This week at Avalon Church the guest speaker was Dustin Janney. Dustin is the music leader and the Youth Pastor at the church. I'll admit it always felt a little weird to refer to someone who just turned 30 and could pass for 25 if he needed to as "Pastor Dustin" but after this week I have no more issues using the title with him.
Pastor Dustin spoke about the presence of God, how there is nowhere you can go where His presence is not, and that His presence is real whether you are aware of it or not. He spoke about signs we have experienced the presence of God, and explained that if you are not experiencing freedom, you are not experiencing the reality of God's presence.
I had never heard him deliver a message before (at least without a guitar in his hands) but always thought he should be given his chance to put on the "big pants" and grab the microphone. Being the Youth Pastor and spending most of his ministry time with middle and high school students, his style is naturally geared toward them. What I liked best was that he did not try to change that style or the message to fit the main service. Based on the phrasing he used and the anecdotes he chose, it felt like he was addressing a group of students. But when you get right down to it, aren't we all students after all? Anyway, the passion he has for God and His truth was so clear in that short time he had, it changed my whole perception of him.
I don't think I can properly express how grateful I am to God that He has assembled so much talent at Avalon Church, and that I get to experience it every week. I'm looking forward to having you sing for us again next week, Pastor Dustin, but I also hope you have more chances to teach us through the spoken message. Also, I'll never think of TooJay's garlic chicken pasta the same way again.
"Pastor Dustin." Yeah, that doesn't feel strange at all now.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Why I like Pastor Jim
During Pastor Dale's month of reflection and recovery (see here), we have had a succession of guest speakers in the church. Last week the Executive Pastor, Jim Groves, gave the message. Pastor Jim is the usual "backup" and has filled in several times before, always with good results. Last week, again, was no disappointment.
Pastor Jim spoke about Peter's journey from an impetuous young follower who thought he might show God what's what to the apostle who was, literally, the rock on which the modern church was founded. The best part, though, was that he did it in the first person, speaking as Peter. He relayed the story from Matthew 16 when Jesus rebuked Peter for denying that he would be crucified, explaining the mindset and what he may have been thinking. And he relayed the maturity found in I Peter, written with thirty more years of life experience behind it.
The point he was really making, especially with the "Get thee behind me, Satan" found in Mt. 16:23, was that while believing in God is good, we also need to just believe God. That's the home of true faith - just believe God. And the whole thing, with Pastor Jim speaking in first person, as though Jesus had just been standing next to him a few minutes ago when this happened, never really felt like a sermon.
That's when it struck me, why I'm always so moved and appreciative when Pastor Jim speaks. He doesn't preach, he just talks. I know most of you don't see the difference, but when he's done speaking I feel like I've just had an entire conversation with him, even though I never got to talk. It's a little frustrating that I don't have the words to adequately describe the experience, but I'll tell you what you can do - follow this link:
http://www.avalonchurch.org/sermon_browser/sermon_detail.php?id=329
And take a listen. Tell me if you hear what I hear.
Pastor Jim spoke about Peter's journey from an impetuous young follower who thought he might show God what's what to the apostle who was, literally, the rock on which the modern church was founded. The best part, though, was that he did it in the first person, speaking as Peter. He relayed the story from Matthew 16 when Jesus rebuked Peter for denying that he would be crucified, explaining the mindset and what he may have been thinking. And he relayed the maturity found in I Peter, written with thirty more years of life experience behind it.
The point he was really making, especially with the "Get thee behind me, Satan" found in Mt. 16:23, was that while believing in God is good, we also need to just believe God. That's the home of true faith - just believe God. And the whole thing, with Pastor Jim speaking in first person, as though Jesus had just been standing next to him a few minutes ago when this happened, never really felt like a sermon.
That's when it struck me, why I'm always so moved and appreciative when Pastor Jim speaks. He doesn't preach, he just talks. I know most of you don't see the difference, but when he's done speaking I feel like I've just had an entire conversation with him, even though I never got to talk. It's a little frustrating that I don't have the words to adequately describe the experience, but I'll tell you what you can do - follow this link:
http://www.avalonchurch.org/sermon_browser/sermon_detail.php?id=329
And take a listen. Tell me if you hear what I hear.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Scripture vs. Science
Inspired by a very interesting conversation with a very interesting coworker.
Increasingly there seems to be conflict between the world of religion and the world of science. We are told that the Bible represents a pre-scientific world view and are faced with a choice between the facts of science and the fantasy of scripture. This conflict partially stems from the fact that science frequently oversteps its bounds - instead of being a method of discovering knowledge it has become an all encompassing world view. In truth, there are only conflicts between science and the Bible when science begins to speculate on origins and destinies. But those things are not subject to observation and experimentation, which brings the entire discussion into the world of religion.
Herbert Spencer was a non-Christian scientist who died in 1903 and was best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest." His greatest achievement, though, was his discovery of the categories of the knowable. That is to say, everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, and matter.
With this in mind, take a look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning [time], God [force] created [action] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]." No conflict with science there! The real test you are facing is not whether science is "right" but it's as simple as do you believe the Bible? Not what somebody says about the Bible, but what the Bible actually says? Take into account that the Bible does not say when creation took place, simply that it did. You can't get through the first two chapters of the Bible without facing this test repeatedly.
Now, the statement that may shock some folks: there is no such thing as creation science. Because there is no scientific way to explain creation. It was a brief series of monumental supernatural events that cannot be explained by science. Science is based on observation and there were no witnesses to creation. Science is based on verification by repetition and creation cannot be repeated. So any attempt to explain or prove creation by scientific means is bunk.
Let’s say you were in Galilee the week after Jesus fed the five thousand men, plus women, plus children, the loaves and the fish and you wanted to know where in the world did He get that ability to do that? How did He do that? How did He feed those people with loaves and fish, how did He do that miracle? And you decided that you were going to go up there and you’re going to interview all those people and you’re going to ask them about what they felt while they were eating it and how it was digested and any experiences that they might have had after having that meal. It wouldn’t do any good if you were in the process of that investigation trying to figure out how Jesus made fish and bread out of nothing. You see, that is analogous to the issue of creation. You can observe the way things are now but that doesn’t tell you anything about how they became what they are. Creation cannot be understood any other way than by believing the revelation of the creator. And that’s your first test when you open your Bible.
So, having rejected the Bible and God's authority, science had to come up with something to explain how we got here. Evolution is simply mankind's latest attempt to suppress our innate knowledge of God and the fact we are accountable to Him. Yet evolution has never been observed or verified through repeatable experimentation. Here I am speaking of macro evolution, a change in kind, not simply a change within a kind. Yes, there is a difference. Yes, that difference is enormous.
As for the age of the universe? I don't know, but I'm in the "young Earth" camp. Maybe six thousand years, maybe ten thousand, I'm not really picky on that. The Bible doesn't give a date, so I'm not going to force one on it. All the different arguments about the age of the Earth from both camps come from the fact that the great flood in Genesis messed up our ability to determine the age of things that existed before the flood. Again, an event that is not repeatable.
So, again, the question for everybody is, do you believe Genesis 1-2? If not, where does the Bible start being true? Chapter 3? Chapter 4? Maybe in Exodus?
Some things simply cannot be proved by man, and all man's attempts to prove them have resulted in failure.
Increasingly there seems to be conflict between the world of religion and the world of science. We are told that the Bible represents a pre-scientific world view and are faced with a choice between the facts of science and the fantasy of scripture. This conflict partially stems from the fact that science frequently oversteps its bounds - instead of being a method of discovering knowledge it has become an all encompassing world view. In truth, there are only conflicts between science and the Bible when science begins to speculate on origins and destinies. But those things are not subject to observation and experimentation, which brings the entire discussion into the world of religion.
Herbert Spencer was a non-Christian scientist who died in 1903 and was best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest." His greatest achievement, though, was his discovery of the categories of the knowable. That is to say, everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, and matter.
With this in mind, take a look at Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning [time], God [force] created [action] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]." No conflict with science there! The real test you are facing is not whether science is "right" but it's as simple as do you believe the Bible? Not what somebody says about the Bible, but what the Bible actually says? Take into account that the Bible does not say when creation took place, simply that it did. You can't get through the first two chapters of the Bible without facing this test repeatedly.
Now, the statement that may shock some folks: there is no such thing as creation science. Because there is no scientific way to explain creation. It was a brief series of monumental supernatural events that cannot be explained by science. Science is based on observation and there were no witnesses to creation. Science is based on verification by repetition and creation cannot be repeated. So any attempt to explain or prove creation by scientific means is bunk.
Let’s say you were in Galilee the week after Jesus fed the five thousand men, plus women, plus children, the loaves and the fish and you wanted to know where in the world did He get that ability to do that? How did He do that? How did He feed those people with loaves and fish, how did He do that miracle? And you decided that you were going to go up there and you’re going to interview all those people and you’re going to ask them about what they felt while they were eating it and how it was digested and any experiences that they might have had after having that meal. It wouldn’t do any good if you were in the process of that investigation trying to figure out how Jesus made fish and bread out of nothing. You see, that is analogous to the issue of creation. You can observe the way things are now but that doesn’t tell you anything about how they became what they are. Creation cannot be understood any other way than by believing the revelation of the creator. And that’s your first test when you open your Bible.
So, having rejected the Bible and God's authority, science had to come up with something to explain how we got here. Evolution is simply mankind's latest attempt to suppress our innate knowledge of God and the fact we are accountable to Him. Yet evolution has never been observed or verified through repeatable experimentation. Here I am speaking of macro evolution, a change in kind, not simply a change within a kind. Yes, there is a difference. Yes, that difference is enormous.
As for the age of the universe? I don't know, but I'm in the "young Earth" camp. Maybe six thousand years, maybe ten thousand, I'm not really picky on that. The Bible doesn't give a date, so I'm not going to force one on it. All the different arguments about the age of the Earth from both camps come from the fact that the great flood in Genesis messed up our ability to determine the age of things that existed before the flood. Again, an event that is not repeatable.
So, again, the question for everybody is, do you believe Genesis 1-2? If not, where does the Bible start being true? Chapter 3? Chapter 4? Maybe in Exodus?
Some things simply cannot be proved by man, and all man's attempts to prove them have resulted in failure.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A better way to pray. But first, a joke.
A man is getting concerned about his son, who is reaching adulthood but still doesn't know what he wants to do with his life. The man calls the preacher for advice.
"We'll give him a little test," the preacher says, "and he'll tell us what he wants to do without knowing it."
The preacher goes into the boy's room and puts four items on his bed: a Bible, a dollar bill, a bottle of whiskey, and a dirty magazine. He explains to the father, "We'll watch through the window and see what he picks up first. If it's the Bible, he'll be a preacher, praise God. If it's the dollar, he'll be a businessman, which is still good. If it's the whiskey, he'll be a lazy no good drunkard, and if it's the magazine, he'll be a worthless skirt chasing womanizer."
They head outside when the son comes home and watch through the window. The boy takes a look at the items. He picks up the Bible and puts it under his arm. He takes the dollar and puts it in his pocket. He picks up the whiskey and takes a swig while admiring the centerfold in the magazine.
"Lord help us," says the preacher, "he's going to run for Congress!"
Like my earlier joke, it would be funnier if it weren't so true. Which leads me into the real point I want to get to. The relationship between a Christian and the government has been weighing on me recently. Beyond the standard platitudes of render unto Caesar, blah, blah, what is my real responsibility?
See, I have deep, fundamental philosophical differences with the current administration, and I have not been quiet about them. But it's been suggested to me that our duty to God is to pay our taxes and be model citizens. I don't take this to mean unquestioning agreement with the government, nor does it outlaw working within the law to stop or change policy. But I've been concerned lately that airing my disagreements may cause me to be perceived as an angry, complaining nut job. And that would most definitely hurt my testimony for Jesus.
So rather than spend my time pointing out the flaws of our never-perfect government or praying for "deliverance", I've decided to pray both for our current elected leaders to have wisdom, and also for God to raise up candidates for office that understand that being elected to office and placed in authority is a divine privilege and one of the highest forms of service to Him. What if we all prayed for that? Would it be possible that on a future ballot there would be a candidate you would actually be proud to vote for, and remain proud of afterward? How refreshing would that be?
Good thing I got that Congress joke out of my system first.
"We'll give him a little test," the preacher says, "and he'll tell us what he wants to do without knowing it."
The preacher goes into the boy's room and puts four items on his bed: a Bible, a dollar bill, a bottle of whiskey, and a dirty magazine. He explains to the father, "We'll watch through the window and see what he picks up first. If it's the Bible, he'll be a preacher, praise God. If it's the dollar, he'll be a businessman, which is still good. If it's the whiskey, he'll be a lazy no good drunkard, and if it's the magazine, he'll be a worthless skirt chasing womanizer."
They head outside when the son comes home and watch through the window. The boy takes a look at the items. He picks up the Bible and puts it under his arm. He takes the dollar and puts it in his pocket. He picks up the whiskey and takes a swig while admiring the centerfold in the magazine.
"Lord help us," says the preacher, "he's going to run for Congress!"
Like my earlier joke, it would be funnier if it weren't so true. Which leads me into the real point I want to get to. The relationship between a Christian and the government has been weighing on me recently. Beyond the standard platitudes of render unto Caesar, blah, blah, what is my real responsibility?
See, I have deep, fundamental philosophical differences with the current administration, and I have not been quiet about them. But it's been suggested to me that our duty to God is to pay our taxes and be model citizens. I don't take this to mean unquestioning agreement with the government, nor does it outlaw working within the law to stop or change policy. But I've been concerned lately that airing my disagreements may cause me to be perceived as an angry, complaining nut job. And that would most definitely hurt my testimony for Jesus.
So rather than spend my time pointing out the flaws of our never-perfect government or praying for "deliverance", I've decided to pray both for our current elected leaders to have wisdom, and also for God to raise up candidates for office that understand that being elected to office and placed in authority is a divine privilege and one of the highest forms of service to Him. What if we all prayed for that? Would it be possible that on a future ballot there would be a candidate you would actually be proud to vote for, and remain proud of afterward? How refreshing would that be?
Good thing I got that Congress joke out of my system first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)