Introduction (#1)

#1 John’s Introduction:

 

Have you heard of The Screwtape Letters, written by C. S. Lewis? Lewis, wrote The Chronicles of Narnia and Mere Christianity, among other great works. He was a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien.     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters   These fanaticized letters were between a senior demon (Screwtape) and a young tempter demon (Wormwood). These satirical letters show the weaknesses of man (mankind, men and women, all personhood) and how demons attempt to use these weaknesses and foibles against mankind, especially Christians.

 

Then there are the letters of Georgia O’Keefe to Alfred Stieglitz.  How about the letters of a young Earnest Hemingway to numerous friends, family or lovers? Or we could go back to the 1700s for the letters of Benjamin Franklin to George Whitefield. Letters are used to bridge the gaps of whatever between people for any of a myriad of reasons. Love. War. Politics. Family squabbles. Work problems. Poetry. Questions dealing with living life  Hope. Disappointment. Joy.

 

This blog didn’t start out as a blog but began first as letters between two friends. Dana C. Acker and I (John Calsin) met in Bible school back in the fall of 1979. When we left school, we continued corresponding first through the U. S. Post Office (snail mail), and later over the internet. Over the past 34 years, we have been in each other’s physical company less than a half dozen times. But the bonds of friendship have grown stronger. As life’s joys and struggles were shared through, in essence, letters, we were either encouraged, saddened, challenged, or helped by the other’s letters. At some point, I began to think of publishing Dana’s responses to my letters or just his missives.

 

My letters to Dana were usually the catalyst for his thoughtful, challenging, friendly, rebuking, caring responses.  Just as we know that the book title Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche is a satire of masculine stereotypes, hopefully, we know that real friends tell other friends the truth, not just what they think they want to hear.

 

Dana and I have a historical Judeo Christian belief system. We believe in a relationship with the living God through His son Jesus. We are what scripture (John 3:3) and Billy Graham would call born again.  And I believe that Dana has something to say to us today.

While people might argue the position and role of prophet in the Church today, I have often said, I think Dana is a prophet for our time. I like this quote concerning Biblical prophets written by Sam O’Neil, In his piece titled  Defining the Role  of Prophets in the Bible, Meet the men (and women!) called to guide God's people through troubled waters.  He wrote:

 “The primary role of the prophets in the Bible was to speak with the people about the words and will of God in their specific situations. The prophets served as God's megaphones, declaring whatever God commanded them to say.”

What do we hope to accomplish through this blog? On the one hand, I won’t speak for Dana, but from my perspective, I believe we, and especially Dana, have something to say to both the Church, and others, generally using our letters as the springboard to relevancy and truth.  Sometimes that is helpful, sometimes painful. But as a surgeon cuts out a tumor—painful—it is relevant for the good health of a patient—helpful.

One of my favorite books is the children’s classic tale of The Velveteen Rabbit or How Toys Become Real by Margery Williams and illustrated by Michael Green. A Velveteen Rabbit lived in a nursery with numerous other toys, one being a Skin Horse, a type of rocking horse. The Skin Horse had lived longer than a succession of other toys. An observer could easily see how worn he was, because the Skin Horse was the favorite toy of the Boy. The Velveteen Rabbit desperately wanted to be a favorite. But that meant being real.

 

Finally, one day the Rabbit asked the wise, old Skin Horse how he, the Rabbit, could become a favorite, i.e.  real. Many of the fancy mechanical toys lay broken around the nursery. They no longer buzzed, moved, or tooted. The Skin Horse answered, “Real isn’t how you are made, it’s a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time...you become Real.”

 

Concerned, the Rabbit asked, “Does it hurt?”

 

In all honesty, Skin Horse answered, “Sometimes.” But Skin Horse added a caveat, “When you are Real you don’t mind being hurt.”

 

Dana and I know that what the Bible says is Real, and yet, we take that by faith. We have both been around awhile, and while we may not always be wise, we try. (Hopefully) many of those who know us would say that we are real. Again, we try.  Like the Skin Horse we have learned that sometimes being real hurts. And while Margery Williams used nursery magic to make the Skin Horse and Rabbit come alive, we know real life isn’t that easy. And if we have any love to give, hopefully it will be because of God’s love for us, and what He has done in us. And in our being real, perhaps some of His love will be shared with whoever our readers are.

 

Our first blog deals with politics and Christianity. Dana responded to something I wrote some time ago, but I think you’ll find it relevant for today, especially in light of the national conventions now taking place. Our goal is one blog a week. We’ll try, but if we don’t one will soon follow.  And if we can figure out how to set it up, you’ll be able to respond and others to you.

 

Dana’s introduction:

 

 

     Greetings Brothers, Sisters, Friends, Friends I haven’t met yet and those who, after reading a bit decide that the last thing they would want to be is my “friend”—I love y’all too. I am Dana C. Acker. Welcome to the first edition of Kingdom Musings.  We hope that you will be blessed or challenged by what you will read here now and in the days to come.

 

      In getting started, I’m going to put out a couple of disclaimers.  First, I am not a Bible Scholar.  There are no advanced degrees from prestigious institutions of Biblical or Theological higher learning hanging on my wall.  That said, I am indebted to and a big fan of Bible Scholars, whose works I consult constantly. 

 

       Second, it is my purpose to be as Biblically and theologically correct as possible in what I write, but it is a fact that Biblical and theological interpretation often differs between sincere believers.  What is correct (orthodox) to one can be the next thing to heresy to another.  If you find yourself in disagreement with any positions I might put forth, as you are able, be civil in your criticisms.  An opposing view I can respect, even if in disagreement, and as I am able I will willfully address. However, rude and or hostile attacks will be ignored, and subsequently dismissed out of hand.

 

      Third, as I consult the written works of many capable scholars, apologists, theologians, pastors and teachers, I will endeavor to give adequate credit to the author or speaker by way of “footnotes” at the end of any writings I put forth, or at least after any quotes or paraphrases I use.  If I am wrong, or I make a mistake, and it is pointed out to me, I’ll admit it, and be thankful for the correction, and once noted and corrected, proceed as planned.

 

      Lastly, there are theological and doctrinal positions to which  I hold firmly.  These are subjects hard won, throughout an adult lifetime of study, inquiry, contemplation and prayer.  But I am aware that my beliefs are just that, mine.  If something I write makes you think, or rethink one of your own beliefs, OK.  Good even.  Whether or not you subscribe to my beliefs, will not raise or lower my opinion of you as a brother or sister in Christ.  Christianity is a big tent, and all who practice charity for the ideas of others are certainly welcome. 

 

      The following is from an email sent to me by John Calsin, a good friend and brother for many a year.  Seeing that we are in the midst of a new political donnybrook (election cycle), perhaps some thoughts on the Church’s response to all things political might be in order. So heat up the frying pan because we’re fixing to jump in.

 

++++    

 

            In an article written by political correspondent Jon Ward, on January 14, 2016 in an article titled “Rubio’s supporters are the future of evangelicalism. But will they vote?,” Ward made a statement that particularly struck home to me:  "The Falwell evangelicals view the growing pluralism and secularism in American culture as something to fight and overturn, and they see politics as a primary way to do that."
 

        That pretty much sums up the problem both in America and the conservative Church.  Today, societal and governmental pluralism and secularism are becoming quite proactive in their stances against the committed Christian Church.  Secularism pretty much just excludes the notion of God as being an influence in any of governments or society's beliefs or practices.  Pluralism, on the other hand, basically says, "It's OK to practice any religion, philosophy, or life way you choose, as long that religion, philosophy, or life way doesn't include Jesus.  All ways are all right, as long as it is not saying that Jesus is "The Way..." let alone "...The Truth or The Life."  We are right to be aware of and wary of that sort of thinking, because given its way, its adherents will do all that they can to undermine, trivialize, hinder, and finally persecute the Christian Church in this land.  

 

     The troubling aspect of the Church's opposition to this problem is the means by which it chooses to do so--through politics!  If you think about that for a minute, it certainly appears that the Church is saying that the reign of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the prayers of the saints, just aren't quite up to the task.  There's a Christian writer named Steve Quayle who I enjoy reading and whose interviews I likewise enjoy listening to. He repeatedly says, "There is no political solution to a spiritual problem," a notion with which I concur.

 

     That reminds me of the story I remember hearing from an old preacher sometime, somewhere in my distant past, whose name I, sadly, cannot recall.  He told of his watching a bull fight in Old Mexico, and how the matador would wave his red cape, and the enraged bull would charge at it, only to have the matador quickly step to the side at the last second, and stab the rampaging bull as he charged by.  Over and over again this happened until the bull was so weakened from loss of blood, that the matador simply stepped over at that point, took his “sword” and killed the bull.  The preacher's revelation from this gory spectacle was as if the Lord had said it to him, "If that bull ever realizes that his true enemy is not that little red cape flapping in the breeze, that matador is finished."

 

     Our real enemy isn't the little red cape of pluralism and secularism, but the one who is behind that, namely the devil and his minions.  And as good and honorable as a politician may attempt to appear, they simply cannot mitigate the wiles of the devil via legislation.  We (the Church) seem to have forgotten that, "...the weapons of our warfare are not carnal...," which means that we cannot go out with knives or guns or politics and expect to defeat spiritual evil. You can’t shoot the devil! Martin Luther is reputed to have thrown an inkwell at him, and no doubt, he did. But it didn’t do the job, did it?  Expecting politicians to restore moral balance to our land is the epitome of carnal weaponry.  And we are guilty as charged.

 

     In Daniel 9, he prays for his people concerning the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the end of the Babylonian exile (from Jeremiah 25, which would be a good chapter for America to take to heart). But Daniel's prayer is mostly a confession of sin on behalf of his people.  We'd do well to pay heed.  Much more healing would be in store for our country if we confessed our sin as a nation, and as a Church, for being so apathetic about allowing evil's influence to flourish, and, for looking to godless or, at best, quasi-religious politicians to make things right again.

 

     In a very real sense, what we (the Church) have been and are still doing for the last 40 some odd years is no different than King Saul's consulting the witch of Endor in the face of the Philistine onslaught...and we see how well that worked out for him. 

 

     No, the problem is that we don't see, or we refuse to see how that worked out for Saul, so we ever continue to do it. Somewhere I heard one of the definitions of insanity as, "...doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?"      

 

     Now all that said, it doesn't mean that I advocate apathy or irresponsibility when it comes to voting for our potential leaders.  However when I looked at the last presidential election, I found myself tangled in the horns of a dilemma over the fact that one candidate, Barak Obama was a liberal with Muslim sympathies, and the other candidate, Mitt Romney was a conservative Mormon. 

 

     Many conservative evangelicals supported Romney, because he was "more Christian" than Obama, when, in reality, he holds the eternal Deity of Jesus Christ in no higher regard than did his opponent.  But the Church was quick to side with Mr. Romney over Mr. Obama for the reason stated above. Which was ”…he was ‘more Christian’ than Obama….”   In my estimation, we would have missed the boat either way as neither man represents Orthodox Christian or Biblical views in the evangelical or Catholic sense of the terms.  But it leads me to ask, was the Church right for supporting Romney just because there are no known cases of radical Mormons beheading Christians?

 

     The truth of the matter is that we cannot expect real spiritual or moral change in this land regardless of whether Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton is elected this go round, unless America repents in a big way…and America is not going to repent unless the Church repents first (2 Chronicles 7:14). We've got to remember what Daniel said in the aforementioned chapter 9: 4-5

 

     "I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules."  (ESV)

 

     We (the Church) have to keep in mind that the covenant and steadfast love of which Daniel spoke, are kept for those who "...love [God] and keep His commandments," and not just those who have a King James Bible in the house, say the blessing before eating, and wear nice clothes when attending the church of their choice on Sunday morning.  See Amos 6:1A.

 

     Well, that’s enough pontificating for this edition. On a lighter note, I remember a friend, who majored in political science at one of the country's more prestigious universities, telling me of how he spent an afternoon arguing with his grandmother because of her refusal to vote in elections.  He argued passionately about civic responsibility and the exercising of rights in a free nation (this was several years back) and still his grandmother refused to vote.  Finally, in exasperation, he heatedly asked, "Grandmother, why won't you vote?" 

 

     To which she replied..."Because it only encourages them."

 

     Keep it real, brothers and sisters, because if you don’t, the devil will.

 

     Until next time…may peace be with you.