kef1000blog

kef1000blog
Dear fellow elders,
Too often we get so caught up in what the Bible says that we fail to ascertain what it means. I think this is what happens when many of us consider the role of women in the church. Just as we are mystified and amazed at the way that the majority of the Jews of Jesus' day failed to recognize Him as the Messiah, so too, years from now, will others be to our blindness concerning women.
As elders we are called to guide just one congregation in one place at one time. We must make Scripture relevant to the society we want to impact without regard for what others are doing elsewhere. It is not our job to judge women, but we are to interpret God's Word. In doing so, tradition and past practice should not be allowed to impede our efforts to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
Our view of society must be subject to our Scriptural outlook. We must not allow our prejudices and other cultural baggage to blind us to the truth: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."(Gal. 3:28) And we must act accordingly.
Following the example of Christ, we must bring the other half of our body into full service and equal status as colaborers in the vineyard of the Lord and full partners in His church —— as He intended our fellow saints should be. Past injustice cannot be undone; what we've forfeited may never be gained. Left unattended the present situation will only grow more intolerable. We can insure a better future by casting the plank of male superiority from our eye and allowing every believer to participate fully ---based on their God-given gifts rather than their God-given gender. Anything less will only accrue to our shame —- and to the disappointment of the One who saves us all.
We are guilty of a sort of benign sexism when we refer to men as deacons and women as servants. God didn't interpret "diakonon" as servant rather than deaconess in Romans 16:1 --- a committee of men did.
In His dealings with people Jesus practiced the art of inclusion (children, Gentiles, Samaritans, the poor, the rich, the crippled, and, yes, even women) while His disciples, due to their prejudices, protested in dismay. We need to apply this craft today.
Each congregation's elders have been entrusted by God with members of various special talents. As in the parable of Jesus one congregation may have ten people of extraordinary ability while another has five or even only one. As overseers our responsibility is to invest the efforts of these people wisely. Should we hesitate to do so out of fear of failing to live up to some arbitrary, self-imposed restrictions, or is more expected of us than that? What shall we say to our Lord when He returns?
"We knew you were a hard God with many rules about who may work for you and we didn't think we should use all the human capital that you gave us. See, here are the women ---we buried them in tedious details while you were away so that they could not interfere with the work of your church."
Will we then be called wicked servants and cast out due to our poor stewardship of the treasures we were given to invest in the Lord's work?
How much better it will be to hear Him say,"Well done, good shepherds; you have been faithful with the flock you were given: they have grown in both spirit and number. Come and share in your master's happiness."
Some of us may not be completely convinced of the propriety of female deacons until Jesus offers to allay our doubts face to face. But if we will someday have to explain what turns out to be an error in judgment, I would much prefer to explain why I chose to include rather than exclude. I hope and pray that my fellow elders would prefer this also.

kef1000blog
“The Passion of the Christ”
The controversy over whether Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, should win Best Picture credits is seen by many Christians as just one more example of an ongoing cultural war being fought in America between believers and a godless Hollywood. It is unfortunate that Christians have invested so much energy in their support for this film. The movie should be judged by Hollywood’s standards for a Hollywood honor. The fact that it is about our Lord and Savior doesn’t mean that Christians must prefer it over other films. It may be the best film released last year. But if it doesn’t win that doesn’t automatically mean that it was discriminated against because of its subject matter.
I found the movie to be excessively violent, steeped in mysticism, expressing a proclivity for the cult of the Virgin Mary, and lacking a firm Scriptural base.
The cinematic violence began with the beatings of Jesus at his arrest. The bridge scene was particularly outrageous. But we read in Matthew that the only violence recorded was Peter’s use of a sword on the ear of a servant of the high priest. Jesus immediately reprimanded Peter and corrected the problem (as one would expect from a man of peace). Not only that, but John tells us that those sent to arrest Jesus weren’t sure what they were getting into. He says that when Jesus identified himself “they drew back and fell to the ground;” hardly the eager to strike bullies depicted in the film. Furthermore, Mark quotes Jesus as asking, “Am I leading a rebellion that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?” This indicates a willingness to go peaceably which the text leads one to believe he did. In fact, according to John, the first instance of violence directed toward our Lord occurred when an official didn’t like what he perceived as insolence on the part of Jesus in answering a question put by the high priest. We are told that he “struck him in the face.” Certainly this would not have been noted if Jesus had received the treatment shown in the movie.
The Gospel writers make it clear that Jesus was beaten, mocked, spit upon, flogged, and ultimately crucified for our sins. But the movie takes liberties even with this. For instance, during the flogging Jesus is depicted as being almost out when suddenly he rises to his feet in a momentary bit of defiance. Rather than causing one to empathize with the Son of the Living God, one feels like one is watching Rocky Balboa in a late round of a championship fight. But Jesus is quickly beaten down again and the blood continues to flow. Indeed, seemingly gallons of red are splattered everywhere during the movie.
If one didn’t already know the story, one would be inclined to view it as a mystical journey quite beyond understanding. The movie continuously highlights strange looking characters that seem menacing; one guesses that they are supposed to be Satan and his minions. But treating the devil as a space alien adds nothing to the film and detracts from the truth that Satan was being defeated by the very events being depicted.
I was also struck by the constant attention paid to Mary throughout the movie. Numerous cameos and a constant presence gave the impression that the movie was as much about her as it was about him. No doubt Mel Gibson’s Catholicism spilled into the movie. Any true depiction of the passion of Christ should properly concentrate on him and his suffering. It is too bad that the emphasis on Mary is allowed to detract from the central story.
It is perhaps a sign that American Christians feel besieged in a culture gone haywire that so many have boiled down the question of the merits of this movie to a simple equation: us verses them. It doesn’t need to be that way. Christians may disagree on the quality of the film and certainly non-Christians may also.

This is a test to see how blogging works.