Continued the concept that Sampson was not a hero but rather someone who ultimately failed to carry out the call that God had on his life.
The two main verses that illustrate for me this sad truth of Sampson's life are these chapter 15 verse 20 in which it says that"Sampson judged Israel for 20 years but the Philistines still ruled the land". And chapter 16 verse 20 in which Sampson wakes up in the Philistines are holding them down and it says that" he didn't know that the Lord had left him".
Although the stories regarding Sampson have been told many times I believe they portray an accurate picture of the life that Sampson led.
Most of the Sunday school stories tell us what a great hero Sampson was because he killed so many of God's enemies. And yet in those two verses mentioned earlier we see that Sampson didn't live a life that was dedicated to God. Samson was used by God on five different occasions to exact judgment on God's enemies, but Sampson was not someone that was followed as an example by God's people.
We see that Sampson violated his vow that he took with God. He looked to enter into a covenant relationship we gods enemies through marriage.after leaving the wedding ceremony he looked to re-enter into that covenant relationships sometime later. He used the actions of his father-in-law as an excuse to burn down all of the cash producing crops of the Philistine. Then he used the actions of the Philistines to excuse his behavior of killing a bunch of them. Sansone then went into solitary confinement. He was turned in by God's people and then turned over to God's enemies because God's people didn't want anything to do with him. After killing a thousand Philistines to the power of God's Spirit his prayer to God was selfishly motivated. He spends 20 years judging a nation but made no difference whatsoever in the behavior of the people. he is sexually promiscuous and I sincerely doubt that was the first prostitute he'd ever been with. Samson is the only liar in the story of Samson and Delilah. And in his final prayer he does recognize that his strength comes from God but he wants the strength to exact revenge for personal reasons not for God's glory.
This is not the life of a man who walked with God.
We need to use Samsons life as an example of what not to do. We need to be walking with God on a daily basis answering the call of God to change our world. The call of God to release people from the bondage of sin which in the story of Samson took on the personification of the Philistines. We need to be life givers not event performers. We need to look out for the needs of others not for selfish revenge or pleasure.
I would personally like to rewrite every Sunday school book I ever went through as a child, I think we have sorely missed the lessons of the life of Sampson.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
definitions get bigger
In my transition/journey from a very conservative fundamental background to where I am today. Which is actually kind of hard to explain but a lot of fun to experience. One of the consistencies I'm finding in my life is this.
The definitions for words are getting more complicated/bigger.
This is true for me because I am aware of and embrace the postmodern mindset of allowing words and their meaning to have movement.I know that concept is very hard for a modern epistemology to understand. But it is far more honest to admit words change meaning, or continue to grow in meaning as our world/experiences also grow.
the word" gospel" is one was severely limited to one specific verse, or a series of verses found pretty much in the book of Romans. This "gospel" was to be shared everywhere and if rejected then we could happily go on understanding that we did all that God required of us in the sharing of the Gospel.
Now the Gospel has gotten a little bigger. Sharing the Gospel involve sharing God's love which is far more complicated and intricate than one key verse or several verses from a particular book. The gospel now involves kindness, relationships, sharing, hospitality, encouragement, words of wisdom, counseling, healing, visiting, and telling people about what Christ did on the cross.
I do understand that many in the modern world wanted to boil every word down to its lowest common denominator, that is what many modern people spend their lives attempt. It was the unity through common facts concept. I know that many people that are from a modern philosophy say that these new young people all want to get along, They want everyone to agree, They will work with any one know matter what church or denomination there from.
The truth is the modern world was seeking the same thing only they wanted to do it through undeniable basic facts and definitions. They wanted to lay a foundation in which everyone would agree. And then we can all work together. The unity of God would be seen by the world.
Well that didn't work out so well, we divided over facts and definition.
My definitions keep getting more complicated my conversations keep getting longer and new relationships are harder and harder to find time to develop because of the old ones require my time and effort to be maintained at a level at which I have the opportunity to dialogue over things that really matter. I think dialoguing over things like definitions that are complicated is a good way to bring unity, at least I know it can't get any worse than it did trying to make everyone agree on a definition that was boiled down to such a low common denominator that everyone disagreed.
I imagine half the words I used in this blog now need new definitions, or maybe more complicated ones.
The definitions for words are getting more complicated/bigger.
This is true for me because I am aware of and embrace the postmodern mindset of allowing words and their meaning to have movement.I know that concept is very hard for a modern epistemology to understand. But it is far more honest to admit words change meaning, or continue to grow in meaning as our world/experiences also grow.
the word" gospel" is one was severely limited to one specific verse, or a series of verses found pretty much in the book of Romans. This "gospel" was to be shared everywhere and if rejected then we could happily go on understanding that we did all that God required of us in the sharing of the Gospel.
Now the Gospel has gotten a little bigger. Sharing the Gospel involve sharing God's love which is far more complicated and intricate than one key verse or several verses from a particular book. The gospel now involves kindness, relationships, sharing, hospitality, encouragement, words of wisdom, counseling, healing, visiting, and telling people about what Christ did on the cross.
I do understand that many in the modern world wanted to boil every word down to its lowest common denominator, that is what many modern people spend their lives attempt. It was the unity through common facts concept. I know that many people that are from a modern philosophy say that these new young people all want to get along, They want everyone to agree, They will work with any one know matter what church or denomination there from.
The truth is the modern world was seeking the same thing only they wanted to do it through undeniable basic facts and definitions. They wanted to lay a foundation in which everyone would agree. And then we can all work together. The unity of God would be seen by the world.
Well that didn't work out so well, we divided over facts and definition.
My definitions keep getting more complicated my conversations keep getting longer and new relationships are harder and harder to find time to develop because of the old ones require my time and effort to be maintained at a level at which I have the opportunity to dialogue over things that really matter. I think dialoguing over things like definitions that are complicated is a good way to bring unity, at least I know it can't get any worse than it did trying to make everyone agree on a definition that was boiled down to such a low common denominator that everyone disagreed.
I imagine half the words I used in this blog now need new definitions, or maybe more complicated ones.
Monday, July 13, 2009
how far should I go
Is anal sex..... sex?
That was a question posed to me and a couple other leaders here at church.
I smiled when I heard it because I thought of how far we had come from when I was a teenager and how short a time it took. It wasn't a smile of contentment it was a smile of amazement.
The question really when I was growing up was "how far should I go" how much physical contact can I have with a girl before it becomes "wrong".
I guess you could also come from a girl's perspective with a boy ...But I was quoting my mind not some else's.
I started out with some understanding where this was coming from. I understand that there are cultures overseas in which anal sex is not considered sex. I read stories of fathers to allow their daughters to be used in the sex trade business but only for anal sex so that they can marry them off as virgins. I know this tends to mostly come from the Middle Eastern cultures, at least the stories I've read have come from those cultures.
I know was also shown to be a rather as acceptable discipline of servants and the Afghanistan culture in the movie "the kite Runner"
and a pretty large hullabaloo was made over a movie "broke back Mountain"several years ago regarding the same activity.
So with that in mind I began to try and formulate an answer to the question because although 20 years ago it would have been considered an absurd question to ask in a church let alone to several of the church leaders this person was being sincere and really wanted to know.
I ended up landing on this concept.
Would you allow your spouse to engage in anal sex and still consider them being faithful?
This particular person was quick to respond. Their response was "no". And then they smiled and I smiled back and I asked the question how far would you allow your spouse to go before you would consider them being unfaithful.?
This person turned out to be fairly conservative in their opinion regarding physical activity of faithful married people, and then I asked is it fair to engage in those activities before you are married and still consider yourself pure and faithful to the one whom you may marry in the future.?
I did not spend the time to push the point home, I did not spend the time making sure they understood where Gods view was coming from. I did not spend any time making sure that they were feeling guilty.
Could I have said more ..Yes but
I smiled, and told them to have a nice day, and let them know that was a very good question.
That was a question posed to me and a couple other leaders here at church.
I smiled when I heard it because I thought of how far we had come from when I was a teenager and how short a time it took. It wasn't a smile of contentment it was a smile of amazement.
The question really when I was growing up was "how far should I go" how much physical contact can I have with a girl before it becomes "wrong".
I guess you could also come from a girl's perspective with a boy ...But I was quoting my mind not some else's.
I started out with some understanding where this was coming from. I understand that there are cultures overseas in which anal sex is not considered sex. I read stories of fathers to allow their daughters to be used in the sex trade business but only for anal sex so that they can marry them off as virgins. I know this tends to mostly come from the Middle Eastern cultures, at least the stories I've read have come from those cultures.
I know was also shown to be a rather as acceptable discipline of servants and the Afghanistan culture in the movie "the kite Runner"
and a pretty large hullabaloo was made over a movie "broke back Mountain"several years ago regarding the same activity.
So with that in mind I began to try and formulate an answer to the question because although 20 years ago it would have been considered an absurd question to ask in a church let alone to several of the church leaders this person was being sincere and really wanted to know.
I ended up landing on this concept.
Would you allow your spouse to engage in anal sex and still consider them being faithful?
This particular person was quick to respond. Their response was "no". And then they smiled and I smiled back and I asked the question how far would you allow your spouse to go before you would consider them being unfaithful.?
This person turned out to be fairly conservative in their opinion regarding physical activity of faithful married people, and then I asked is it fair to engage in those activities before you are married and still consider yourself pure and faithful to the one whom you may marry in the future.?
I did not spend the time to push the point home, I did not spend the time making sure they understood where Gods view was coming from. I did not spend any time making sure that they were feeling guilty.
Could I have said more ..Yes but
I smiled, and told them to have a nice day, and let them know that was a very good question.
elevate review June 11
we started a two-part look at the life of Sampson.
We started by looking at how strenuously his parents objected to his marriage proposal. Sampson wanted to marry a Philistine woman.
and what Samson wanted he got. All he had to do was tell his parents that this woman looked really good and he wanted her.
I propose that this little argument was a picture of Samson's life. He had been set apart by God from birth to be a ruler/deliver of Israel. His job was announced and determined by God. I believe that because of his parents desire not to mess things up they basically gave him anything he wanted throughout life. I think those in the cities and towns around Sansone as well as the nation of Israel in general also conceded in allowing Sampson to have whatever he wanted.
I understand why the parents objected. Since it was supposed to deliver them for the Philistines not intermarry into their culture and ultimately bring about more judgment from God.
(We saw in the earlier story line that the Philistines oppression of Israel was a result of God's judgment on Israel, because they chose to worship the Philistine idol instead of God)
but in the end they gave in, and my experience in life makes me want to imagine that the parents in general and the nation in general typically would give in to Sampson's desires.
On his way down to officially meet his fiancée Samson was attacked by a Lion.a story that many people became very familiar with Sunday school. This was the first great thing that Sampson did with his amazing strength. I have a few problems with that general description.
First of all Sampson was on his way to do something that was not pleasing to God.
(I'm not saying that intermarrying by race, color, or ethnic background is wrong or I'm pleasing to God)
Samson was on his way to both politically, religiously, and physically connect the nation of Israel with a nation that worshiped idols. This was something that as the leader of Israel guide would have not allowed.
On his way there Samson was attacked, and just at the moment that he needed to be strong, the Spirit of God Came upon Him. With the function of the Holy Spirit upon him he had the strength to tear the Lions head in two,, by ripping the jaws apart.
He then took the dead animal and dragged it into the woods where no one would see and he refused to tell anyone what happened. Specifically the Bible said he refused to disclose the story to his parents.
I believe that God sent the lion as a warning.
I think the Spirit of God is the only reason why Sansone had strength he was not some musclebound freak in the nation of Israel as many pictures that we see in Sunday schooldraw him up to be.
I believe the Spirit of God's empowerment was meant to show Samson what he could be if he chose to walk with God rather than make deals with God's enemy.
I believe The incident quiet both to his parents and to anyone else who heard about it, that God was looking to stop what he was trying to do.
I think Sampson's arrogance about being "needed by God" in order for God to accomplish whatever God was looking to do was first and foremost in his mind.
I think he used this opportunity to further deceive himself into believing that God would always protect them, and always allow him to do whatever he wanted. I think he thought God would be a lot like his parents and all the other members of God's nation of which he was the de facto and anointed leader.
When Sampson returned about a year later to get married to his fiancée, he couldn't help but run into the woods and see what had happened to the carcass. He saw that a hive of of bees had created something sweet and delicious within the skeletal structure of the loin.
He took chunks of the honeycomb and brought it to his parents. Samson would've used this opportunity to bless his parents and to further his self-deception that it was okay for him to touch a dead body(something God had commanded him not to do) because honey was such a commodity. It would've been seen as a blessing by his parents to have the opportunity to eat honey straight from the honeycomb.
I think he also would have used it to continue his self deception that it was okay for him to go through with the marriage because something ugly or nasty could have happened to the dead Lion but instead there was a honey, and in his mind this would've been a positive sign from God.
From this part of the story I take a couple basic lessons.
The Spirit of God will go upon you to accomplish God's plan regardless of what you may be doing.
It is not a good idea to think that getting away with something as a sign from God that it's okay for you to get away with it/and to do it.
Just because someone has a call on their life does not substitute the need for character development and for self-discipline. Development of Godly character is a priority in God's kingdom, and it takes precedent over following the call of God.
We started by looking at how strenuously his parents objected to his marriage proposal. Sampson wanted to marry a Philistine woman.
and what Samson wanted he got. All he had to do was tell his parents that this woman looked really good and he wanted her.
I propose that this little argument was a picture of Samson's life. He had been set apart by God from birth to be a ruler/deliver of Israel. His job was announced and determined by God. I believe that because of his parents desire not to mess things up they basically gave him anything he wanted throughout life. I think those in the cities and towns around Sansone as well as the nation of Israel in general also conceded in allowing Sampson to have whatever he wanted.
I understand why the parents objected. Since it was supposed to deliver them for the Philistines not intermarry into their culture and ultimately bring about more judgment from God.
(We saw in the earlier story line that the Philistines oppression of Israel was a result of God's judgment on Israel, because they chose to worship the Philistine idol instead of God)
but in the end they gave in, and my experience in life makes me want to imagine that the parents in general and the nation in general typically would give in to Sampson's desires.
On his way down to officially meet his fiancée Samson was attacked by a Lion.a story that many people became very familiar with Sunday school. This was the first great thing that Sampson did with his amazing strength. I have a few problems with that general description.
First of all Sampson was on his way to do something that was not pleasing to God.
(I'm not saying that intermarrying by race, color, or ethnic background is wrong or I'm pleasing to God)
Samson was on his way to both politically, religiously, and physically connect the nation of Israel with a nation that worshiped idols. This was something that as the leader of Israel guide would have not allowed.
On his way there Samson was attacked, and just at the moment that he needed to be strong, the Spirit of God Came upon Him. With the function of the Holy Spirit upon him he had the strength to tear the Lions head in two,, by ripping the jaws apart.
He then took the dead animal and dragged it into the woods where no one would see and he refused to tell anyone what happened. Specifically the Bible said he refused to disclose the story to his parents.
I believe that God sent the lion as a warning.
I think the Spirit of God is the only reason why Sansone had strength he was not some musclebound freak in the nation of Israel as many pictures that we see in Sunday schooldraw him up to be.
I believe the Spirit of God's empowerment was meant to show Samson what he could be if he chose to walk with God rather than make deals with God's enemy.
I believe The incident quiet both to his parents and to anyone else who heard about it, that God was looking to stop what he was trying to do.
I think Sampson's arrogance about being "needed by God" in order for God to accomplish whatever God was looking to do was first and foremost in his mind.
I think he used this opportunity to further deceive himself into believing that God would always protect them, and always allow him to do whatever he wanted. I think he thought God would be a lot like his parents and all the other members of God's nation of which he was the de facto and anointed leader.
When Sampson returned about a year later to get married to his fiancée, he couldn't help but run into the woods and see what had happened to the carcass. He saw that a hive of of bees had created something sweet and delicious within the skeletal structure of the loin.
He took chunks of the honeycomb and brought it to his parents. Samson would've used this opportunity to bless his parents and to further his self-deception that it was okay for him to touch a dead body(something God had commanded him not to do) because honey was such a commodity. It would've been seen as a blessing by his parents to have the opportunity to eat honey straight from the honeycomb.
I think he also would have used it to continue his self deception that it was okay for him to go through with the marriage because something ugly or nasty could have happened to the dead Lion but instead there was a honey, and in his mind this would've been a positive sign from God.
From this part of the story I take a couple basic lessons.
The Spirit of God will go upon you to accomplish God's plan regardless of what you may be doing.
It is not a good idea to think that getting away with something as a sign from God that it's okay for you to get away with it/and to do it.
Just because someone has a call on their life does not substitute the need for character development and for self-discipline. Development of Godly character is a priority in God's kingdom, and it takes precedent over following the call of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)