Nuances, Corrections, and Elaborations
My brother Myron weighed in on what I had written here about his topic at church recently. He corrected some details and more fully fleshed out other content. My having written the report so long after it actually happened and doing so with few notes didn't help any in preserving nuances and remembering details accurately. I thought at first that I would go back and correct the original post, but am just feeling a little too lazy at the moment to do that. I'm posting his comments just as he sent them to me.
Miriam,
I was referred to this post and enjoyed reading it. Thanks for your kind words. Just a couple of corrections and clarifications. Some split hairs, but I'll still make some distinctions.
I got married at 41.
I taught for parts of 8 years at RBI, usually 2 terms per year and the first years split with SMBI
In the early 90's, as a single man, I was asked if I would consider being a candidate for the position of
academic dean, which I declined. I was not offered the job.
When Jon Showalter, the acting dean and the one who covered most of the classes I had taught, with
his family, spent a sabbatical year in China in '04-05, I was asked if I would consider filling in as academic dean on an interim basis and teach the classes he had taught. I declined but finally agreed to teach 2 courses for one term.
I was at Westmont 80-81, 81-82 and spent the fall semester of 82 in Europe in the Westmont Europe
Semester, which included 3 weeks in Israel, studying at the Institute of Holy Land Studies, now Jerusalem University College. I didn't spend a semester in Israel. I graduated from Westmont the Spring of 1983.
The point of my story on dishonesty was more that a narrow view of grace, as seemingly embraced by many reformers and their modern day descendents, allowed them to sin with the easy assurance that grace was sufficient, because, as Luther taught, one is always a sinner. The one thing that matters is what God sees when He looks at us. When we have faith, God sees the righteousness of Christ, regardless of how we live. All reformers, however, would have advocated living Godly lives, I think it is safe to say, as would their evangelical descendents, a point I didn't make but should have.
The preacher praying the kingdom of light and darkness prayer was long after Westmont and had no connection to Westmont. You don't say that but a casual reader might make the connection.
On point 3, being obedient to what you understand already is only part of the point. Being obedient, even if understanding is absent, makes it possible to know Christ and the truth of God's word, as understanding follows faithful obedience.
On point 5, more specifically, the Bible (NT) is the template through which all the past and present is evaluated. This would have more specifically applied to the health/faithfulness/integrity of the church and it provided the touchstone for Anabaptists as they thought about how they should be the church in their time. Catholics, on the other hand, were more accepting of the givenness of the church as tradition had the same authority as the Bible, since the same apostolic authority presumed of NT writers was passed in unbroken succession through bishops. Christ consecrated the disciples and they consecrated their successors, passing on the anointing and authority given by Christ to His original followers. Once you have it, you can pass it on.
Finally, your "powerful people" quote draws my mind to people with stature, means, and authority in a general sense. In church settings, it isn't so much these kinds of persons as it is strong personalities with decided opinions who are happy to express themselves who seem to drive "discernment." They can be one and the same but it is a distinction I think worth noting.
All for what it's worth. --Myron
Miriam,
I was referred to this post and enjoyed reading it. Thanks for your kind words. Just a couple of corrections and clarifications. Some split hairs, but I'll still make some distinctions.
I got married at 41.
I taught for parts of 8 years at RBI, usually 2 terms per year and the first years split with SMBI
In the early 90's, as a single man, I was asked if I would consider being a candidate for the position of
academic dean, which I declined. I was not offered the job.
When Jon Showalter, the acting dean and the one who covered most of the classes I had taught, with
his family, spent a sabbatical year in China in '04-05, I was asked if I would consider filling in as academic dean on an interim basis and teach the classes he had taught. I declined but finally agreed to teach 2 courses for one term.
I was at Westmont 80-81, 81-82 and spent the fall semester of 82 in Europe in the Westmont Europe
Semester, which included 3 weeks in Israel, studying at the Institute of Holy Land Studies, now Jerusalem University College. I didn't spend a semester in Israel. I graduated from Westmont the Spring of 1983.
The point of my story on dishonesty was more that a narrow view of grace, as seemingly embraced by many reformers and their modern day descendents, allowed them to sin with the easy assurance that grace was sufficient, because, as Luther taught, one is always a sinner. The one thing that matters is what God sees when He looks at us. When we have faith, God sees the righteousness of Christ, regardless of how we live. All reformers, however, would have advocated living Godly lives, I think it is safe to say, as would their evangelical descendents, a point I didn't make but should have.
The preacher praying the kingdom of light and darkness prayer was long after Westmont and had no connection to Westmont. You don't say that but a casual reader might make the connection.
On point 3, being obedient to what you understand already is only part of the point. Being obedient, even if understanding is absent, makes it possible to know Christ and the truth of God's word, as understanding follows faithful obedience.
On point 5, more specifically, the Bible (NT) is the template through which all the past and present is evaluated. This would have more specifically applied to the health/faithfulness/integrity of the church and it provided the touchstone for Anabaptists as they thought about how they should be the church in their time. Catholics, on the other hand, were more accepting of the givenness of the church as tradition had the same authority as the Bible, since the same apostolic authority presumed of NT writers was passed in unbroken succession through bishops. Christ consecrated the disciples and they consecrated their successors, passing on the anointing and authority given by Christ to His original followers. Once you have it, you can pass it on.
Finally, your "powerful people" quote draws my mind to people with stature, means, and authority in a general sense. In church settings, it isn't so much these kinds of persons as it is strong personalities with decided opinions who are happy to express themselves who seem to drive "discernment." They can be one and the same but it is a distinction I think worth noting.
All for what it's worth. --Myron
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home