My Journal

One of Redeemer's visions, is to plant as many "churches" in New York City & other cities around the world as possible. This, is her way of evangelizing. A little too hasty I believe, but a vision nonetheless.

CCCNY's vision? I do not know.

A "church" without a vision is not worth being a church at all.

A vision can be judged both good or bad. Any good of it, must come from God; Otherwise, it is not from God.

A vision is not necessarily and most likely not a sudden supernatural epiphany shown to a person in a symphony of lights and sound effects. It can be as simple as a God given heart to do worldly evangelism, provide Christian education to the poor, etc.

A good vision is that which can find no merit in man but God. To only or chiefly provide support to missionaries and theologians is not a good vision. It may very well not be a vision at all. Offering is the duty of all Christians. Giving is not a vision but a responsibility of all believers.

When Christians fellowship or work together, they must share the same vision, in all honesty, so that necessary compromise can be made. If the integrity of one's vision cannot be determined, it is not wise to work or associate with one.

There are those who believes they have visions but need no such things in their churches. They are disillusioned in what they call "fellowship of the Saints". They cannot work with others, because they want control and dictatorship over others and they feint humility as a trap to seduce their minions.

Thus, the importance of having and identifying a vision in a church.

In his talk in Gospel Renewal episode, Dr. Tim Keller mentioned why the alter-calling type rally is perhaps outdated or not the only course of revival.

During the Center Church workshop series, Keller made the Fulton Street Revival (1857-1858) as a case for since revival is also done via merely public prayer, instead of preaching in public, there should be many forms of evangelical methods and that some forms are superseded by the other.

The last notion is what I would disagree. Mainly, because faith comes by hearing. I have not examined, but I am quite sure, such acceptance of revivals such as the Fulton Street as an alternative rally is to be blamed for certain heresies arising at this same age.

Today, the Janet Mefferd Show discussed on the reality Jesus' virgin birth.

With all kinds of information flying around the net, it is not surprising to see more and more so called Christians denying the virgin birth of Christ, while having no problem calling Christ their savior, their God. Some points to the fact that God went into the baby Jesus who wasn't God to begin with when He was born. But these are all ancient heresies.

So the question is why the talks about past issue?

I jump to the conclusion that this is due to something similar to that of Satan's reason to defect in Enoch's book or Milton's Paradise Lost.

The answer is pride of humility. Pride of being humble. Pride of being a servant. When a servant is this proud, he wants his Lord to be his Lord. He cannot stand his Lord to be same as him. He does not want his Lord to be eligible a status of his level. His servitude status should only be unique to himself.

Hence they must either view Christ as fully God or as fully human. Not both. For some to treat their divine Christ as human is to ask them stop hating their fellow human beings. For others, treating human Jesus as God is to ask them to admit some of their neighbors are better than them.

As a result for them, God either comes down directly and transform Himself to whatever type of Jesus He wants or not at all. Why going through all that virgin thing unless Jesus was just a man, not God.

And there is no need to explain why God has to possess a human baby at certain time just so this baby can be both God and human. It is simply illogical to have such premise. God does not need to be "promoted" from human state to God.