partsofspeaking

This was my life group lesson for Feb. 25 Did you see this Super Bowl Commercial?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BqlDQ-Ppo It was controversial. Nowadays everything is controversial.   I think about feet a lot.   I have had surgery, seen podiatrists, and wear a brace most of the time. There is pain or discomfort almost all of the time.   Let’s talk about feet in the Bible: 1.      Bare feet recognize holiness. a.      “take off your shoes” (Moses at burning bush), Ex. 3:5 b.      Why does much of the world take their shoes off upon entering a building? 2.      Foundation of life. Stability, choices, direction, guidance, ability. Psalm 18:33; 31:8, Ps. 40:2; 119:105; 2 Samuel 22:34; Habakkuk 3:19; Ephesians 6:14-15 3.      Worship: “at His feet” Humility. Luke 10:35 (John 11:2) 4.      Christ’s sacrifice: Feet nailed (Psalm 22:16; Luke 24:39). Full restriction of the cross. 5.      Washing feet – lowliest of service. Genesis 18:4; Luke 7

 Just a quick one here:  See this post:  http://partsofspeaking.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2024-02-01T11:17:00-05:00&max-results=7 I have one question for the kind of person who posted the screed that I used there: Do they tithe to groups that help the poor? (church or parachurch or non-religious?) Do they volunteer in ways that would alleviate poverty, illiteracy, job insecurity? How do they spend their time to make a difference? Or do they just post self-righteous little memes that basically say, "I'll sit on my rear and let the government and someone else do it?"  Ooh, that was tough.  I am teaching on evangelism this Sunday. Yeah, me. The worst in the world. But I am going to use as a hook the Super Bowl Commercial about footwashing. I understand the backlash to that promo; it could have been better conceived on the visuals. And I don't know who it was targeted to:  Right-wingers (or their perception of right-wingers)?  Nonbelievers? It's a muddled me

 I have a lot to say about Lent, and you people are going to hear about them.  Sorry. I just think that lead-in to Festivus is hilarious.  And since many people think about Lent like they would Festivus, it's a fitting intro..... From a secular viewpoint, Lent is a very medieval concept, enforced by a powerful church. In reality, giving up some kind of food made sense in February-April--the food stores would have been depleted by then. In a modern age where we can eat food out of season and the supply chains make it a matter of fact that we get everything we want (except during COVID, which was its own kind of Lent), we have to figure out some other way to approach fasting. We can't just take the word fasting for its original meaning--not eating as much, or not eating a standard kind of food (meat, traditionally).  Lent was perfectly timed to lead up to Easter, so it could also coincide with the 40 days before the resurrection. Forty is symbolic of testing in the Bible--forty d

https://rss.com/podcasts/dialogues-with-creators/ I talk with some fascinating people!  

We have no excuses for lack of Biblical, theological, and church history knowledge today.  The great writings of the church are all on Internet. Seriously.  Charles Spurgeon's sermons are all there; Edwards, Augustine's writings, Aquinas, etc. etc.  And to contrast the preaching of 150 years ago with today, I present the opening words of the very first recorded sermon of Charles Spurgeon. https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs1.pdf   What strikes me, of course, is the depth of vocabulary and complexity of sentence structure, and then the demands of the theology. Dare I say we have dumbed down the call of the Christian faith? A SERMON DELIVERED ON SABBATH MORNING, JANUARY 7, 1855 BY THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON AT NEW PARK STREET CHAPEL, SOUTHWARK   “I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” Malachi 3:6   IT has been said by someone that “the proper study of mankind i s man.” I will not oppose the idea, but I believe it is equally true that the prope

Mark 1 and 2 The friends of the paralytic went to great lengths to make sue Jesus healed him--removing the ceiling and lowering him by ropes to get around the crowd (well depicted in The Chosen first season, by the way). That's being real.    Jesus touched the leper He healed. That was forbidden by the law of Moses, for public health reasons, but not by the law of compassion, the law of Christ, the truth of the gospel. Mark's first two chapter (chapters arbitrary, of course) are about as radical as it gets. The gospel jumps out of the boundaries of human categories of righteousness, which gravitate toward rule-keeping. We can use rules to justify ourselves as easily as to condemn ourselves or even more likely, to guide our lives toward God-glorifying, compassionate behavior. Jesus did not say, "well, I have an excuse not to touch this leper." He just did. Same with the Sabbath-keeping.  What excuses are you making? Am I making? I saw this short on YouTube, and part of

1. Alistair Begg. I am appalled how people have turned on him. Good grief. A private conversation became public somehow. Now the Christian world believes it has a right to an opinion (it does) and to blast it all over the place AND to call for Begg's repentance and to cast aspersions on his ministry.  If you don't know the background, a woman asked him if she should attend her grandson's transgender wedding (truly, I'm not sure what that is, but I will take it that it's the same as a same-sex one. I'm not being sarcastic here, just confused). Begg said it would be all right for her to do so.  The problem was she asked him and somehow it got public, in my opinion. Lots of believers who don't support same-sex marriage, etc. have attended the weddings of family members in this situation. Why? Because they love their family members and don't want to lose the relationship or their witness to the couple.  In almost all these cases the couple knows the family m

 Matthew 24 gives us a lot of "reality check" material. Three narratives, the first two parables (which means we have to understand the purpose of a parable first of all and not interpret everything allegorically and/or as direct doctrine): The first two are prefaced with "Then the kingdom of heaven will be likened to...." The word "then" means either time sequence or logical result. So back to the previous segment, which is pretty rough. Wise and foolish virgins:  weren't ready. Three servants: one wasn't ready and didn't invest the lesser resources he was given well, and called the master hard.   The last narrative is meant, I think to be read as pure prophecy. This is what will happen. "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [ c ] holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory." This is a judgment, based on treatment of the weak and vulnerable, or at least those who the Son of Man considers His own.

 I admit it--the title is click bait. This word seems to be the trendy talking point right now.  This as-usual well written and insightful article from the Atlantic, tells the story.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/polyamory-ruling-class-fad-monogamy/677312/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-am&utm_term=The+Atlantic+AM Polyamory is just a multi-syllabic, latinate word for adultery that the married couple consents to, although not happily it seems. The woman in this story is just an abused woman. It's kind of gross, so be forewarned. But don't let anyone make you think this is anything other than what it is.

I am assigned to teach Acts 3 this week. The literature presents it as "The church meets needs." I don't think that is the theme. I think it is "The church breaks out of its previous boundaries into the wider world and does what the church is supposed to do--obey Christ." I plan to pose some questions to the class, after showing this image: A friend on Facebook posted it--one of those people who used to be a Republican and now fancies themselves progressive. This is b-----.  (I am not immune from salty language sometimes.) This is trying to make people feel false guilt for their political opinions about national sovereignty, for one; it's classic straw man. The water in line to vote makes no sense--bring your own water; the first one I do have some sympathy for because there are a lot of children who are ill-fed and there are lots of teachers who bring snacks for them.  My questions:  What is need? Who is in need?   How can someone be in