolds, bringing to light some dodgy deals of which he was unaware. It is at this point that all manner of family problems come to light, including his mother’s Alzheimer’s. (On that subject, I liked that she was a retired professor of English literature. So often, we have the false impression from medical ‘experts’ that only uneducated people get this disease. I can tell you from personal experience that many Alzheimer’s sufferers were high achievers and continued to be mentally and physically active even in retirement.)

Webster (Aidan Quinn) begins seeking refuge in Vicodin. One scene shows him in a controlled WASP panic over the building project. He reaches for his pills and finds they are not in the usual place. Jesus suddenly appears and tells him they are in his desk drawer. Jesus then asks him why Daniel places so much faith in the tablets rather than in Him. If I remember rightly, Daniel puts the pills back, embarrassed.

Overall, Jesus (Garret Dillahunt) is biblically portrayed. He is calm yet forthright. He attempts to get Daniel to examine himself and resume walking in faith. All the Webster family’s sins and struggles are borne of some aspect of unbelief. The show does not spell this out as many fundamentalists probably hoped it would, which is probably why they brayed for its cancellation before it was even aired! The show leaves it to the viewer to discover. Anyone with half an ounce of spiritual intelligence can figure it out.

The other aspect I liked was that, although we had the impression that Jesus was always watching over Daniel, Daniel found His presence and absence frustrating. When Jesus does appear, it is always at the most fraught moments. Webster never appreciates it, although those are the times when he needs Him most. Then there are other times when Daniel is exasperated when Jesus doesn’t appear. It is such a human response. We want Jesus on our terms. Jesus wants us on His!

It is surprising that the show’s many fans didn’t mention the housekeeper’s role with Mrs Webster. I do not even know the name of the actress who played the housekeeper, but she is full of wisdom and guidance. Judith Webster (Susanna Thompson) has a drinking problem which, in High WASP fashion, she keeps under wraps. Only the housekeeper is aware of it.

Her relationship with Judith is akin to Jesus’s with Daniel. Each has their own minder and counsellor. It is natural that, as a man of the cloth, Daniel has Jesus.

Anyway, in one episode Judith is about to pour herself a lunchtime martini in the kitchen. The housekeeper quietly takes the bottle of gin from her hand and pours it down the drain. The two look at each other. Judith goes on to confront her problems and herself.

Some viewers objected to the presence of the housekeeper, but any Episcopalian could figure out that both Daniel and Judith came from money, as most rectors and their wives do. I have often heard it said in the US that Episcopal clergy often have inheritances they can tap into because they certainly cannot depend on their salaries. I do not intend that to be a mean comment, but the expectation of their parents is that they will continue to live in the manner in which they were raised. I had the impression that the housekeeper had worked for Judith’s family and knew her well.

I had a few objections to some of Webster’s counsel to his congregation. Two examples are his condoning premarital sex when he interviews a young couple about to get married and his sermon about temptation which seemed rather left-field to me. Yet, these things go on in a number of Episcopalian and Anglican parishes every day.

In researching this post, many fans of the show aired their views on Imdb.com’s forum. Here are a few snippets (emphases mine below):

akcampbell (Ohio [Episcopalian], 6 January 2006):

Daniel — fully priest and also fully regular-guy. Why is it offensive that a priest isn’t perfect?

To the people who are concerned that this sort of material is detrimental, I must respectfully disagree. I find it hard to believe that someone would be condemned for considering Jesus a good friend he turns to when he has troubles. Isn’t putting Jesus into the context of our lives and having a close relationship what we are supposed to do? I think that is the most basic tenet of this show.

Based on all the savage reviews I had heard, I was all set to drum up a letter writing campaign to the network (which I see as voicing an opinion, not promoting censorship, and something people in the majority don’t do nearly often enough because they feel guilty about being in the majority in the first place).

But then I watched the premiere, and I really enjoyed it. If “The Book of Daniel” brings anyone to church, if it shows them that maybe it’s a place where they will be accepted in spite of their flaws, if it encourages them to keep trying to be better in spite of their weaknesses — then I’m all for it.

We don’t watch a lot of TV, but this show is entertaining and real, and it had earned a place in our viewing pantheon.

———

Clemens Reinke (New Jersey, 28 January 2006):

We were looking forward to the debut of “The Book of Daniel” before it even came out. As a Lutheran pastor, I thought the idea to portray the everyday life of an Episcopal priest’s family sounded very interesting. After seeing the first episode our family (a daughter [16] and and son [13]) made Friday evening the time to watch “The Book of Daniel” together. Even though there were some overdrawn plots, and maybe too much going on at the same time, we greatly enjoyed watching the show because to a pastor’s family so much of it rang true. It was even refreshing to see Jesus enter the life of Fr. Daniel Webster. It showed how Jesus is present in everyday life, sometimes supportive and understanding, sometimes uncovering the vices. I was absolutely stunned when we turned on the television last night expecting to see the show when we found out that NBC abruptly pulled it off the air after only four episodes. I wish that there will be a place to see the rest of the show. I am upset that the opinion of the religious right has the power to take away a show greatly enjoyed by other Christian people of faith that happen to not be as closed as they are. It is interesting that the larger political debate and divide has now even effected a television show like this one.

——–

buzzarb (United States, 9 January 2006):

The show really app[eal]ed to me because my grandfather is a bishop under The Church of God in Christ, my mother a choir director, father a deacon, and my uncle’s and aunts are ministers. We have one of the largest churches in Philadelphia and we as the first family of the church are always being watched. I recall on the show … his daughter being arrested was all over the church and community within in hours. This was so funny to me because that stuff happens all the time; church people are always waiting to spread some kind of gossip

——–

cordrone (United States, 9 November 2007):

I felt Dillahunt actually did a good job in the role and the talks between the two characters really played rather well and helped, I felt, show the bond between this man and his God. It showed me how very personal the connection between man and God could be and it also worked well as a device because it allowed the viewer to better understand the thoughts and motivations behind the title character of Daniel. To draw a quick Shakespearian analogy the character of Jesus in TDoD is used in much the same way the character of Horatio is used in Hamlet.) In short TBoD was an excellent show that was crucified by the very people who really should have embraced it, never to rise again, which is a real shame

——-

sartboy (United States, 23 April 2007):

I am a Jewish man and always at least a little interested in the mass media entertainment industry’s portrayal of people of the Christian faiths, but am often bored with the story lines and degree of cheese factor most often prominently worn by shows of this genre. Somewhat reluctantly, I decided to watch the pilot and was more than impressed– not because of the so-called blasphemy or anti-Christian-Right sentiment projected by this program (there truly was none of this to be seen), but because of the thoughtful nature of the show’s voice and genuinely hip air that the entire show had. The stories’ characters were actually interesting; the plot lines, although a little haggard, were fabulously entertaining when presented on this stage; the timing, overall writing and staging, casting, etc. were far more engaging than anything else airing on prime time “Big Three” (CBS, NBC & ABC) television … the show was just THAT GOOD– as far as mainstream TV programming goes. To hell with uptight Christian right-wing groups … What, really, is the threat that these people face, anyway? If they are so scared that someone may look at Christianity for all or any of its flaws/ inconsistencies, then, perhaps, more time and energy should be invested in correcting these troubles than attempting to levy censorship to just try and cover it all up. Wake up, people and join the real world.

——-

And, so, another intelligent series bites the dust. The Book of Daniel is not a flat or a hokey film about Christianity where everything is great all the time. It is a realistic representation of daily life for many believers who struggle with sin emanating from an imperfect faith. As the series shows, our Lord is there to help — if we would only listen, then act accordingly!

 

 

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post -- not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 -- resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

July 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 662,885 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 471 other followers