More Active Posts
Front Page
Averting ruin
 |
 15 Comments |
Because he was too blind to see it himself, Pharaoh’s servants screwed up their courage to tell him:
“How long shall this man [Moses] be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God. Do you not yet understand that Egypt is ruined?” (Exodus 10:7).
We tend to be the last ones to see our own ruin: “Strangers devours his strength, and he knows it not; gray hairs are sprinkled upon him, and he knows it not” (Hosea 7:9).
There is a Christian institution I know that is the last to see that it has become a “horror…a reproach, a byword, a taunt” (Jeremiah 24:9). It continues to pipe out cheery newsletters, healing its wound lightly, “saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace (Jeremiah 8:11).
When I asked an insider why they don’t stop business-as-usual and call a week of prayer and fasting, he said they didn’t want the matter to spread beyond the boundaries of the community. That’s very different from King Josiah’s style (2 Kings 23), or Moses’ (Numbers 14), or Nehemiah’s (Nehemiah 9), who called for public, sackcloth-and-ashes repentance.
Esther also knew better than to make a move without insisting on three days of a fasting back-up (Esther 4:16). Zipporah averted her husband Moses’ ruin by quick, godly thinking (Exodus 4:24,25). And even an evil man in Luke 16 had the good sense to take drastic action to avert his ruin.
“A little folly outweighs wisdom and honor” (Ecclesiastes 10:1). It is a commonplace that “more is caught than taught.” Who will be attracted to the Lord’s kingdom when in the time of testing of our faith, we prove that we don’t believe a word of it?
 |
Topic: Front Page, Odds & Ends |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: church, prayer |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
Could someone enlighten me? I have no idea what she’s talking about, although there are probably dozens or “Christian” organizations this might apply to.
If one is going to make such charges, and they may indeed be warranted, I am puzzled that journalistic ethics would not require:
1) the specifics
2) the actual institution
Otherwise this is pure speculation which has the possiblity of accidentally being coupled to innocent institutions. The lack of information would not seem to improve the quality of the discussion.
Oh, I thought she was talking about World Magazine.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Just kidding.)
One could assume, rightly or wrongly, that she is referring to Westminster Seminary’s controversy over Prof. Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation.
Excuse me, but the quote below taken from the TOPIC post doesn’t mention the ACCUSED but dances around the subjext with Scripture (eleven passages of Scripture) passed around as if it all fit together - which it DOESN’T -
If one wants to point out a sinful condition in a Christian organization, finds it needful to make inuendo, then name it and PROVE what your accusing them of doing, anything else is just ‘gossip’ -
“There is a Christian institution I know that is the last to see that it has become a “horror…a reproach, a byword, a taunt”
This guessing game is not scriptural, nor does it edify the body of Christ, it serves no purpose but to engage in SPECULATION -
victoria post 6,
you and I are in full agreement here!
Musing, that just can’t happen - what will people say?
Anree,
I know exactly what you trying to convey and agree with you wholeheartedly.
My thoughts on reading the post were that Andree was not trying to draw attention to the organization in question, but just using them as an example of the same pattern she saw in Scripture, as a warning to herself and any readers who might be inclined to make the same error.
I admit that my first thought (particularly as I have been thinking about it lately) was of the PC(USA), of which the pastor of a church I used to attend (in the Philadelphia Presbytery, not so far from where Andree lives) wrote about recently in his blog. He spoke of the celebratory nature of the recent General Assembly (which he attended as an observer), while the decisions they were making are very distressing to conservatives in the denomination who want to remain faithful to Scripture. But the divisions between liberals and conservatives within the PC(USA) have been well known for years, so it has long ago “spread beyond the boundaries of the community.”
Pauline post 10,
fair enough BUT in putting out the item without details it opens up the opportunity for the discussion to be misapplied to innocent parties.
The topic could have been begun without referring to any institution, and that would have been clean.
But as posed, I suggest that this is being just a bit too cute.
Llama and Pauline,
You might have the ’secret code’ for this piece of GOSSIP, but it isn’t scriptural. Trying to rig up a discussion based on nothing but inuendo isn’t honest. Trying now to guess who she’s talking about isn’t honest either.
What this sounds like as I read some of your posts reminds me of High School, with a bunch of girls who gossip. The conversation goes something like this:
“did you know that, well I can’t name her, but she’s you know, ‘pregnant’ she’s gaining weight and she cries in class, wait till her mom finds out” — “you’re kidding, who is it, come on, we won’t tell, oh I bet its Cindy, or Mindy they both, well you know” — “I just can’t tell”
Then you can add a half dozen passages of Scripture or more and BINGO, you have a real piece of GOSSIP going through school.
Yep its an attention getter, and soon after a few girls are trying to regain the reputation for something that wasn’t true.
WHAT and WHO does this BENEFIT?
Don’t forget about Abigail averting disaster with David!
Victoria,
I have no idea what organization Andree was talking about, and I am not attempting to figure out, or to suggest I know. I mentioned the first organization that popped into my mind, because my husband is a member of it and its errors are a serious concern to us. But I also pointed out that it is clearly not the one Andree is talking about. It would, however, be another example of what she is talking about, although it is hardly without public criticism.
My point is that I do not see evidence in Andree’s post that she is trying to make the conversation about that unknown organization, simply using it as an example of warning to herself and us. It is evidence of our (generic “our” as in the human race of which we all are member) sinful tendency to want to know what errors others are making that we start wondering and guessing. Perhaps it would have been wiser for Andree to word her post differently, but I do not think she intended to start a guessing game over it.
the main point (being overlooked) is that we need to take some time to see the big logs in our eyes, instead of talking brightly about the weather…
Nathan confronted David, who then admitted wrong.
I can think of at least one institution to which she is probably not referring (most of us know institutions which could use more transparency and light). Let the roaches crawl out and be killed. Don’t keep them hidden.