We are all shaped, and influenced, by various people whom God has brought into our lives. The reality is that we all are the product of these teachers, counselors, parents, friends, etc. that have walked with us on our journey through life. Those who have been of great significance we often refer to as "mentors." I have had numerous mentors in my life to varying degrees. Some for a brief period, some in specific lessons, and some for many years, even into the present day.
There are three men, who more than any others, shaped me into the person I am today. (Please recognize that I acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ, who has not only shaped my life, but is my life, as being in a separate category. Far beyond that of earthly mentors.) These men are Ernie Gruen, Dennis Peacocke, and Bob Mumford. These men have through their teaching, counsel, correction, and care, formed my life and perspective. That does not mean, that I would be in "lock-step" agreement with everything they have said or taught. But I would say that their words have always carried alot of "weight" with me. (Please note: These men cannot be blamed for me and the "messes" I have made.)
Ernie Gruen went to be with the Lord last summer. I first met him thirty-two years ago. I was a young kid in the ministry and he was at that time, one of the most influential pastors in the Kanas City area. His church was the center of the Jesus people revival. He became a father to me. He taught me the "ropes" of the ministry. How to do weddings, funerals, counsel, and more. His lessons in the practical areas of ministry were worth more than 10 years in Bible college. I eventually went on the staff of his church, and later pastored one of four churches that we planted. Ernie had his faults and failings, as we all do. Ernie and I had our areas of theological disagreement, but I always knew he loved me as a father loves a son.
I first met Dennis Peacocke about 25 years ago in Dallas. He was in his early forties at that time, and pulled no-punches in delivering the message of the Kingdom. He attracted alot of young men like myself, who were ready to charge Hell with a water pistol. He was, and still is, controversial. Dennis taught me, challenged me, and caused me to re-think many things. I spoke a number of times for conferences Dennis hosted in Northern California. Through Dennis and his confidence in me, my ministry was extended far beyond my local area. I eventually served on the apostolic council for the network of churches (Kingdom Ministries International) that Dennis started. I oversaw our continuing education program for our pastors, and traveled to Europe and Central America with Dennis. It was always a joy for our family to have Dennis visiting from California. My kids remember those times well. Dennis Peacocke is president of Strategic Christian Services, which has a website called "The Transforum" (thetransforum.com) which I write for.
Bob Mumford mentored me in a completely different way. He has been a mentor to me through his tapes, books, and conferences. I have had only a few private conversations with him, he has never been in my home, nor I in his. We have not served in the ministry together, like I have with Ernie and Dennis. Yet he has imparted a great deal into my life. C.S. Lewis considered George MacDonald his mentor, though MacDonald died long before Lewis had read any of his books. MacDonald mentored Lewis from the grave through his writings. Likewise, Bob has spoken into my life and mentored me from a distance. I continually hear myself teaching others what he taught me. I do not believe it to be an exaggeration to say that I have listened to 5,000 hours of teaching from this man. For that reason alone I must consider him on this list. But in addition, it was Bob Mumford, who personally mentored Dennis Peacocke. Therefore, he "second generation" mentored me.
There are many others that I could mention who have been of great influence in my life, both living and dead, both through their books and personal contact. There are also those men who I view as "peers" that have played a major role in my life, and to whom I am greatly indebted. I will probably write more about that at a future date.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Cathedral Thinking
(You will find this on "The Transforum" website, which I write for on a regular basis.)
A few years ago my wife and I had the opportunity to visit Europe for the first time. One of the most memorable experiences during our travels involved seeing the massive cathedrals that are found in the major cities of the continent. Not only were they impressive in size, but the age of these structures in many instances, pre-dated the discovery of the “New World” by Columbus. In addition, when one understands what was involved in the building of these cathedrals you are struck with the long range planning that was essential to their construction.
Not only did it require vast amounts of material resources; it was a task that would take many decades to complete. The average cathedral took 80 years to complete and some took over 200 years of continuous labor. (The current St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 150 years of work to complete by 1656. More so - the cathedral in Cologne, Germany, with its two great bell towers, each bursting more than 500 feet skyward, required 350 years of work spanning six centuries.)
It involved a generational effort. The generation that began the cathedral would not live to see it through to completion. The first generation passed on their building skills and in many instances their tools, to the next generation, which did the same to the third generation, so that there was an unbroken continuity in the construction. The first generation hired the architect, who not only designed the building, but also supervised its construction.
The vision of that first generation would only come into reality long after they were gone. They labored in faith, believing that the “seed” they were sowing would ultimately grow to maturity. They passed on the responsibility of the vision to the next generation. They built into their children a reverence for the task, and a sense of meaning and purpose. They imparted to their children a vision that would govern their lives.
In order to build a cathedral, there had to be “cathedral thinking.” They had a “long range vision” that saw into the future and shaped their daily lives. They did not live for the present, but lived for the future in the present. They laid down their “today” in order to pick up their “tomorrow.” They sacrificed the present for the future. But they believed that the task that they were involved in was worth the blood, sweat, and tears.
We must think generationally. We must pass on the “building skills” that we have acquired to the next generation. We must impart to our children a vision that will govern their lives and provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. We must labor in faith realizing that we may never see our vision fully realized in our lifetime. Cathedral thinking enables us to press ahead despite setbacks, and what seems to be the slowness of progress. This means that we must live strategically, rather than simply “day-to-day.” We must manage our resources and prepare for the future. We must leave an “inheritance” for the next generation. We must prepare the next generation to receive the “baton” from the current generation.
A few years ago my wife and I had the opportunity to visit Europe for the first time. One of the most memorable experiences during our travels involved seeing the massive cathedrals that are found in the major cities of the continent. Not only were they impressive in size, but the age of these structures in many instances, pre-dated the discovery of the “New World” by Columbus. In addition, when one understands what was involved in the building of these cathedrals you are struck with the long range planning that was essential to their construction.
Not only did it require vast amounts of material resources; it was a task that would take many decades to complete. The average cathedral took 80 years to complete and some took over 200 years of continuous labor. (The current St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 150 years of work to complete by 1656. More so - the cathedral in Cologne, Germany, with its two great bell towers, each bursting more than 500 feet skyward, required 350 years of work spanning six centuries.)
It involved a generational effort. The generation that began the cathedral would not live to see it through to completion. The first generation passed on their building skills and in many instances their tools, to the next generation, which did the same to the third generation, so that there was an unbroken continuity in the construction. The first generation hired the architect, who not only designed the building, but also supervised its construction.
The vision of that first generation would only come into reality long after they were gone. They labored in faith, believing that the “seed” they were sowing would ultimately grow to maturity. They passed on the responsibility of the vision to the next generation. They built into their children a reverence for the task, and a sense of meaning and purpose. They imparted to their children a vision that would govern their lives.
In order to build a cathedral, there had to be “cathedral thinking.” They had a “long range vision” that saw into the future and shaped their daily lives. They did not live for the present, but lived for the future in the present. They laid down their “today” in order to pick up their “tomorrow.” They sacrificed the present for the future. But they believed that the task that they were involved in was worth the blood, sweat, and tears.
We must think generationally. We must pass on the “building skills” that we have acquired to the next generation. We must impart to our children a vision that will govern their lives and provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. We must labor in faith realizing that we may never see our vision fully realized in our lifetime. Cathedral thinking enables us to press ahead despite setbacks, and what seems to be the slowness of progress. This means that we must live strategically, rather than simply “day-to-day.” We must manage our resources and prepare for the future. We must leave an “inheritance” for the next generation. We must prepare the next generation to receive the “baton” from the current generation.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Islam and the Cross of Christ
(I originally wrote this back in 2001, I am posting it today simply to show the distinction between the Islamic view of the Cross and that of historic-orthodox Christianity.)
Islam does affirm certain aspects of Christianity that are quite interesting placed within their theological scheme. For instance, they affirm the Virgin Birth of Christ, even though they do not believe that this is an indication of Jesus’ divinity. (The denial of the divinity of Jesus is in line with the assertion of Allah as the one true God. Christianity is seen as tritheistic.) They acknowledge that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, yet believe that the prophet Muhammad was superior in his revelation. They believe as well, in the sinlessness of Christ. They even believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, though in a very distorted manner. All of these aspects of Islamic theology are an adoption and adaptation of Christianity by Muhammad. But the real issue of Christianity, while not ignoring the significance of all the complimentary components, is the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:3-8). In this regard the teachings of the Qur’an are in their greatest conflict with the Gospels.
The New Testament is emphatic on this point: Jesus died on a cross. The Qur’an is equally emphatic that He did not. There are actually two major views in Islamic theology relating to this matter. The orthodox view is that Jesus was not crucified, but " although it seemed so to them" (the Arabic phrase being, shubbiha la-hum), instead He was translated to heaven, with another taking His place on the cross (Sura 4:157). The phrase "it seemed so to them" is understood to convey the idea that the Jews thought that Jesus died on the cross. It could also be interpreted that the Jews thought that the person who died on the cross was Jesus.
The second view of Christ’s crucifixion is found among an Islamic sect known as the Ahmadis* (this group is regarded as heretical by the Sunnis), they argue that Christ did not die on the cross, but was only badly wounded and recovered in the tomb. They then state that He eventually made His way to Kashmir, where He subsequently died, and was buried at Srinagar, India. The legendary Tomb of Issa (Jesus) is a popular pilgrimage site. The second coming is not of a resurrected Jesus, but the one who bore the power and spirit of Jesus (Ahmad). This view was taught by the Ahmadi teacher, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (1893-1985), who understood the importance of the Cross and the Resurrection to Christian theology (a point missed by many so-called "liberal" Christians). He made this statement: "Once it is established that Jesus did not die on the cross, there was no accursed death, no bearing of sins for mankind, no resurrection, no ascension, and no atonement. The entire structure of church theology is thereby demolished." Undoubtedly, this Islamic writer understood that without Christ’s death on the Cross, there is no Christian gospel.
Christianity is not built upon on an ethical philosophy, though it does teach ethical behavior. It is built upon nothing less than the historical fact of the Resurrection, which was the Father’s validation of the atoning work of the crucifixion. Without the historical fact of Christ coming out of the tomb alive, Christianity is invalidated (I Cor. 15:13-19). Without the Resurrection, Christianity is left "without a leg to stand on." Islam recognizes this and thus rejects not Jesus per se, but His atonement.
* This sect originated in India in 1899 as a Muslim reform movement. It differs from orthodox Islam in that it believes that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was the promised Messiah, the coming one of all the major religions in the world. It has in the years since its founding, developed the most aggressive missionary program in Islam. In coming to the U.S., it has had its greatest success in the black community. They have produced a vast amount of literature concerning Jesus. He is viewed as a great prophet.
Islam does affirm certain aspects of Christianity that are quite interesting placed within their theological scheme. For instance, they affirm the Virgin Birth of Christ, even though they do not believe that this is an indication of Jesus’ divinity. (The denial of the divinity of Jesus is in line with the assertion of Allah as the one true God. Christianity is seen as tritheistic.) They acknowledge that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, yet believe that the prophet Muhammad was superior in his revelation. They believe as well, in the sinlessness of Christ. They even believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, though in a very distorted manner. All of these aspects of Islamic theology are an adoption and adaptation of Christianity by Muhammad. But the real issue of Christianity, while not ignoring the significance of all the complimentary components, is the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:3-8). In this regard the teachings of the Qur’an are in their greatest conflict with the Gospels.
The New Testament is emphatic on this point: Jesus died on a cross. The Qur’an is equally emphatic that He did not. There are actually two major views in Islamic theology relating to this matter. The orthodox view is that Jesus was not crucified, but " although it seemed so to them" (the Arabic phrase being, shubbiha la-hum), instead He was translated to heaven, with another taking His place on the cross (Sura 4:157). The phrase "it seemed so to them" is understood to convey the idea that the Jews thought that Jesus died on the cross. It could also be interpreted that the Jews thought that the person who died on the cross was Jesus.
The second view of Christ’s crucifixion is found among an Islamic sect known as the Ahmadis* (this group is regarded as heretical by the Sunnis), they argue that Christ did not die on the cross, but was only badly wounded and recovered in the tomb. They then state that He eventually made His way to Kashmir, where He subsequently died, and was buried at Srinagar, India. The legendary Tomb of Issa (Jesus) is a popular pilgrimage site. The second coming is not of a resurrected Jesus, but the one who bore the power and spirit of Jesus (Ahmad). This view was taught by the Ahmadi teacher, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (1893-1985), who understood the importance of the Cross and the Resurrection to Christian theology (a point missed by many so-called "liberal" Christians). He made this statement: "Once it is established that Jesus did not die on the cross, there was no accursed death, no bearing of sins for mankind, no resurrection, no ascension, and no atonement. The entire structure of church theology is thereby demolished." Undoubtedly, this Islamic writer understood that without Christ’s death on the Cross, there is no Christian gospel.
Christianity is not built upon on an ethical philosophy, though it does teach ethical behavior. It is built upon nothing less than the historical fact of the Resurrection, which was the Father’s validation of the atoning work of the crucifixion. Without the historical fact of Christ coming out of the tomb alive, Christianity is invalidated (I Cor. 15:13-19). Without the Resurrection, Christianity is left "without a leg to stand on." Islam recognizes this and thus rejects not Jesus per se, but His atonement.
* This sect originated in India in 1899 as a Muslim reform movement. It differs from orthodox Islam in that it believes that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was the promised Messiah, the coming one of all the major religions in the world. It has in the years since its founding, developed the most aggressive missionary program in Islam. In coming to the U.S., it has had its greatest success in the black community. They have produced a vast amount of literature concerning Jesus. He is viewed as a great prophet.
Greek Word Study on Prayer
“With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints.” (Ephesians 6:18)
The Greek word most often used for “prayer” in the New Testament contains much deeper meaning than most believers realize. The word demands surrender and consecration on the part of the one making the request.
In Ephesians 6:18, Paul says, “Praying always, with all prayer…” In both instances the word “prayer” is taken from the most commonly used Greek word for “prayer “ which is proseuche. This is a compound Greek word derived from the words pros and euche. The word pros is a preposition meaning face-to-face. The Gospel of John uses this word when it declares “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” (John 1:1). The word “with” is taken from the word pros. The idea conveyed by this word is one of intimacy. The Holy Spirit is telling us that the Father and the Son had an intimate, face-to-face relationship in eternity past.
The second word, euche, is a Greek word that means a wish, desire, or vow. It was originally used to depict a person who made a vow to God because of some need or desire in their life. This individual would vow to give something to God of great value in exchange for a favorable answer to prayer.
This word, proseuche, shows us two important things about prayer. It tells us that prayer should bring us face-to-face with God in an intimate relationship. Prayer is the vehicle to bring us into a close, intimate relationship with God. Secondly, the idea of sacrifice is also associated with prayer. It depicts an altar of sacrifice and consecration in prayer where our lives are yielded entirely to God. It is a place of decision and surrender where we freely vow to give our lives in exchange to God for His divine life imparted to us. Because the word proseuche has to do with this type of surrender, sacrifice, and consecration, it is apparent that God wants to do more than merely bless us. He wants to transform us! He wants us to place our lives in His hands as we come before His throne.
Now let’s take a look at the word translated as “petition” (KJV uses the word “supplication”). This word comes from the Greek word deesis, which is derived from the verb deomai and most literally describes a need or a want. This word denotes a cry for God’s help that exposes our inability to meet our own needs. This word deesis is found in James 5:17, where it states, “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly (Greek word deesis)…” Elijah recognized his inability to change the situation apart from God’s intervention. He prayed earnestly (deesis), out of his deep sense of need, asking for God to intervene on his behalf. Our appeal to God is to be out of a sense of humility, requesting Him to grant our petition.
These two Greek words proseuche and deesis are paired up again in Philippians 4:6, where Paul says: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer (proseuche) and supplication (deesis) with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” We find these two word used together in I Timothy 2:1 and 5:5 (here the NAS translates deesis as “entreaties”). It appears that Paul links these two words together for a purpose. The word proseuche focuses on the One to whom the prayer is aimed. The word deesis focuses on the need, or needs, being presented toward God.
Jesus used an interesting word for prayer when He told His disciples to “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). The word “ask” is the Greek word aiteo, and it means I ask or I demand. This word has primarily to do with tangible needs, such as food, shelter, and money.
At first glance, aiteo appears to be a strange choice of words for the act of praying, because the word is not one denoting the humble requesting of something. Rather, this word describes someone demanding something from God. But we should not be disturbed by this notion of “demanding,” when viewed in its proper context. The first part of John 15:7 provides us with a key to understanding, it says, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you.” Jesus is saying that if His words take up proper residence in our heart and mind, we would never ask for something that is out of sync with His will and purposes. His Word would so transform our mind that when we prayed it would be in accordance with His Word.
This word aiteo is found in James 4:3, where James warns: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your own pleasures.” When we are not abiding our motives become distorted, and our demanding produces nothing. The word aiteo is used in I John 5:14 where it explains that “If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.” Note the context is “according to His will.” As we allow God’s Word to take an authoritative role in our heart and mind, we give the Word the freedom to transform our thinking. Our mind becomes renewed to God’s will (Rom. 12:2), enabling us to pray in accordance. When we are abiding in Christ and His Word, knowing the will of God, we can pray with this kind of authority.
Allow me to close with the words of John Newton, who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. Writing in 1779, concerning the matter of prayer, he gave these words of counsel: “Thou art coming to a King, large petitions with thee bring; for His grace and power are such, none can ever ask too much.”
The Greek word most often used for “prayer” in the New Testament contains much deeper meaning than most believers realize. The word demands surrender and consecration on the part of the one making the request.
In Ephesians 6:18, Paul says, “Praying always, with all prayer…” In both instances the word “prayer” is taken from the most commonly used Greek word for “prayer “ which is proseuche. This is a compound Greek word derived from the words pros and euche. The word pros is a preposition meaning face-to-face. The Gospel of John uses this word when it declares “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” (John 1:1). The word “with” is taken from the word pros. The idea conveyed by this word is one of intimacy. The Holy Spirit is telling us that the Father and the Son had an intimate, face-to-face relationship in eternity past.
The second word, euche, is a Greek word that means a wish, desire, or vow. It was originally used to depict a person who made a vow to God because of some need or desire in their life. This individual would vow to give something to God of great value in exchange for a favorable answer to prayer.
This word, proseuche, shows us two important things about prayer. It tells us that prayer should bring us face-to-face with God in an intimate relationship. Prayer is the vehicle to bring us into a close, intimate relationship with God. Secondly, the idea of sacrifice is also associated with prayer. It depicts an altar of sacrifice and consecration in prayer where our lives are yielded entirely to God. It is a place of decision and surrender where we freely vow to give our lives in exchange to God for His divine life imparted to us. Because the word proseuche has to do with this type of surrender, sacrifice, and consecration, it is apparent that God wants to do more than merely bless us. He wants to transform us! He wants us to place our lives in His hands as we come before His throne.
Now let’s take a look at the word translated as “petition” (KJV uses the word “supplication”). This word comes from the Greek word deesis, which is derived from the verb deomai and most literally describes a need or a want. This word denotes a cry for God’s help that exposes our inability to meet our own needs. This word deesis is found in James 5:17, where it states, “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly (Greek word deesis)…” Elijah recognized his inability to change the situation apart from God’s intervention. He prayed earnestly (deesis), out of his deep sense of need, asking for God to intervene on his behalf. Our appeal to God is to be out of a sense of humility, requesting Him to grant our petition.
These two Greek words proseuche and deesis are paired up again in Philippians 4:6, where Paul says: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer (proseuche) and supplication (deesis) with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” We find these two word used together in I Timothy 2:1 and 5:5 (here the NAS translates deesis as “entreaties”). It appears that Paul links these two words together for a purpose. The word proseuche focuses on the One to whom the prayer is aimed. The word deesis focuses on the need, or needs, being presented toward God.
Jesus used an interesting word for prayer when He told His disciples to “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). The word “ask” is the Greek word aiteo, and it means I ask or I demand. This word has primarily to do with tangible needs, such as food, shelter, and money.
At first glance, aiteo appears to be a strange choice of words for the act of praying, because the word is not one denoting the humble requesting of something. Rather, this word describes someone demanding something from God. But we should not be disturbed by this notion of “demanding,” when viewed in its proper context. The first part of John 15:7 provides us with a key to understanding, it says, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you.” Jesus is saying that if His words take up proper residence in our heart and mind, we would never ask for something that is out of sync with His will and purposes. His Word would so transform our mind that when we prayed it would be in accordance with His Word.
This word aiteo is found in James 4:3, where James warns: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your own pleasures.” When we are not abiding our motives become distorted, and our demanding produces nothing. The word aiteo is used in I John 5:14 where it explains that “If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.” Note the context is “according to His will.” As we allow God’s Word to take an authoritative role in our heart and mind, we give the Word the freedom to transform our thinking. Our mind becomes renewed to God’s will (Rom. 12:2), enabling us to pray in accordance. When we are abiding in Christ and His Word, knowing the will of God, we can pray with this kind of authority.
Allow me to close with the words of John Newton, who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. Writing in 1779, concerning the matter of prayer, he gave these words of counsel: “Thou art coming to a King, large petitions with thee bring; for His grace and power are such, none can ever ask too much.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
