Reading the Blogs # 3

Reading the Blogs # 3

While you’re at it, check out Ferrell’s “Visualizing Isaiah” series on his blog!

Ferrell Jenkins's avatarFerrell's Travel Blog

Michael J. Kruger (canon fodder) has written a review of each episode of the History Channel’s Bible Secrets Revealed. He says the series has reminded him of two critical truths:

1. Our popular culture is prone to distort and misrepresent the teachings of the Bible. I was struck again by how sensationalistic and misleading popular-level programming can actually be when it comes to the Bible.  Although this series had some good moments, as a whole I was disappointed to see the History Channel offer the standard Da Vinci Code-style approach to the Bible.

2. The church must be equipped to respond to these sorts of critiques.  Given the high-profile nature of the History Channel (and similar style programming), the average person we are trying to reach is going to be exposed to this type of material.  And we need to be ready to offer some…

View original post 521 more words

What’s on Your Mind? (Acts 2.12-16)

What’s on Your Mind? (Acts 2.12-16).

What’s on Your Mind? (Acts 2.12-16)

Posted by Carl O. Peterson on February 7, 2014 in Acts

They were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” Others, mocking, said, “They are filled with new wine.”

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them, “You men of Judea, and all you who dwell at Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to my words. For these aren’t drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel:

It may seem peculiar to think that the first gospel sermon (after the cross) began with a defense of the apostles’ sobriety. After all, what sermon have you ever heard that began with the words, “These men aren’t drunk”? But if we think about it, this was exactly where this sermon had to begin.

In the search for an explanation of what they were hearing, the some in the crowd came to the conclusion that the apostles were drunk. It’s difficult to imagine how they would have come to this conclusion. (Since when did an uneducated drunk speak perfectly in a language they had never studied? They usually have enough problems with their native language) Indeed, Peter could have stepped forward and begun speaking, but he would not have been as effective.

The reality is that Peter had to deal with this crowd where they were, regardless of how ridiculous that position may have seemed. If Peter ignored the accusation, that lingering question was going to be in this crowd’s mind. Considering what Peter was about to say, that would have been a problem. He was about to proclaim a risen Jesus as Lord and Christ. If the crowd thought that Peter was drunk while saying this, would they have taken him seriously? Probably not.

Thus, the first thing Peter did was give an explanation why the men could not have been drunk. Simply put, it was too early to have been drinking (third hour of the day = 9:00 am). But Peter did not stop there. It was not enough to declare their explanation invalid; he had to give them a reasonable explanation for the speaking in tongues. He did so by taking them back to the prophet Joel and pointing out what they were seeing was the fulfillment of significant prophecy. Once he had established the meaning of what they were seeing, he could proceed to declare to them Jesus of Nazareth.

This is an important point for us. When we try to reach people with the gospel, there could be barriers to them listening to our message. They may have preconceptions about us that cause them not to listen to a word we say. There may be questions about whether God’s word is even worth listening to. To the extent practical and possible, we’re going to have to deal with those issues so that the hearer can listen to the gospel message unhindered. It is intellectually dishonest for us to ignore the things that are stumbling blocks for them, preach the message, and then blame their hardness of heart for not being receptive to the word.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Follow the link to read more of Carl Peterson’s blog. It is important to note that while Peter did not address the issue of sobriety in detail in the first sermon (at least not from what is revealed), he does address it specifically in comments to Christians living in a pagan culture — see 1 Peter 4:1-6, especially the concluding phrase, “this is why the gospel was preached” — ESV).

Guidelines for Bloggers

The Blogs, the Battles and the Gospel

 

Footnote 3 – Explanatory Footnote

Footnote 3 – Explanatory Footnote

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary to create yet another weblog and thus add to the verbiage already cluttering the blogosphere, exercising the verbal and mental abilities which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God have bestowed upon us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that one should declare the causes which impel him to do such a thing (shamelessly paraphrased from someone much smarter than me).

This personal blog is something I have pondered doing for several years, and finally, “impelled” by wife, daughter and others, have taken the plunge. Will anyone read it? I hope so – but that’s not really the point of this blog.  It’s for me as much as anyone else – my interests, my thoughts and words (and the thoughts and words of others), and my interactions with the thoughts and words of others.

It’s “eclectic” – from the Greek ἐκλεκτικός, which can be defined as “deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources (adjective); or, a person who derives ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources (noun); selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles; or, composed of elements drawn from a variety of sources, systems, or styles.”

Because I spent the last seven years co-editing a new hymnal – Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs – much of my consciousness is still oriented in that direction.  I will continue posting my “Hymn For Today” feature which has been a regular aspect of my Facebook page since last June.

But my interests are broader and more diverse (eclectic) than hymnology, extending to history, religion, language, broadcast media, sports, and more: much of the broad range of human endeavor and achievement. I taught history in a state university for a number of years (history of religion, journalism, science and technology, the history and impact of “significant events,” e.g., World War II or the American Civil War, as well as the obligatory “survey” courses) before “declaring victory” and retiring from the field.  History is arguably the broadest of the liberal arts, since one can, after all, write a history of nearly anything.  Additionally, in a brief spurt of insanity during my long and checkered past, I did some news broadcasting (NPR and CBS affiliates).

Partly my “eclecticism” is due to my more-or-less typical baby-boomer career path of eight different jobs in three different “careers.” Some people have said that I just haven’t decided what I want to be when I grow up.  My retort is: “Why grow up? No future in that!”

But the one common interest which binds all these eclectic disciplines together is, for me, religion – and the quest to understand the meaning of it all.  Much of my adult life has been spent working as a minister – sometimes “bi-vocational,” supporting my family by working in the “secular” marketplace; often fully supported by churches.  Much of my work has been with small-to-medium-sized, independent congregations whose stated intent is to be “Christians only” and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus and his first disciples – those He sent out as apostles to spread and share the gospel of God’s grace.  Thus, this blog has a decidedly Christian orientation.

Some individual blogs will celebrate the joys and hazards of living in suburban Chicago and the diverse (eclectic) advantages of a truly global city – as well as the agonies and ecstasies of following daBears, Bulls, Blackhawks and, of course, the Cubbies (World Champions, 1908).

The format of some of the blog , a series of “Footnotes,” is a nod to my former academic career.  I cite a source in more-or-less standard academic format, and then reproduce a quotation or segment from some eclectic source. Sometimes I may feel a need to comment; sometimes not.   Some of them may be “explanatory” footnotes, like this one.  I stole this format shamelessly a few decades ago from one of my academic mentors who long ago abandoned the practice.  Perhaps I will re-cycle portions of a series of “Footnote” articles I wrote several years ago in the “popular” (non-academic) press.  At this stage it’s probably too late to come up with something else which is new and clever.

Help yourself.