In Sunday School, on Prayer, when asked "What keeps our prayer faithful or unfaithful?"
I thought of this during the Service sermon, that when people use "OMG" Oh my God! it is a form of prayer. Mostly done in vain, thus, being unfaithful, applies to both believers and unbelievers.
The Sunday school is still my favorite part of the church service. The sermons, I sometimes lose track of, though not bad, but not as great as the likes of Tim Keller's, Pak Tong's, which would be a rarity. However, the Sunday school is a rarity, for how many pastors, especially younger ones, would allow themselves open to be questioned on biblical matters in public and willing to show care in answering.
As far as the sermon goes, I need to find a way to focus and learn regardless of how the sermons are delivered. After all, it is an expository style.
With lots of 100% fully remote opportunities thanks to COVID19, $130K base compensation salary, etc. Here are some worth looking into for portfolio building:
5+ years Javascript 4+ years WebGL Pixi.js, Three.js
This is the last day I serve as violinist for E's "praise team". I had notified her a week earlier. This was after Nadia's urging, not to wait for Tom, whose view on church music I cherished somewhat because he had on a few counts suggested singing hymns instead of these contemporary music. Of course, by hymns I understand as traditional hymns, which stood the test of time. Not some hymns replaced with contemporary tunes and styles.
Come to think of it, the reasons are plentiful, that I decided to quit. I don't think it was understood by E, as she's probably too influenced by the Jesus Freak Movement/Jesus Revolution of the 1960s, which is illustrated by the 2023 movie: Jesus Revolution based on Greg Laurie's book. It was also when Contemporary Christian Music began, with Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel (mild style with more focus on scripture), and Lonnie Frisbee's Vineyard (wilder).
Here are reasons I could come up with:
I'm not against Christian music made contemporary; but I am against ONLY using CCM. CCM, unlike hymns, does not stand the test of time and therefore is lesser as a whole when compared to the greater hymns. There certainly could be hymns of lesser quality, but there are even more CCM of lesser quality. CCM often fails in discerning emphasis between God and self-centeredness, entertainment and joy, individualistic or congregational, normative or regulative principles, objective or subjective. Since music is the deepest expression of emotion, one should be incredibly careful in choice of music used in corporate worship. Knowledge of music theory is compulsory. Pursuit of such is more crucial than mastery of it, but certainly NOT the ignorance of it. E and I only discussed this point because she couldn't move on from it. The fact that we sometimes had to edit out a whole chunk of ooo's and aaa's and lalala's should have given some hint as to the nature of the composition. We decided to agree to disagree peacefully with her falsely calling me "over analyzing", yet it was not just mine, but Nadia's highly lack of analyzing intuition, that lead to our decision in such, especially when Nadia couldn't stand seeing me complaining about the low quality CCM we often play and realizing how big the qualitative difference it is when she heard me played some classicals after practising the last piece of those CCM in frustration. Those classicals were medicine to these low value CCM. I had persuaded E. to not use the plain lyrics but the actual music sheet to sing in order to not only be able to follow the pianist properly but to improve in music reading. Hopefully she would keep doing so. I should check from time to time.
Creative differences. When CCM differences are only subjective and not objective, or cultural, that should be fine with me. Although, one must discern where the line is drawn between objectivity and subjectivity, regardless of cultural influences. This disagreement is of lesser importance than the complete ignorance of musical theory.
No real violin parts. The music which E chose, which were all CCM, do not really have a unique violin part. I basically played the singer's lead sheet, which is really just the main melody, unless I improvise my own, which would be rather time consuming. So in a way, it's either too easy or too hard. Too easy because I am playing as a singer, there's no harmony; too hard because I would have to figure out the harmony myself, fillers when the singers are at rest, etc. And I would be the one ending up with the burden of composing the CCM.
I should now have learned to not be hasty when something like this happens. I should have told E. that I would wait and observe what music she would choose and sing. It was fine letting them know what instruments I play, but it was not wise to agree so quickly to play with them. For that I apologized to her.
Contrary to many fundamentalist Christians, Machen is opposed to Bible reading in state controlled schools simply because the Bible is not something to be taken lightly. There must be Christian element in the teaching, reading and listening of it, or else, it would be taken in the most unholy, blasphemous way and such should not even be allowed its possibility to exist in any circumstances.
“I think I am just about as strongly opposed to the reading of the Bible in state-controlled schools as any atheist could be.
“For one thing, the reading of the Bible is very difficult to separate from propaganda about the Bible. I remember, for example, a book of selections from the Bible for school reading, which was placed in my hands some time ago. Whether it is used now I do not know, but it is typical of what will inevitably occur if the Bible is read in public schools. Under the guise of being a book of selections for Bible-reading, it really presupposed the current naturalistic view of the Old Testament Scriptures.
“But even where such errors are avoided, even where the Bible itself is read, and not in one of the mistranslations but in the Authorized Version, the Bible still may be so read as to obscure and even contradict its true message. When, for example, the great and glorious promises of the Bible to the redeemed children of God are read as though they belonged of right to man as man, have we not an attack upon the very heart and core of the Bible’s teaching? What could be more terrible, for example, from the Christian point of view, than the reading of the Lord’s Prayer to non-Christian children, as though they could use it without becoming Christians, as though persons who have never been purchased by the blood of Christ could possibly say to God, ‘Our Father, which art in Heaven’? The truth is that a garbled Bible may be a falsified Bible; and when any hope is held out to lost humanity from the so-called ethical portions of the Bible apart from its great redemptive core, then the Bible is represented as saying the direct opposite of what it really says.
I have written about this a few times here before, so this is an update. Heavily focused on Stephen Tong's take on it and Deuteronomy 12:4.
So this morning, Nadia spoke with me about not leading E. on in the praise team which I've played violin for quite some time now, if I don't like the CCM, which is the only style we use. That is, I should tell her that I am quitting the team. Though we have a mix of traditional hymns (which I think is favored by the pastor in spite of his insistence as if there's no difference between hymns and CCM), the team I'm on that play between the first hymn and the offering always use CCM. I definitely am not signed up for CCM. Once a while it's okay, but not fully committed to CCM. So I talked to E. on the phone and then we emailed back and forth about it. We did our best to be civil with each other. I wouldn't allow her to change the style just on my account if she didn't get my point. Which she didn't. I doubt it, based on the email conversations. If I pushed any further, she would flip the fundamentalist switch: "It's the heart that counts", "Best song is in Heaven" to evade the topic in question. On the side note, I think one major problem with churches these days is the lack of fellowship time to talk about these face to face. If this is not done well, fellowships become superficial. If the pastor were to talk to me about this, as she suggested he might, I certainly welcome it. May God grant me wisdom and grace in this should it happen. Even so, the more grace if he were to just use the authority of the pulpit to misrepresent my point and attack the strawman in public. Of course, there is something to reflect upon: A wiser advice would be to not go into this in haste. Don't just join a team just because you know how to play violin and it is a church. Wait, watch, observe patiently to see what direction they are heading first. There are situations that require immediate action (apology, opportunity in evangelism, etc.), but in this case, Wait!
I mentioned Stephen Tong to her so as to not take credit (not that she would care about it since she would be on the opposing side) for it and offered, if she cared enough, to send her the two clips with subtitle that I would labor for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXWRA7lmd5o
But since she didn't react to it I didn't have to make any subtitles, for now. Now let's remind ourselves that E. is one who loved the movie Jesus Revolution, and possibly the recent Asbury Revival as well. As this is the Charismatic+Evangelical style activity popular from the 80s to 90s.
I would also add in comment a good site on Stephen Tong's take on this: 唐崇榮牧師論基督教音樂. I shall also post its content all the way in the bottom in case the link goes broken.
She didn't like it when I attributed CCM to Charismatic, as she would rather use Evangelical instead. Which made me conclude a good definition for the Charismatics: Replacing true substance with that which is superficial. I don't define it as many would: Speaking in tongue, loves to perform miracles, always receiving visions, etc. My definition covers all of those already.
Such is the case also with CCM. The lyrics look good, Christ centered, reformed, etc. But Music is not just about the lyrics, it's the composition, the melody (how catchy, attractive, etc.), the rhythms (how stable, not too much syncopations), the connection between the words and music, where is the climax, why the use of rounds, certain instruments, etc. Of course, I am not saying ALL CCM are just as bad as each other. There are good ones, such as Keith Getty's In Christ Alone. However, what's more important to note is that CCM is not equally ranked qualitatively as hymns (traditional, sacred). With E. I realized that I even had to explain that when I said hymns, I wasn't including hymnody remade in contemporary musical style. That is just CCM, not hymns. Of course, if you want to call these CCM hymns, then I would have to emphasize the hymns I am referring to are traditional hymns, not CCM hymns.
The reason traditional hymns are better is because they have stood the test of time. Bad "hymns" were long discarded, forgotten, due to poor quality, lacking that eternity quality. However, CCM by the very definition just means not tested by time yet. Those who are musically sensitive could tell good or bad right away, but for the rest of us, we could only wait patiently to see, should we still be alive, if some of these CCM would become traditional hymns years later. Because of this, traditional hymns are always safer, while CCM is risky. Therefore, this is key:
There is nothing wrong with mixing the two: traditional and CCM in church services despite running the risk of picking a low quality/shallow CCM. There is certainly nothing wrong with just using traditional hymns. There is however something wrong with just using CCM and not traditional hymns. There is also however something wrong with using traditional hymns simply because of tradition, familiarity.
I find it hard to find a good lecture on the topic of Christianity and Music/Art in the West that's done deeply. If any, it's a very shallow take on the subject: it's just the lyrics, number of Bible verses used, etc.
Traditional hymns are now being used by the Mormons. Everytime I look up some hymns in YouTube, the Mormon Tabernacle is the one that usually comes out first. We may call them stealing our heritage, but they would think they are the same as us. When I realized this a while back, I got suspicious enough to think "No, they couldn't have taken all good Christian hymns, what about the hymns on Trinity, particularly: Holy Holy Holy". Sure enough, they took that one too. "But then, how are they going to sing: God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!" I cracked laughing as I found out they changed that line to "God in Thine glory, through eternity". So at least the non-Christians could see the qualitative value in our traditional hymns, music-wise.
I then went back to check on a couple of songs by CityAlight, a band that E. loved. I re-examined the song: Yet Not I But Through Christ in Me:
true enough, I immediately found a few problem. Lyric-wise, nothing too bad. However, the climax of the music is not the title or God centered, it's focusing more on the self as the refrains climax to: "All is mine!", "I shall overcome!", "I am free!" despite followed by "yet not I but through Christ in me" in descending melody and decrescendo. The drone style background music sounded like trying to hypnotize people, the visual setting (I supposed this is the original intent since the video is made directly by the authors) is like in a night club. The whole musical theme sounded like someone struggling with drug addiction or something. Maybe it's still a good song for new converts who got out of drug addiction, but as a congregational worship song? Not quite apt. The other music have similar taste. Not all are bad, their "The Night Song" seems much better since it's very clearly something you sing for people afraid of living in darkness. The Night Song's composer/author is also slightly different: Colin Buchanan. So I looked up one of Yet Not I But Through Christ in Me's composer: Michael Farren to check out the differences. True enough, Farren's musics are a bit unstable. Music is more than just the lyrics, it's how and where you emphasize words sung in your composition. The connection must be a healthy one, as Tong would put it. The examples of criteria one can use to examine a piece are plenty and can also be simple. For example, on dynamics, emphasis on which words or phrases matters. The same text can be said/sung in a God centered manner or it could also be done in a man centered manner. "I will always PRAISE THEE!!! (God centered) vs. IIIIII... will always praise Thee (man centered)", "All I want is to serve the Almighty King vs. All I want is to serve the lmighty King." Now in this case, man centeredness is not necessarily bad, can be bad, but not necessarily. It can simply be an emphasis on man, the self, in the struggle against evil, emphasizing God's comfort to man, God's love FOR man. But perhaps when it is not God centered, it may better be sung privately, in which case, it behooves us note the importance of attending church, in a service where the combined fellowship of men points back to God in an emphasis of greater effect.
That said, I certainly would try to discern the borders from objective to subjective standards in CCM. When it's subjective, it cultural, it's not something I want to make a big deal out of. Some culture has jazz, some has country, etc. But regardless, the basic principles still apply, regardless of style. You don't use country song with something solemn, you don't use jazz for many, I don't even see many jazz style would work without becoming entertaining instead of worship.
我告訴你，音樂與聖樂的精義。音樂是甚麼？音樂是時間的藝術。我們把藝術分為兩種，一種是空間藝術，另一種是時間藝術。先看那邊牆上的一幅圖畫，裡面有調和的顏色，像粉彩一樣，有很和平的感覺。你要有比這更大的空間才可以再看下去，你要看多久是你的事，但一定要有更大的空間。建築、雕刻、美術都是空間藝術，馬上可以用眼睛，線條及顏色感覺出來。在希臘亞里士多德的時代，藝術或者是空間藝術都是模彷自然的（The imitation of the Nature）。經過了一千五百年之後，就開始改變了；一千八百年之後，達芬奇認為美術不是自然的流露，藝術是心靈的興奮，是心靈的行動。當你看到好的藝術的時候，不單是眼睛看的那一些，你要看裡面所表現要動的方向在那裡。從欣賞方面來說，藝術都是在三度空間裡面。好像雕刻，它就把三度空間排在外面。但是好的建築，就把三度空間包含在它裡面。無論在外在內都是用三度空間。
聖樂，是否基督徒聽了覺得舒服的就是聖樂呢？不是。聖樂是從神聖的靈感，為了感謝神的恩典，為榮耀上帝而寫的，再加上神的道，這才是聖樂。這些東西沒有靈性你寫不出來。你聽貝多芬的「莊嚴彌撒」（Missa Solemnis），這算是宗教音樂的大作品，但裡面還有些東西是亂七八糟的。當你聽到巴赫的B Minor Mass的時候，你會感到很深的，與神連在一起的靈性表達出來。這絕對不是以技巧可以寫出來的，是心靈的訊息。
我不知道基督徒自己尊重聖樂傳統的價值到了那一個地步。今天的教會很怕被別人說是落伍。別人怎樣，自己也怎樣。戴妃的頭髮怎麼樣，她們也怎麼樣。現在她死了，全部都不一樣。你跟潮流走嗎？我告訴你：只有一種魚跟潮流走的叫做「死魚。」基督徒應該帶領潮流。走在時代的前面，不是跟那些爛音樂來走。因為音樂是心靈的訊息。This is my story, this is my song! 這句話就是我要表達的信息。非基督徒從基督教的音樂能聽到甚麼呢？
從各方面研究歷史的時候，我們發現到當浪漫主義來到的時候，文學家就開始浪漫，這裡所說的不是多情的浪漫。是那很大激情自然各別發揮的時代。（Expression of Individualism）他們把各種藍圖的格式丟掉，破格發展而表達他們自己。這叫做浪漫主義。浪漫主義來的時候文學家有破格的勇氣，藝術家，神學家也都一樣。好像盧梭領導了浪漫主義，在神學上孟德斯鳩帶領了浪漫主義。慢慢地，在音樂方面，Schumann帶領了浪漫主義。在小說各個境界裡面…，建築，雕塑，全都有浪漫主義精神彌漫在文化裡面。浪漫主義一來的時候，古典主義的就會丟掉。古典主義一來的時候巴洛克時代就會丟掉。巴洛克時代一來的時候，文藝復興時代就會丟掉。所以每一個時代，都有一個時代的精神。全都影響了很多人有新的頭腦。
廿一世紀是甚麼時代你知道嗎？是新世紀的時代（New Age Movement）。新世紀的泛神論，加上靈界的復興，來抵擋基督教，來使人從心裡的感應，重新解釋人生的一個時代。這種精神無形中進到教會裡面，破壞信仰，破壞敬虔，變成現在的靈恩派。他們認為聖經的嚴謹性不要緊；信仰正統與否，不要緊；講道講得對不對，不要緊；音樂好不好也不要緊；最要緊是教會增長，很多人來做禮拜，奉獻增長。這就叫復興了。假如以這個做目標的話，你就面對這個目標前進就是了。這叫做Purpose Driven，就是Rick Warren的東西。
雕刻匠不必理會到光線從那裡來，把作品雕好了，放在臺座上，光從窗進來就是了。你畫圖的時候，畫清晨，畫黃昏，畫影子的時候，你要注意光的學問，這叫做光的洗禮，Baptism of Light；這就決定那圖畫到了低級或是高級的地步。
到了音樂這方面，你要明白時間，超越空間，也要顧及感情；表達奮鬥，悲哀，歡樂還是表達困擾？有些詩歌，為甚麼叫聽的人流淚呢？因為調裡面有真實的感情放在裡面。聖哉，聖哉，聖哉。do do mi mi sol sol升上去的。但是低音部則是聖哉，聖哉，聖哉。do do la la sol sol向下的。當各聲部一齊唱第一句的時候，高音部上去，低音部下來，我就發現到祂高高在上，我在地上。神與人之間這個無限的距離拉近了，我就俯伏在祂面前，這個就是敬拜。
George Frideric Handel
當韓德爾寫All We Like Sheep的時候，四聲部都是唱同樣節拍，說「我們像羊」；到「每個人偏行己路」那一句。高音上去，低音就下來了，表示亂跑一通。繼續很靈活的發展下去；到了最後說到「上帝使我們眾人的罪全都歸在祂身上」的時候，And the Lord hath laid on him…很沉重。這就是聖樂。懂嗎？我們膚淺的人，不去找能領導的人查問，也不懂去教導人，更沒有舉辦音樂欣賞來慢慢解釋。只怕人不來禮拜，就用他們喜歡聽的音樂來討好他們。現在我用他們的方法唱「聖哉，聖哉，聖哉」給你們聽…好不好呀？很好。我告訴你，神經病。你們有沒有發現敬拜上帝，信仰表達的東西全給他們丟掉了。
韓德爾寫Organ Concerto的時候，do sol la sol, do mi fa mi, do do do do si la sol la la la sol fa mi fa fa fa fa fa mi re do re那個旋律是一直向下跑的；到了他寫Messiah的時候，用這個旋律寫Hallelujah Chorus do sol la sol, re sol mi re是逐漸上去的。為甚麼呢？因為他加上信仰，加上崇敬上帝，榮歸真神的觀念上去。
我們都會唱「三一頌」普天之下萬國萬民，齊聲讚美父、子、聖靈，三位一體，同榮同尊，萬有之源，萬福之本。這首詩歌多久了？討厭嗎？有誰討厭唱這首詩歌的請舉手，我馬上把你趕出去。這首詩歌超過六百年了。你不可能討厭她。每一句有八個字，然後延長一兩個音，是不大正常的做法。好像聚會完的時候，不唱這首歌的話，則不甘願結束一樣。唱了「三一頌」之後你會覺得很滿足。為甚麼？因為有永恆性在裡面。有這樣的性能，有這樣的精神，才會產生這樣偉大的音樂。你說「三一頌」有甚麼偉大的？偉大的就是永遠不討厭。你可用甚麼歌曲代替她呢？她有永恆性，代表時代的精神，有超時代的靈在裡面。這是基督教的東西，有基督永恆的價值，永恆的靈感動基督徒把永恆的東西獻上，Pretaste of Mentality。
請注意，偉大的作曲家，他們化了多少心血，他們的音樂藝術一定和靈命結合的。我們怎可以把他們丟掉呢。我再舉一個簡單的例子，三拍的歌曲，常是很清楚精簡的。do mi sol sol sol sol（藍色多瑙河）多輕鬆。在聖樂方面，三拍的音樂常常代表三位一體的神。Handel的And the Glory of the Lord「神的榮耀必顯現」，韓德爾說到神的榮耀的時候，他寫這曲子不用兩拍，只用三拍子的。Praise to the Lord, the Almighty「讚美全能神」do do sol mi redo so la sol la si do re do也是用三拍子的。很不一樣的感覺，對嗎？當然跟那些「蹦恰恰」的大不一樣。
In the sermon the pastor once again gave the same erroneous/insufficient interpretation of Matthew 7 on "judge not".
C: Judge not... = "don't sit on God's throne to judge"
Though this is true, but it is not the context of the passage. For some reason, more than one had failed to read and connect the following verses, which is simply "don't be hypocrites". I remember one time Hailong even asked me: "is that really connected?" A good response to their narrow view on "judge not" is simply to ask: Do you see any connection between the beam in the eye illustration and the first verse?
Sunday School was as marvelous as usual. We started a series on Prayer, with many more important discussions to follow the next few weeks.
Because David's not going to be around for a while due to work, we decided to do the "praise" team every week. Oh how I wish that I could get Eleni a taste of singing in Handel's "Worth is the Lamb". Once you tasted the pearls, you won't want to go back to dog food. True reformed praise and worship improves one's musical skill during the activity, zeal for musical theory and its connection to the creation and the word of God. If not, it's just called American culture thing in worship. Not just worship.
Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding.
Meaning those who look always for a black and white terminology (i.e. fundamentalists) and those who are persuaded to make haste conclusion believing they are smart enough (the liberals) to do so, are very actually on the unholy path of displaying irreverence to God.
The same types, will never stand amid the shocks of life:
The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life.
The introduction alone is quite impressive thus far:
In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.
Just from the above quote I concur already very strongly when dealing with examples such as Sunday School, Bible study feedbacks that's frequently worthless. They weren't asking challenging questions, or display opposition, but mere support. It's not that they do not have disagreements, but perhaps, for them: "I will support you no matter what, where we disagree, I am always right, you are always wrong, no need to discuss it to turn things ugly." Thus, they pursuit for things least worth holding.
There seems to be more and more incentives from the state end federal to encourage homeowners install solar panels on their roofs: Tax credit 30%, Transition Renewable Energy Certificate (TREC), free roof replacement program?
Many utility companies even our JCP&L offers net-metering. Meaning if you produce more energy, the companies will buy it from you. Sort of a reverse electric billing, having your extra solar energy feeding back into the grid to the electricity company.
I am thinking more seriously about this starting this week because of the ads I responded to: SolarSesame on Facebook. Then recalling the youtuber BeatTheBush who installed such in California few years ago as DIY $300 experiment. The problem is, I think you need to apply for permit to do this so I don't see how I can do this myself for a few hundred dollars as an "experiment". However, it seems that Tesla maybe a good installer company to go with after much review: $11k - $23k.
Of course, I don't think $10k+ is incentive enough for me to consider this. Our electricity bill goes from $57 to $245 over the last 24 months, that's about $107/month on average, which means it will take at least 11-12 years to have the cost pay itself back. So it's not quite worth it unless I install it myself (or hire my own electrician for it), figuring that would cost less than $5k.
But I'll post all the videos and link below that are relevant:
GCC has started this on Thursdays while Nadia and I were away in Asia. So we came back joining half way, at around chapter 3. We have just about finished with chapter 4 last week. Since I don't have nor know any series on this by Stephen Tong, I shall look for the common sources.
Sunday School on Religious text, very brief: Quran (variant original manuscripts compiled and then finally codified by Caliph Uthman, thus not as direct revelation as the Muslims claim to be), Hindu text (I didn't get to see the slideshow points due to distant seating). Didn't touch on Buddhism, perhaps short on time. This is a membership related series. Last Sunday School we looked at various English translations of the Bible. The pastor used this site for data: https://notjustanotherbook.com/biblecomparison.htm
Sermon on 1John 3:1-10 "Born of God". I think wolves in sheep's clothing was mentioned. But I digressed: I suddenly pondered on the idea "wolf in sheep's clothing, rather than in shepherd's clothing, so that no sheep has an excuse for not listening to The Shepherd (The Lord)but the wolves instead. Would wolves in sheep's clothing also indicative of shepherds (pastors) being fooled?
During the morning 8:30am praise team rehearsal, Tom & Eleni brought up that Paul & Moses were weak in speech. I debunk the part about Moses right away, since it was obvious in Acts 7 (and you can't ignore God's rebuke against Moses by the bush) However, I believe that the verse they were referring to for Paul's problem was 2Corinthians 11:6: where the Greek being: ἰδιώτης (idiotes) KJV: "rude" in speech ESV: "unskilled" in speaking CUV: 我的言语虽然粗俗，我的知识却不粗俗
I would prefer the KJV's translation in this case as it does fit in organically in the context. Paul is certainly not "unskilled" in speaking, 2co11:5, Acts 26:24, etc. Luke's account of Paul certain was not what people today interpreting "unskilled in speaking" would think. What then, did Paul lied? Nay, but this is relative knowledge, relative truth, it depends who you are comparing to (and so obviously not to God - those who jump at "God" as the answer do not see the clear distinction between Creator and creation). However, it would seem that Paul was a very straightforward and rude person, similar to Martin Luther. And we know, no one would say Luther had speech impediment. After further digging into this, I would say Paul was not the kind of polished speaker in such a way that he's not like Joel Osteen or some slick speaker like the lawyers, motivational speakers especially trained in rhetorics (1Cor 1:17 "not with words of eloquent wisdom"), which have nothing to do with being having trouble speaking or stutter. As far as critics of his time goes: ἐξουθενέω (exoutheneo) 2Cor10:10 "...his speech contemptible" KJV "...his speech of no account" ESV "言语粗俗" CUV
Given the fact that Paul's often comparing himself relatively tiny, 1Cor 4:4 "I know nothing by myself" even though we all know Paul knew a lot. It is always better to be good at rhetoric, but that should not be something the members of church should be fooled by.
I had also during the sermon thought about this all of the sudden: God allows liberalism to increase in the West perhaps to deal with balancing the antithesis of the East and vice versa. This pondering I think is crucial in evaluating the future outcome of the world before God.
On our church's first (...perhaps in a long time) outreach ministry regarding praying for challenges. I explained to Eleni a couple of weeks ago that the reason I won't be joining the outreach ministry was because I do not want to see this as the only one time evangelical event, to which she concurred. I elaborated to her because she seemed curious enough to know why even though she did not take the initiative to ask. Something Americans are more and more into, opposite to what I once thought of Americans the bold, the straightforward. I continued that I may ask for permission to participate after several such outreach activities have been done. She gladly replied "oh you don't need permission". I thought to myself, I do. I believe one must own one's ministry, or else, you let wolves in, you let the charismatics type in with all the wrong doctrines, and that is not good because this is not some ecumenical ministry where we could consider working with the like of the charismatics or evangelicals. As for prayer, I added: I will pray for even more challenge to the ministry. I believe I said it in response to her asking me to pray for the ministry to be a smooth going one. She said "Oh...no..." at first, but as I explained, she immediately agreed. However, after she told me the following week (last Sunday praise rehearsal) that she announced it on Tuesday prayer meeting (that I would pray for opposition to the ministry, or something like that), I immediately questioned if she got any push back, to which she said they just chuckled. However, after our fellowship meal that day, where the pastor met up with the outreach team, which I joined, to give us some pointers. I agreed with most parts: Let God work, don't fight, you're in someone's house (private property), etc. until he talked about walking away when tough questions are asked (i.e. is your church LGBT friendly, etc.) with the idea that these folks usually aren't interested in the Gospel, and eventually remarking what Eleni publicly shared on Tuesday indirectly by saying: "Do not pray for opposition, opposition is against God, praying for opposition is to be in opposition to God, it's not good to be against God" I thought to myself - ah...hah, I knew someone would not like it. Almost like a "I told you so" to Eleni. She texted me about it later. Even Rob just looked at me in silent after that as he had brought it up to me that day just before the fellowship meal in that both Rob and Eleni already understood what I meant about praying for challenges. I prefer the word challenge to opposition, which I doubt was the word I used. Of course, I've wondered about the pastor's principle of life and evangelism: The walk away from challenges, escapism, run away from politics, relax, hard work but don't look for more, and justifying it with God's blessing/providence instead is just a big problem with modern people in the West these days. As Stephen Tong would say: 沒做錯事因爲再來不做事。They would call this not indolence but wisdom. This would also be something I look to push back against Alex Tseng's anti-squeezism of Stephen Tong. True, overworking is always wrong, but the question is where is the borderline towards overworking? We were pushed pass imaginary limits all the time in school, at least the schools we used to have, and we never regret it today with gratitude. But today, this would come back as abuse, workaholic, etc.
Now I kind of figure that when pastor Chris mentioned about talking on PRAYER for next week's Sunday School, it must be because of what I told Eleni. I guess he could add on top of "we are not to go against God", with "we are not to pray to God for temptations, but lead us not into temptation instead". Of course, all these, if it solidify, not only shows a serious misunderstanding of what I said and the lack of basic mature fellowship quality (though better than most others who keep their homes closed to others) not to mention pastoral care to reach out to me to discuss this after all these time of fellowship (we've started attending this church since April 2021), but also the shallow fundamentalist take on any debate: when you cannot defeat your opponent, you go for the strawman. Equating praying for challenges to grow in apologetics to opposition to ministries.... to opposition to God. Not to mention using the "pulpit" to do this, even though technically it's not a pulpit but similar nonetheless when others don't get the convenient chance to rebut. But it is fine, this pastor loves the Lord in serving Him, just that the Bob Jones background got to him perhaps. I don't know. His uncle as well, whom I do not know but figure must be some fundamentalist Baptist minister. It's as if I am dealing with someone who doesn't believe in God exercising men via burdensome tasks (Ecc 1:13), baptizing us with FIRE! (Mat 3:11, Luk 3:16), "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34-36). Also, Revelation 3:18 "buy from Christ gold refined by fire" can also be read into challenges, trials, etc. The keyword that is better than suffering would be "refinement", "refining", to refine us. It's a challenge, a good one from the Lord for me to deal with this in love and to better my argument, sharpening my doctrine on things. I even learned from the classic show Beverly Hills 90210 which I just started to watch with Nadia at times: "Even though I'm not perfect, but I'm not a jerk". This is my text response to Eleni:
Hi brother, I had no idea Pastor was going to mention the prayer for opposition. I understand your intent is the goal to grow our faith; Much like a missionary we heard about that prays for persecution here in the US so the church will grow. In any case, I do agree with Pastor that we should pray for God to work and we should pray that he will bless the means used to share the gospel. If there is opposition, May the Lord give us wisdom and discernment and May He protect us. Please pray for that as well. God bless you and Nadia!!
Howdy sister! Haha, I was thinking then I should pray for even 10 times the challenge.
I figured there would be opposition had you brought it up to others. This stuff needs time to unpack, or it would be taken out of context. But since it's done through 3rd party and such I'll just assume the benefit of the doubt, that something got lost in communication LOL.
I'm with John Wesley when he reacted to St. Patrick's ministry (if memory serves) being so well received in Ireland, by saying: If the preaching brought no attack, either there's no devil in this world or he did not preach the Gospel of Christ.
But of course, you got my point. The key is to see God at work, so the more challenge (perhaps better than 'opposition') the greater we could praise and glorify God and less of ourselves, while at the same time, we LEARN to witness Christian love/wisdom and not combative hatred/ignorance which is what natural men expect to others. So I agree with the rest of what Pastor said 😉 Perhaps there are better words for me to choose, maybe I'm just not that good of a poet 🙂 Bottom line, We don't celebrate hardship but do need it in this world especially in our fallen state, that's just natural. Even the Greeks knew when they say: The unexamined life is not worth living.
Amen!
[I made reference to "not that good of a poet" as a sarcasm to what the pastor said of no one studies poetry today when they took English phrases like "cut off your arm" literally in the Bible]
So yea, I treat it as a good "OPPOSITION" what happened today at the meeting 🙂 Something for me to think about, choice of words use, etc. 🙂
Here's one of my favorite prayer by General Douglas MacArthur, the fundamentalist[s] might push back on this as well, but I believe it's a good prayer:
Build me a son, O Lord, who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid; one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory. Build me a son whose wishes will not take the place of deeds; a son who will know Thee—and that to know himself is the foundation-stone of knowledge. Lead him, I pray, not in the path of ease and comfort, but under the stress and spur of difficulties and challenge. Here let him learn to stand up in the storm; here let him learn compassion for those who fail. Build me a son whose heart will be clean, whose goal will be high, a son who will master himself before he seeks to master other men, one who will reach into the future, yet never forget the past. And after all these things are his, give him, I pray, enough of a sense of humor, so that he may always be serious, yet never take himself too seriously. Give him humility, so that he may always remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, and the meekness of true strength. Then I, his father, will dare to whisper, ‘I have not lived in vain.’ ~ Douglas MacArthur
Excellent! I love that!! So sorry I mentioned your prayer to the Pastor. Something did get lost in the translation. I knew what you meant.
This is worth memorizing, especially for this coming Sunday: "Lead him, I pray, not in the path of ease and comfort, but under the stress and spur of difficulties and challenge. Here let him learn to stand up in the storm." But of course, I would add, more importantly, as we put up the good fight, let us remember, it is God at work and not us, we are but witnesses in God's Spirit. The greater the challenge I wish, to see the greater God's glory and honor.
