“The most powerful earthquake to strike the East Coast in 67 years shook buildings and rattled nerves from South Carolina to Maine on Tuesday [August 23, 2011],” wrote Bob Lewis of the Associated Press. “Frightened office workers spilled into the streets in New York, and parts of the White House, Capitol and Pentagon were evacuated.”
A few injuries were reported but no deaths.
“A 5.8-magnitude quake releases as much energy as almost eight tons of TNT, about half the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,” Lewis said about the recent quake.
What does God have to do with earthquakes?
The Rev. Charles Wesley reacted to the Lisbon, Portugal earthquake of 1755 with a sermon called “The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes.” Wesley indicated God uses quakes as warnings.
Wikipedia offers this information: “The 1755 Lisbon earthquake, also known as the ‘Great Lisbon Earthquake,’ was a mega-thrust earthquake that took place on Saturday 1 November 1755, at around 9:40 in the morning. The earthquake was followed by fires and a tsunami, which caused near-total destruction of Lisbon in the Kingdom of Portugal and adjoining areas.”
Seismologists estimate the Lisbon quake had a magnitude in the range of 8.5 to 9.0 on the “moment magnitude scale” and a death toll between 10,000 and 100,000 people.
Wesley said in his sermon about earthquakes, “Of all the judgments which the righteous God inflicts on sinners here in this world – the most dreadful and destructive is an earthquake. This He has lately brought on our part of the earth, and thereby alarmed our fears, and bid us to ‘prepare to meet our God!’ Earthquakes are the works of the Lord, and He alone brings this destruction upon the earth. That God is Himself the Author of earthquakes, and sin the moral cause of earthquakes (whatever the natural cause may be), cannot be denied by any who believe the Scriptures. [...] ‘He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in His anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble!’ (Job 9:5-6).”
Stephen Rankin, chaplain at Southern Methodist University, says “‘The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes,’ reminds me again of how societies’ assumptions can change. The title alone strikes today’s reader as quaint, to say the least. […] Wesley’s sermon clearly indicates that God directly causes the earthquakes for the sake of judgment: a holy God uses natural disasters to judge and awaken wayward peoples. […] As I read, I was struck by how people today (in America) would likely respond. They probably would be quite offended with Wesley’s tone and claims. How could a loving God do such a thing? So, we face two conflicting worldviews. Wesley’s view, shared by many of his day, was of a holy, just, God who is Governor and Judge of the world. God has every right to use all means available to bring about God’s holy purposes. ‘Our lives are in God’s hands,’ and God can do as he sees fit. By contrast, listening to folks today, even ‘conservative evangelical’ Christians, God sounds more like an Attentive Helper, waiting to do our bidding.”
Rankin says that reading a sermon such as Wesley’s provokes questions.
“Virtually all Christians would agree that God can do things like cause earthquakes, but we likely would conclude that God does not directly cause them,” Rankin notes.
Perhaps many believe God’s loving nature does not will such evil on people. Many think God uses other, more gentle means and that natural disasters like earthquakes are an inevitable part of the kind of world God created, but not directly relatable to human sin nor to God’s direct action, Rankin says.
Rankin says, “The harshness of Wesley’s view may trouble us, but so should the God-as-Attentive-Helper view.”
Speaker Lehman Strauss says, “Look at Amos 3:6, where the prophet asked, ‘Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?’ The word evil here does not refer to moral evil, but rather a calamity. Through the prophet Isaiah, God said, ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things’ (45:7). Again the word evil denotes any kind of a natural disaster such as a plague, drought, flood, or earthquake. Both Amos and Isaiah are telling us that nothing happens by accident. […] The supreme rulership of God is based upon the perfections of His divine being.”
There are many things we don’t understand, but God asks us to trust him. God is good and in control of all things.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Separating Paul and Barnabas
While working in 1972 as art director at the former Logos International, a Christian book publishing company then located in Plainfield, N.J., I met the late Arthur Katz, a “Messianic Jewish evangelist.”
Katz had been an atheistic high school teacher before converting to Christ. Logos Int. printed “Ben Israel,” a story he wrote about his conversion. I heard Katz deliver a powerful sermon at a N.J. Full Gospel Businessmen’s meeting.
Katz came one day through the Logos office with a fellow preacher. Katz said he and that friend, also a Jewish evangelist, had formed a joint ministry. I recall wondering, “Will two strong-minded evangelists – especially Messianic Jewish evangelists – get along well, together?”
Soon, that joint venture dissolved. They probably agreed on their beliefs about Christ but decided to walk their walks and talk their talks, separately. As far as I know, they never called each other “hypocrite” or accused each other of being “of the devil.”
Church disagreements are often not about doctrine. Differences are sometimes about culture, personalities, leadership, vision and use of funds. Paul and Barnabas, Early Church leaders, experienced a disagreement – not about the Lord or Christian doctrines, but about a person: John Mark.
Author Wayne Jackson, writing for ChristianCourier.com, says Paul had been such a persecutor of Christians that after his conversion, Christians still feared him. When Paul returned to Jerusalem, Barnabas had to persuade the disciples to let him fellowship with them (Acts 9:26). Paul and Barnabas became great friends, but they later had a “falling out.”
Jackson says John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, went with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. We aren’t sure why, but Mark left the men and returned to his Jerusalem home before the journey ended. When the men planned a second journey, Barnabas wanted to take Mark as a helper. Paul opposed that, and a “sharp contention” developed between Paul and Barnabas.
“Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.’ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:36-41, NIV).
Jackson writes, “As far as the sacred record indicates, these two remarkable men [Paul and Barnabas] never saw one another, again.”
BibleGateway.com offers this insight under “Acts 15 – Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible”: “Here we have private quarrel between two ministers, no less than Paul and Barnabas, yet made to end well. Barnabas wished his nephew John Mark to go with them. We should suspect ourselves of being partial, and guard against this in putting our [family] relations forward. Paul did not think him worthy of the honour, nor fit for the service …
“Neither would yield, therefore there was no remedy but they must part. We see that the best of men are but men, subject to like passions as we are. Perhaps there were faults on both sides, as usual in such contentions. Christ's example, alone, is a copy without a blot. Yet we are not to think it strange, if there are differences among wise and good men. It will be so while we are in this imperfect state; we shall never be all of one mind till we come to heaven. But what mischief the remainders of pride and passion, which are found even in good men, do in the world, and do in the church! Many who dwelt at Antioch, who had heard but little of the devotedness and piety of Paul and Barnabas, heard of their dispute and separation; and thus it will be with ourselves, if we give way to contention. Believers must be constant in prayer, that they may never be led by the allowance of unholy tempers, to hurt the cause they really desire to serve. Paul speaks with esteem and affection both of Barnabas and Mark, in his epistles, written after this event. May all who profess thy name, O loving Saviour, be thoroughly reconciled by that love derived from thee which is not easily provoked … .”
An author who calls himself simply “Coastal Pastor” – he is pastor of the Portstewart Baptist Church on the north coast of Ireland – writes, “Paul’s eye was on the success of the mission; Barnabas had an eye for the recovery of wounded soldiers (perhaps there was an added dimension in this case as Mark was a relative). It seems to me that the church needs both kinds of people … But the story of Paul and Barnabas shows that it is not easy. They were unable to stay together at this stage. Because these two kinds of leaders are so different, conflict is more or less inevitable. And were it not for the grace of God, conflict would be hopeless.”
Katz had been an atheistic high school teacher before converting to Christ. Logos Int. printed “Ben Israel,” a story he wrote about his conversion. I heard Katz deliver a powerful sermon at a N.J. Full Gospel Businessmen’s meeting.
Katz came one day through the Logos office with a fellow preacher. Katz said he and that friend, also a Jewish evangelist, had formed a joint ministry. I recall wondering, “Will two strong-minded evangelists – especially Messianic Jewish evangelists – get along well, together?”
Soon, that joint venture dissolved. They probably agreed on their beliefs about Christ but decided to walk their walks and talk their talks, separately. As far as I know, they never called each other “hypocrite” or accused each other of being “of the devil.”
Church disagreements are often not about doctrine. Differences are sometimes about culture, personalities, leadership, vision and use of funds. Paul and Barnabas, Early Church leaders, experienced a disagreement – not about the Lord or Christian doctrines, but about a person: John Mark.
Author Wayne Jackson, writing for ChristianCourier.com, says Paul had been such a persecutor of Christians that after his conversion, Christians still feared him. When Paul returned to Jerusalem, Barnabas had to persuade the disciples to let him fellowship with them (Acts 9:26). Paul and Barnabas became great friends, but they later had a “falling out.”
Jackson says John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, went with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. We aren’t sure why, but Mark left the men and returned to his Jerusalem home before the journey ended. When the men planned a second journey, Barnabas wanted to take Mark as a helper. Paul opposed that, and a “sharp contention” developed between Paul and Barnabas.
“Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.’ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:36-41, NIV).
Jackson writes, “As far as the sacred record indicates, these two remarkable men [Paul and Barnabas] never saw one another, again.”
BibleGateway.com offers this insight under “Acts 15 – Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible”: “Here we have private quarrel between two ministers, no less than Paul and Barnabas, yet made to end well. Barnabas wished his nephew John Mark to go with them. We should suspect ourselves of being partial, and guard against this in putting our [family] relations forward. Paul did not think him worthy of the honour, nor fit for the service …
“Neither would yield, therefore there was no remedy but they must part. We see that the best of men are but men, subject to like passions as we are. Perhaps there were faults on both sides, as usual in such contentions. Christ's example, alone, is a copy without a blot. Yet we are not to think it strange, if there are differences among wise and good men. It will be so while we are in this imperfect state; we shall never be all of one mind till we come to heaven. But what mischief the remainders of pride and passion, which are found even in good men, do in the world, and do in the church! Many who dwelt at Antioch, who had heard but little of the devotedness and piety of Paul and Barnabas, heard of their dispute and separation; and thus it will be with ourselves, if we give way to contention. Believers must be constant in prayer, that they may never be led by the allowance of unholy tempers, to hurt the cause they really desire to serve. Paul speaks with esteem and affection both of Barnabas and Mark, in his epistles, written after this event. May all who profess thy name, O loving Saviour, be thoroughly reconciled by that love derived from thee which is not easily provoked … .”
An author who calls himself simply “Coastal Pastor” – he is pastor of the Portstewart Baptist Church on the north coast of Ireland – writes, “Paul’s eye was on the success of the mission; Barnabas had an eye for the recovery of wounded soldiers (perhaps there was an added dimension in this case as Mark was a relative). It seems to me that the church needs both kinds of people … But the story of Paul and Barnabas shows that it is not easy. They were unable to stay together at this stage. Because these two kinds of leaders are so different, conflict is more or less inevitable. And were it not for the grace of God, conflict would be hopeless.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)