#presbyterian podcasters

[battleforgodstruth]

Thursday Thanksgiving Day Special - Live @ 3:00 PM EST! What I Am Thankful For - Pastor Patrick Hines Reformed Christian Podcast

Thursday Thanksgiving Day Special – Live @ 3:00 PM EST!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HBnLlk2TnQ Thanksgiving Day Special / What I Am Thankful For – Pastor Patrick Hines Reformed Christian Podcast

[electricparson]

In this episode, I talk with Presbyterian Pastor Paul Moore about the shrinking Mainline Church and what he thinks can be done for churches to grow again. Paul believes that to grow you need to “grow young.”

[denminn]

Inclusion, Pluralism and the Presbyterian Church (USA) with Jack Haberer | Episode 188

[yourdailyqueer]

Erin Swenson

Gender: Transgender woman

Sexuality: N/A

DOB: Born 1947

Ethnicity: White - American

Occupation: Former Presbyterian minister, podcaster

[breitzbachbea]

I will warn though, it is a horror shows. Now, I am usually complete chickenshit with Horror and I could handle it well enough (did have to sleep with the lights on for only a few days), but there are a few jumpscares (very few) and depiction of Gore, especially medical Gore.

If you'd like more historical background on the episodes, you can also listen along with the "Binge O'Clock" Podcast, who are currently doing the series.

"What's this" DO YOU LIKE HISTORICAL SHOWS? DO YOU LIKE STORIES THAT TELL THE FOLLY OF IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND THE FATAL TRUST IN A TELEOLOGICAL MODEL OF THE WORLD? DO YOU WANT TO KEEP STARING AT TOO MANY WHITE MAN WHO LOOK ENTIRELY ALIKE AND BE GLAD EVERY TIME THEY GET PICKED OFF BY THE EMBODIMENT OF THE ICE'S WRATH WHICH IS A BIG FUCKING BEAR? BOY DO I HAVE THE SHOW FOR YOU. No but for real, The Terror S1 is a very good miniseries. And it is simply beautiful to look at.

I watched Bridgerton, I can handle too many historical white men /jk

Fr though sounds interesting, especially the bear. Might check it out.

And sorry for the late reply, Tumblr mobile does not like to tell me when I get asks sometimes smh.

[a-queer-seminarian]

In 2017, Kate Davoli (they/them, MDiv) was dismissed from the ordination process for being polyamorous. In spite of this heartache, they have remained steadfastly part of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

In our conversation, Kate recalls the events leading up to & following their dismissal; ponders what we learn about God through polyamorous people's lives & callings; and balances the heartache of being denied ordination with the queer gift of how their liminal status facilitates ministry to church-hurt people.

Listen wherever you get podcasts — or click here for a direct link + episode transcript.

[nico-di-genova]

can I ask about rossi’s religious trauma? I know it’s a recurring theme on tumblr about him but I’m curious. has he talked about not being religious anymore, or is it just an assumption based on how weird his childhood was? he doesn’t seem like the type to talk about it either way but idk

Just kind of a general assumption I think, because yeah, he would never talk about it. He’s still religious, I believe, at least to some degree. He has the cross on the back of his helmet that’s always in the same place and he just did a speaker series event at a church, so it’s still something he at least believes in.

Most of it is rooted in his childhood I think. Because he’s mentioned before how his parents were super religious. I don’t believe he practices at the level they did, and the older he gets the more he seems to be pulling away. He used to do interviews where he mentioned racing and faith

But he doesn’t seem to talk about it publically as much these days, aside from the event he just did, which was private to the church. And there’s nothing on his website mentioning his faith anymore.

The only real time he talks about it at all during the podcast is around the holidays. Because they used to discuss how they were celebrating the holidays, if they have any family traditions, and there were a few times where Alex mentioned his childhood. It was like any of his other childhood stories, that his parents were strict. But he said his mom was mainly the driving force behind how they celebrated Christmas and how it was always focused on the “true meaning of the holiday” i.e. Jesus’ birth. So he wouldn’t get gifts from his parents, wasn’t raised to believe in Santa or any of that “kid” stuff, just seemed to have been brought up with a very traditionally conservative mindset.

This is what was said about him in 2015, so it could still very much be his mindset:

Which I get. He’s not Sting Ray driving the pray-mobile, there’s really no reason at all he’d need to bring up religion unless it was a relevant topic.

I personally always explore the concept of it in my fics because a lot of symptoms of religious trauma (shame, anxiety, depression, perfectionism, OCD, this sort of idea that you’re “wrong”) are vaguely general and easy to see in his behaviors. He’s already said he has anxiety, multiple times, even if it’s sometimes said as a joke. And they used to talk a lot about his “OCD” on off track. No clue if there was some truth to it, or if he’s ever actually been diagnosed. He usually has this self deprecating approach when talking about himself too that just easily lends to the whole idea. But yeah, his behavior and the hints we have of his childhood are really the only basis there is to the “religious trauma”.

Worth noting, and take it how you will, he seems to have been raised conservative Protestant but now looks to be a member of the more liberal branch of the Presbyterian church.

[moonmaenad]

I was baptized when I was 3. Church of England because that was my mother's faith and my dad had been excommunicated from his church (Presbyterian) by pregnancy out of wedlock to her and choosing her over them and hadn't been back since.

I spent my summers going to a church in my holiday home area where we did activities and ofc went during Easter and Christmas services to one near my primary school.

My nan questioned her faith. She did every religion under the sun, including Church of Science and Catholicism. My great aunt also did the same. I find it natural to question faith; there are several instances during my life where I questioned and questioned how a loving G-d could let terrible things happen to me.

Hearing Aidan Mattis on the Weird Bible podcast say "questioning is a part of having faith" is yet another reason why this podcast makes me feel warm and fuzzy in a way holiday services and summer school never did.

Becoming christopagan is another step of my faith and working with the saint spirits is a way of deepening my connection.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Unduly Influenced By Celebrity Culture?

by Tony Felich

Christian people should be careful not to be too influenced by the celebrity culture of our age when being guided in some way by spiritual leaders who are not their local pastors or elders. Podcast preachers and YouTube teachers are not your pastors. Christians should commit to membership in a local congregation and eagerly sit under the preaching of that church for their primary spiritual nourishment.

It struck me as odd recently when a person I know expressed his personal devastation about a popular preacher falling into sin and being removed from his pastoral position and connected social media teaching platforms. My friend never met the well-known preacher in person, yet he acted as though he was his personal pastor who had fallen into a disqualifying sin.

Several years ago, Carl Trueman demonstrated how celebrity culture has greatly impacted evangelical Christianity in this country. He noted if you ask a person who their most influential preacher was, they would almost always list a well known “celebrity” pastor before their local church pastor(s).

Christian pastors and Christian people need to think honestly about whether this is true. Have we been unduly and unhealthily influenced by celebrity culture?

Allow me to postulate a bit…

The vast majority of those called to be Christian pastors should be satisfied with faithfully pastoring their local congregation and not seek after a wider “platform.” Pastors should know their ministry is to shepherd the flock of God “among them” (1 Pet 5:2). Shepherding includes feeding and tending. “Pastor” means shepherd. It is a hands-on, personal, localized ministry. If a pastor is doing these things in a particular local church, he won’t have much time to be online trying to influence everyone else’s flock. The idea of a pastor building his platform outside his local church seems to be a overestimation of his importance to God’s Kingdom. It’s hard to see how “He (Christ) must increase but I must decrease” (John 3:30), comports with “building my platform.” There are obviously exceptional Christian teachers, but they are much rarer than we think. For most of us local church pastors, we need to know our very limited place, put our shoulder to the plow, pray for God’s sustaining grace, eventually die and be forgotten. Faithful perseverance is our goal, not a massive “platform.”

Allow me to get to meddling…

Christian people should be careful not to be too influenced by the celebrity culture of our age when being guided in some way by spiritual leaders who are not their local pastors or elders. Podcast preachers and YouTube teachers are not your pastors. Christians should commit to membership in a local congregation and eagerly sit under the preaching of that church for their primary spiritual nourishment. It’s certainly a blessing to have so many sermons at our disposal digitally, but I sometimes wonder if such easy access has inoculated people from accountable application of biblical truth. We have a generation of hearers of the Word but not doers of the Word. Your best opportunity to live out biblical truth happens in your local church family where everyone is under the preaching of Scripture (what is true) that will include ways to live it out (what to do). Detaching a person’s feeding (preaching/teaching) ministry from their tending (personal interaction/example) ministry is a recipe for disappointment. Follow your local pastors/elders for spiritual nurture, where you can see their lives as well as hear their preaching and teaching.

In a nutshell, we will know Christianity is in a good place when its adherents cite their local church pastors/elders as their most influential preachers instead of Tweeters and Youtubers. “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7).”

Dr. Tony Felich is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as the Pastor of Redeemer PCA in Overland Park, Kansas.

[mere-christianity]

Mere Christianity Podcast: Part 1

A Christian apologetical book by the British author C. S. Lewis. It was adapted from a series of BBC radio talks made between 1941 and 1944, originally published as three separate volumes: Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1944). The book consists of four parts: the first presents Lewis's arguments for the existence of God; the second contains his defence of Christian theology, including his notable "Liar, lunatic, or Lord" trilemma; the third has him exploring Christian ethics, among which are cardinal and theological virtues; in the final, he writes on the Christian conception of God.

By Clives Stapleton Lewis, Professor at Cambridge University, England.

Preface

The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as The Case for Christianity (1943),  Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1945). In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been. A "talk" on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud.

In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions and colloquialisms I ordinarily use in conversation. In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don't and we've for do not and we have. And wherever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics.

I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake, an undesirable hybrid between the art of speaking and the art of writing. A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his medium naturally lends itself to that method: but a writer ought not to use italics for the same purpose. He has his own, different, means of bringing out the key words and ought to use them. In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replaced most of the italics by recasting the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the "popular" or "familiar" tone which I had all along intended. I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of my subject better now than ten years ago or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian "denominations." You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic.

This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially "high," nor especially "low," nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts.

I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls "mere" Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.

So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters.

For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I am. There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think I have the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." But there are other questions as to which I am definitely on one side of the fence, and yet say nothing. For I was not writing to expound something I could call "my religion," but to expound "mere" Christianity, which is what it is and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake.

It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic, an idolater, a Pagan. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about "mere" Christianity, if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin's son is God, surely this is it.

Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."

All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write; not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret. To quote Uncle Toby: "They are written in the Common-Prayer Book."

The danger dearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly "vetted" because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.

So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or "mere" Christianity. In that way it may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all.

If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

So much for my omissions on doctrine. In Book III, which deals with morals, I have also passed over some things in silence, but for a different reason. Ever since I served as an infantryman in the first world war I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissable and impermissable gambling: if there is any permissable, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.

Far deeper objections may be felt, and have been expressed,  against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said, so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully, "Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"

They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)

A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.

It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions, as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.

It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.

In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those Who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Book 1 The Law of Human Nature

Chapter 1.

Everyone has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?", "That's my seat, I was there first", "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm",  "Why should you shove in first?", "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine", "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law, with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to, whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong,  in other words, if there is no Law of Nature, what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money, the one you have almost forgotten, came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done, well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it, and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much, we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so, that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

To be continued in episode 2, based on the works of CS Lewis.

[battleforgodstruth]

We See The Fruit Of People Not Being Born Again - Pastor Patrick Hines Christian Podcast #shorts

LINK TO FULL PODCAST:Where The Dead Fish Go – Pastor Patrick Hines Reformed Christian Podcasthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnNZR6ugBmE&list=PLzOwqed_gET2vqbY_shSW0MfXtYGSoCnT&index=690 These two books are now available on Amazon. All proceeds go directly to Pastor Hines. ▶️Am I Right With God?: The Gospel, Justification, Saving Faith, Repentance, Assurance, & The New Birth…

[anacostiadigest]

Project Create - Anacostia, South East, Washington DC

As Historic Anacostia downtown main street business community, and the surrounding residential neighborhood experience growth and changes, the lives of young children and youth are impacted by the work of the Project Create, which has its roots in the early 1990s to provide a safe haven and after school creative art programs for children in the community.

Project Create, now in 2024, has its permanent place to call home in downtown Anacostia, where it provides free art and digital media classes to at-risk children and youth living in the Anacostia neighborhood and beyond. Project Create studio classes offers children and youth a gateway to engage in studio classes in learning to experiment in art expression of mixed-media collage, jewelry making, graphic design, dance, theater improv, and drawing & painting year round.

Back in the 1990’s, living in Anacostia was an extremely challenging time. Neighborhood children and youth needing a safe haven and after school programs to go to, but had no where to go. Filling that void of no place to go, is where Rev. John W. Wimberly, active in the community, and pastoring the Western Presbyterian Church in Washington DC, stepped in. Rev. Wimberly launched his after school program, which evolved into Project Create decade later.

Gaging the creative needs of Anacostia at risk children and youth, many with no outlet for after school programming, he started an after school program to meet the community needs. With a small beginning, that planted the seed of the creation of Project Create as a neighborhood after school program with a focus on the arts and culture in Anacostia, and connecting it to the museum resources in the city. That includes the Smithsonian, plus more.

In 2002, Project Create expanded to serve more children and youth in their after school program with collaborative efforts with So Others Might Eat (SOME), which is a non-profit focused on touching and transforming the lives of children and families who are underserved or homeless. With time, Project Create expanded collaborative efforts with Community of Hope, connecting children, youth, and their families to the city health care services.

By 2003, Project Create officially became a non-profit, and achieved a milestone to buy a building on the main street business corridor 208 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE. That is a monumental achievement given its humble beginnings back in the 1990s.

Today, Project Create is a art and cultural pillar in Anacostia downtown main street revitalization, with a focus on engaging children, youth, and their families to participate in the arts and emerging cultural community in Anacostia, and the opportunities within the city and beyond as participants of the program head for colleges and universities throughout the country. All classes are free, and it is open to children and youth of all ages.

Project Create has also expanded its program to offer digital media classes. It has a studio that is fully equipped with sound and recording equipment, DJ and podcast equipment, video and photo technology, new computers with graphic design capabilities, and 3-D printers. That gives way to so much creative space for underserved and homeless children, youth and their families to find creative spaces to thrive in the Washington DC area.

[minipliny]

I have the incredibly pressing sensation that there is Something I Have To Accomplish and I have no idea what specifically this is about. What I need to accomplish is sleeping and I was so desperate I switched from Thomas aquinas podcast episodes (moderate disinterest) to John Calvin (longing for unconsciousness) but now I have just learned more about the difference between the Presbyterians and the Covenanters

[ashleywritesstuff]

I don't really have more to add to what I wrote last year other than to say that Star Wars set me on a path to the work I do today. However you choose to Star Wars today, have a good one. May the Fourth be with you.

May the Fourth be with you! This was from last summer where we got to see the Millennium Falcon for the first time. I cried. It was not the reaction I expected to have, but this space opera was the first science fiction work that I truly loved. That love of sci-fi captured my imagination and fundamentally changed my trajectory, ultimately influencing my life as an adult. I have a M. A. in science fiction. I write and podcast about Star Wars and Star Trek as part of my job. And I think that’s pretty dang cool. So, May the Fourth be with you. And my inner Presbyterian replies, “And also with you.”

[johnhardinsawyer]

The Door is Always Open

John Sawyer

Bedford Presbyterian Church

3 / 17 / 24 – Fifth Sunday in Lent

Matthew 18:15-22

Psalm 119:9-16

“The Door is Always Open”

(Wandering Heart – Week 5)

I have told this story before, but there was a woman in my former congregation.  We’ll call her “Doris,” because this was her name.  At the time, I was serving as the Associate Pastor of the church and I worked closely with a Head of Staff/Senior Pastor, named Jarred.  One day, after church, this woman who we will call “Doris,” because that was her name, went up to Jarred and said, “The next time you talk with John about his sermons, tell him that he pushes his glasses up too often on his nose.  Maybe he needs new glasses because they keep falling down and he has to keep pushing them up.”  

Now, consider – for a moment – that Doris did not come to me, asking after my glasses or the complexion of my oily nose upon which the glasses sat.  No, Doris went to Jarred who then came to me, forming this bizarre triangle of communication.  

If you spend any time learning about how groups of people work together, you might come across this concept of triangulation,  in which, I have a problem with someone but instead of talking with them, directly, about it, I go and share my frustrations with someone else who then goes and shares my frustrations with the person I’m frustrated with.  Does this sound confusing?  Yes, it does.  Does it sound unnecessary?  Yes.  Does this sound like something that has ever been done to you?  I’m willing to guess, yes.  Does it sound like something you and I have ever done to someone else?  Yikes!  Probably. . . ?  Alas, Doris moved away before I was able to address this matter directly with her.  Let’s just say that some things are. . . still unresolved.

In today’s reading from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus teaches us about proper communication and healthy group dynamics.  We also learn that even when the group dynamics are not healthy, the door should always be left open for healing.  

The first part of today’s reading seems fairly straightforward.  Jesus starts by telling his disciples (which includes those of us who would seek to follow Jesus in our own lives) that, “if another member of the church sins against you. . .”  (Matthew 18:15). In the original language, Jesus is talking about someone who is as close to you as a sibling.  Jesus uses the word “brother” here, which implies a brother or sister in the faith who sins against you – someone who is part of the broader community of believers – someone in the household of disciples who harms you in some way.[1]  

Now, if you are new to church or think that everyone in church is super nice and nobody ever does anything to make anyone else feel bad, I’m sorry to shatter any illusions you might have.  Alas, we do not always live up to the ideals we profess.  There are any number of historical accounts, and books, and podcasts, and personal anecdotes about how people have been hurt by other people in the church.  In recent years, we have witnessed clergy abuse scandals, and churches torn apart by questions of sexual orientation and ordination, and marriage, and politics.  People can get hurt – physically, spiritually, emotionally – even at church.  Many of these hurt people might leave a particular congregation and never go back, or they might walk out of church-as-a-whole – the very idea of church or organized religion – and never come back.  In my mind, the church has a lot more confessing and repenting to do and a lot more relationships to heal.  

When it comes to healing relationships, Jesus tells us that the best kind of reconciliation happens face-to-face.  In today’s reading, there are the oft-quoted words of Jesus, which you heard earlier, “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” (18:20)  I’ve always thought of these words in a, “whenever two or three people get together in Jesus’ name, Jesus is spiritually present and it’s all wonderful” sense.  Upon reflection though, I’m thinking yes, it is true that Jesus does bring wonder and joy in moments of fellowship and community, but also, “whenever two or three people – who do not agree or who have hurt one another – get together in Jesus’ name, Jesus is there among them and it ain’t easy. . . but Jesus is there, bringing grace to the table, even when the people who have gathered around that table are fresh out of grace for one another.”  

You know, after the presidential election of 2016, I preached a sermon right here that rubbed some people the wrong way.  I admit that I did not choose my words wisely in that emotionally charged time.  But I only heard about the negative response to my sermon through back channels and specific names were never shared with me.  There was one person, though, who did come to talk.  They walked right into my colleague Karen’s office to talk to her about me and my sermon.  It could have been another “Doris” situation, but Karen – who knew something about the dangers of triangulation – immediately pulled that person next door into my office and we spoke face to face.  It took such courage for them to speak their mind directly to me.  And what they had to say was not easy for me to hear. But, in that moment, I sensed so much grace – grace that didn’t come from the brave, though hurt, person sitting in front of me; grace that did not come from me, the person who heard some hard things, but grace that came from the Holy One who was present among us.  

To this day, whenever I see that person at church, I am so thankful for them and the lesson God taught me – through them – about how much power words can have, especially when they are spoken from the pulpit.  And I am so grateful for the grace that abounds when the truth is spoken – and heard – in love.  

This is what Jesus tells us to do.  Go directly to the person in question.  Or, take someone with you and go directly to the person in question – the person who harmed your sensibilities, your spirit, you body. . .  This can be so hard.  There are some people who don’t mind making others feel uncomfortable, but most of us would rather just let things slide or take the easier path.  And when we do take the easy path – we sidestep the truth that leads to healing.  As someone told me just the other day, there are times that we may have hurt someone without knowing, and we might never know unless they tell us.[2]

We need to take great care, though, because there are times – especially in this post-“Me-too” world – when it is important to acknowledge that someone should not – for their own safety and spirit – be in the same room as the person who hurt them.  

In just a moment, we will sing a hymn that includes the lyrics, 

For everyone born, a place at the table, abuser, abused, with need to forgive, in anger, in hurt, a mindset of mercy, for just and unjust, a new way to live.[3]

“Abuser, [and] abused, with need to forgive?”  You know, whenever we have sung this song over the past few years, we have left this verse out because. . . well, it’s too hard for many of us to wrap our minds around.  In a 2013 article on Patheos, called “When My Abuser is Welcome at the Table, I am Not,” the title says it all.  The author writes that if the church were to welcome the person who had previously assaulted the author then she, herself, would feel unwelcome.[4]  

How do we reconcile this, especially when – in today’s text – Peter asks Jesus, “How often should I forgive?  As many as seven times?” (18:21)  There are many who find it hard to forgive just once, much less seven times.  And yet Jesus says, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.” (18:22)  Other ancient versions of this text have Jesus saying “seventy times seven” or “four-hundred ninety” times.  As one commentator writes, “Jesus’ response effectively knows no limits.”[5]  How many times should we forgive?  Jesus’ answer is “Infinite.”

But, before we throw up our hands and say, “Jesus, this is too much!” I think it is important to state several things:

First, God’s ability to forgive is far greater than our own human ability to forgive.  Remember, when Jesus is hanging on the cross, he prays, “Father, forgive them – the people who have put me here to suffer and die – for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)[6]  God’s power to forgive and restore goes far beyond our own power or understanding.  And sometimes, as the song infers, the forgiveness that abusers need can only, in the end, come from God.  

Second, it is important for us to note that the church has some standards for what reconciliation looks like and it does not put the onus for forgiveness solely on the person who was abused.  You know, I don’t often quote from the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and when I do, I rarely quote from the part of the book that centers on church discipline, but the church has put procedures in place – including an internal court system – whose primary goals are, in part:  

• To honor God by making clear the significance of membership in the body of Christ;  • To preserve the purity of the church by nourishing the individual within the life of the believing community;  • To pursue and reveal the truth;  • To achieve justice and compassion for all participants involved;  • To correct or restrain wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration;  • To uphold the dignity of those who have been harmed by offenses; • To restore the unity of the church by removing the causes of discord and division. . .[7]

Just so you know, the “church court system” is not a substitute for a civil or criminal court system – a crime is still a crime – but when Jesus tells his disciples in today’s scripture reading that they have the authority to “bind and loose,” he is telling them that they have the authority to set some standards for what communal life in the body of Christ should look like, based on prayerful discernment of the scriptures, and the example of Jesus, and the movement of the Holy Spirit.  

Today, when we sing the line, “abuser, abused, with need to forgive,” there is part of this forgiveness that involves the restraining of wrongdoing and true repentance on the part of the person who has done wrong.  And, the good news is that the forgiving and reconciling work of Jesus is not finished.  God’s new way to live is something that we might not see or experience this side of heaven, but there is promise and hope that God will, in the end, make all things right.  

Justice will be done and relationships will be made right in the kingdom, even if it is hard for us to see right now.  For God, the door is always open.  And, for us. . . well, in that spirit, may our minds and hearts always be open to the life and example and teachings of Jesus – even the difficult teachings that we can understand and embody only with God’s help.  

In this time when relationships between friends, and neighbors, and even siblings in Christ can be strained and tested and sometimes broken by all that is going on in the world, my prayer is that this place may be an example of right relationships, of speaking the truth, of accountability and repentance, of listening with grace, and, ultimately, a place of healing.  

May God make it so.  May God make us so.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.   

------ 

[1] Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2000) 367.

[2] M.J.

[3] Shirley Erena Murray, 1998. Glory to God: The Presbyterian Hymnal (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013) No. 769, v. 4.

[4] Sarah Moon, Patheos, June 9, 2013.  https://www.patheos.com/blogs/sarahoverthemoon/2013/06/when-my-abuser-is-welcome-at-the-table-i-am-not/.

[5] Warren Carter, 369.

[6] Paraphrased, JHS.

[7] Presbyterian Church (USA), The Book of Order: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Part II (Louisville: Presbyterian Publishing, 2023) D-1.031.  

[jarredlharris]

Live-threading my thoughts while listening to the Thereafter Podcast episode featuring Flamy Grant.

The following is the compilation of a live-thread I did while listening to Thereafter Podcast Episode #091.

Okay, it's still Thanksgiving, I have some deli turkey (hey, you celebrate your way), and I'm ready to listen to the new episode of @thereafterpodcast. Let's do this!

.@cortlandcoffey says he finds it hard to do anything during the three day work week. I solved that problem by taking the full week off every Thanksgiving. @thereafterpodcast

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who signed up for the virtual side of the Content Warning Event. @thereafterpodcast

And we're ready to dive into the interview with @flamygrant! @thereafterpodcast

.@cortlandcoffey speaking about @flamygrant: "She really needs no introduction." What? Couldn't you get Sean Feucht to do one? (Yes, I will always snark him when Flamy comes up.) @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant was part of the Plymouth Brethern. Interesting. I'm not too familiar with them. @thereafterpodcast

.@thepursuinglife mentioned a comparison between the Southern Baptists and the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and as a former Baptist, I feel obligated to point out that both of those groups are terrible representatives of and unfaithful to the Baptist tradition. @thereafterpodcast

Listening to @flamygrant talking about "dabbling in Presbyterianism" is funny. @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant is talking about how she first got started doing drag. Apparently, a Halloween was involved. Great, now the evangelical crowd is going to blame it on us Pagans! 🤣 @thereafterpodcast

It's interesting to hear @flamygrant tell how her love of songwriting and doing drag eventually came together. @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant is talkinga bout the power of drag and I'm thinking this sounds like a call to rewrite/"parody" the old song "The Power of Love." @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant is not subtle about her dislike of worship music. Not that I disagree with her, mind you. @thereafterpodcast

I wonder what @flamygrant thinks of my favorite CCM song? ("Witch Hunt" by Petra.) @thereafterpodcast

They're going to talk about the outrage over "Bible Belt Baby!" @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant is talking about her online battle with Sean Feucht and how it turned to her advantage and I love it. @thereafterpodcast

Let me just say that "MAGA worship leader" should be seen as the ultimate oxymoron. @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant is talking about how she eventually got SWARMED by the followers of men like Greg Locke. That's different from a handful of intrusive detractors. I think it's easy to forget that difference if we haven't experienced it ourselves. @thereafterpodcast

.@flamygrant is talking a bit about her experiences with Kickstarter. @thereafterpodcast

.@thepursuinglife is asking @flamygrant about any real connections to or interactions with Amy Grant. @thereafterpodcast

.@thepursuinglife is dreaming of a @flamygrant and Amy Grant collaboration and that does sound pretty awesome. @thereafterpodcast

No no, @cortlandcoffey. @thepursuinglife isn't "naming it and claiming it." She's manifesting it. (We'll ignore that they're basically the same thing, okay?) @thereafterpodcast

Another great episode. And now, I think it's time for me to go listen to "Bible Belt Baby" for the first time. @thereafterpodcast