You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
May 02, 2005
Informatio: Faith
The Graciousness of Uncertainty...
Ashley Cleveland delivered a great message at church yesterday — very eloquent and easy-to-understand (as she usually is). In Ashley’s sermon, one little tidbit that I found particulary moving was a quote by Oswald Chambers. The quote is from his famous book, My Utmost for His Highest (I’ve included a little more than the excerpt that Ashley used):
Naturally, we are inclined to be so mathematical and calculating that we look upon uncertainty as a bad thing. We imagine that we have to reach some end, but that is not the nature of spiritual life. The nature of spiritual life is that we are certain in our uncertainty, consequently we do not make our nests anywhere. Common sense says – “Well, supposing I were in that condition…” We cannot suppose ourselves in any condition we have never been in. Certainty is the mark of the common-sense life: gracious uncertainty is the mark of the spiritual life. To be certain of God means that we are uncertain in all our ways, we do not know what a day may bring forth. This is generally said with a sigh of sadness, it should be rather an expression of breathless expectation. We are uncertain of the next step, but we are certain of God. Immediately we abandon to God, and do the duty that lies nearest, He packs our life with surprises all the time. When we become advocates of a creed, something dies; we do not believe God, we only believe our belief about Him. Jesus said, “Except ye become as little children.” Spiritual life is the life of a child. We are not uncertain of God, but uncertain of what He is going to do next. If we are only certain in our beliefs, we get dignified and severe and have the ban of finality about our views; but when we are rightly related to God, life is full of spontaneous, joyful uncertainty and expectancy.Thanks, Ashley.
“Believe also in Me,” said Jesus, not – “Believe certain things about Me.” Leave the whole thing to Him, it is gloriously uncertain how He will come in, but He will come. Remain loyal to Him.
(You can listen to Ashley’s entire sermon here — it’s called, “The Heart of the Matter.”)
Posted at 12:19 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (6):
I’m glad you enjoyed the message, Tim…As always, I appreciate your heart and your encouragement.
ashley () - May 02, 2005 at 2:10 pm
mmmm….. i dunno, man. I know how this will appear and possibly offend and that isn’t my intention. But i think women approaching the pulpit is unBiblical and this sermon is… warm fuzzy nonesense. By believing in him, we are also being asked to believe things about him. Again, this is my very defendable position and no offense is intended to the killer ladies who also visit tim’s blog. thats my take. anyone?
dennis the menace () - May 02, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Tim, I’m so glad you posted this quote because I was wondering where to find it. Ashley did a great job yesterday; I like the style in which she relays information, and I took away some good observations from her sermon.
Mary () (URL) - May 02, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Dude, Dennis… I’m almost inclined to say that “if you don’t have anything nice to say”... I mean, come on… Ashley is a friend and I wouldn’t have posted what I did if I didn’t agree with it. How could you expect that not to offend?
Likewise, did you actually listen to the sermon or are you just basing your statement off of the quote? (And for God’s sake, Dennis, the quote is from Oswald Chambers — one of the most respected theologians from the 20th century!)
Lastly, women approaching the pulpit… Dude, that’s ancient, chauvinistic crap. Whatever bible verses you might be thinking of have long-since been disproven as regional and cultural… Feel free to argue this, but… I don’t know if I’d partake in the conversation (I mean, I probably would, but I’d like to think I could ignore it). All I know is that I’ve been immensely blessed by women who have approached the pulpit.
I apologize for being so bent out of shape about this, but man… What you said really irked me — and so early in the morning too!
Likewise, did you actually listen to the sermon or are you just basing your statement off of the quote? (And for God’s sake, Dennis, the quote is from Oswald Chambers — one of the most respected theologians from the 20th century!)
Lastly, women approaching the pulpit… Dude, that’s ancient, chauvinistic crap. Whatever bible verses you might be thinking of have long-since been disproven as regional and cultural… Feel free to argue this, but… I don’t know if I’d partake in the conversation (I mean, I probably would, but I’d like to think I could ignore it). All I know is that I’ve been immensely blessed by women who have approached the pulpit.
I apologize for being so bent out of shape about this, but man… What you said really irked me — and so early in the morning too!
timsamoff () (URL) - May 03, 2005 at 06:17 am
Key Texts
I Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:33b-36; I Timothy 2:8-15
In current treatment of these passages, particularly I Timothy 2, there are three basic positions: (A) Paul, the man, intends an absolute, perpetual exclusion of women from ordained office, but Paul is wrong and therefore to be disregarded. (B) Paul, the inspired apostle, intends, and therefore God intends, to exclude women from ordained office, but that exclusion is necessitated by circumstances (cultural and/or religious-ecclesiastical) unique to the time and place of his original readers or at least other than our own. The exclusion, then, is limited in its applicability and temporary; by God’s design it is not relevant today, at least directly, and therefore is no longer binding. (C) Paul, the inspired apostle, intends, and therefore God intends, an absolute, perpetual exclusion that is binding until Christ’s return. On the assumption of the divinely inspired origin and authority of these passages, only (B) and© merit consideration; is the exclusion in view temporary or permanent? localized or universal?
I don’t know that my view has been disproven. Actually, my view has been increasing by number in even less “creed abiding” churches. It may be discounted or disregarded. You obviously disagree… but it hasn’t been disproven. I apologize again. And by your response, you think i’m trying to be mean. Hardly. I’m not some anti civil rights cromagnon that has a lower view of women. This is about biblical roles in the church. If you don’t agree, fine. But I’m giving my opinion based on scripture. On a sidenote, this woman is a Dr. She’s apparently not stupid. In any other forum other than the pulpit on the Sabbath, this might be apropriate. However, would my pastor feel qualified to enter a surgeons role because he’s a master in his own field? thats my point.
Regarding Oswald Chambers. I personally have heard little about him and in my circles, i doubt he’s considered one of the great theologians of the 20th century. Though i’m sure a reference. However, I am aware of the book. And also the fact he had the benefit of studying in his teens under Charles Spurgeon. Wow! However, either I don’t know that I agree with that PARTICULAR statement or perhaps i’m not understanding. the latter is totally possible… it wouldn’t be the first.
Regarding Ashley’s sermon: I get the impression that she dismisses traditions and church laws (gee, wonder why?) for the sake of this “internal purity”. Sometimes obedience doesn’t “feel” good. She addresses the issue, i’ll give credit. And the “spirit of the law”... great. cool. Maybe i’m being too simple but I just think it lacks clarity. The heart is NEVER fully transformed… and she says “its not easy” well… duh. no its not. And her references to Jesus as an example are obviously good but then almost infers that we, too can attain that. uh…. wrong. and i think THAT was the primary point Christ was making to the pharisees. I did in fact listen to the sermon and if you like, out of respect, i wont post anymore. However, as your friend i posted my opinion because like you, i have convictions about scripture. thats all. Ashley seems like a totally cool lady and some things she said were alright but I simply am opposed to her abandoning her roles within the church approaching the pulpit without being a church head.
I Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:33b-36; I Timothy 2:8-15
In current treatment of these passages, particularly I Timothy 2, there are three basic positions: (A) Paul, the man, intends an absolute, perpetual exclusion of women from ordained office, but Paul is wrong and therefore to be disregarded. (B) Paul, the inspired apostle, intends, and therefore God intends, to exclude women from ordained office, but that exclusion is necessitated by circumstances (cultural and/or religious-ecclesiastical) unique to the time and place of his original readers or at least other than our own. The exclusion, then, is limited in its applicability and temporary; by God’s design it is not relevant today, at least directly, and therefore is no longer binding. (C) Paul, the inspired apostle, intends, and therefore God intends, an absolute, perpetual exclusion that is binding until Christ’s return. On the assumption of the divinely inspired origin and authority of these passages, only (B) and© merit consideration; is the exclusion in view temporary or permanent? localized or universal?
I don’t know that my view has been disproven. Actually, my view has been increasing by number in even less “creed abiding” churches. It may be discounted or disregarded. You obviously disagree… but it hasn’t been disproven. I apologize again. And by your response, you think i’m trying to be mean. Hardly. I’m not some anti civil rights cromagnon that has a lower view of women. This is about biblical roles in the church. If you don’t agree, fine. But I’m giving my opinion based on scripture. On a sidenote, this woman is a Dr. She’s apparently not stupid. In any other forum other than the pulpit on the Sabbath, this might be apropriate. However, would my pastor feel qualified to enter a surgeons role because he’s a master in his own field? thats my point.
Regarding Oswald Chambers. I personally have heard little about him and in my circles, i doubt he’s considered one of the great theologians of the 20th century. Though i’m sure a reference. However, I am aware of the book. And also the fact he had the benefit of studying in his teens under Charles Spurgeon. Wow! However, either I don’t know that I agree with that PARTICULAR statement or perhaps i’m not understanding. the latter is totally possible… it wouldn’t be the first.
Regarding Ashley’s sermon: I get the impression that she dismisses traditions and church laws (gee, wonder why?) for the sake of this “internal purity”. Sometimes obedience doesn’t “feel” good. She addresses the issue, i’ll give credit. And the “spirit of the law”... great. cool. Maybe i’m being too simple but I just think it lacks clarity. The heart is NEVER fully transformed… and she says “its not easy” well… duh. no its not. And her references to Jesus as an example are obviously good but then almost infers that we, too can attain that. uh…. wrong. and i think THAT was the primary point Christ was making to the pharisees. I did in fact listen to the sermon and if you like, out of respect, i wont post anymore. However, as your friend i posted my opinion because like you, i have convictions about scripture. thats all. Ashley seems like a totally cool lady and some things she said were alright but I simply am opposed to her abandoning her roles within the church approaching the pulpit without being a church head.
dennis the menace () - May 03, 2005 at 4:01 pm
I’m not going to argue this point — clearly we have a disagreement (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
What I will say is that if you are to take the apostle Paul for his word, then you must also acknowledge Romans 14… Because of this, I will espouse that it is harmful to us, as believers, to persist in dispute over trivial matters (and, yes, I do think this is fairly trivial). Often, when dispute does arise over trivial matters, it only leads to conflict and division — which is not the point of the Gospel.
Romans 14:19-23 (NKJ):
Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
What I will say is that if you are to take the apostle Paul for his word, then you must also acknowledge Romans 14… Because of this, I will espouse that it is harmful to us, as believers, to persist in dispute over trivial matters (and, yes, I do think this is fairly trivial). Often, when dispute does arise over trivial matters, it only leads to conflict and division — which is not the point of the Gospel.
Romans 14:19-23 (NKJ):
Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
timsamoff () (URL) - May 04, 2005 at 09:49 am
