|
camburn
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Daniel Gender: Male
Interests: My favorite writers are C.S. Lewis, Edgar Allen Poe, and Mark Twain. I really like old music. My favorite favorite food is chicken, favorite cereal is Frosten Mini Wheats. Expertise: None Occupation: Paraprofessional
Message: message me
Member Since:
9/3/2004
|
|
| Topic: Day of Rest
Announcer: Now, Pastor Ken Klaus answers questions about the Sabbath and about working on Sunday. I'm Mark Eischer.
Klaus: Hello, Mark. I hope it's OK that we're working on Sunday?
Announcer: Well, let's see how the discussion goes, shall we?
Klaus: Fair enough.
Announcer: First, a little bit of background here. This is from a farm family. Our listener's husband grew up on a dairy farm. One time, they asked the pastor if it was a sin for the family to work on Sunday.
Klaus: They asked that question because they wanted to know whether it was a sin to work on what they understood to be the Sabbath-a day the Lord said we should consider a day of rest.
Announcer: That's right. Well, according to our listener, the pastor at that time said it was not a sin because the cows needed to be milked every day and they would actually be harmed if the farmer neglected those chores. Our listener, on the other hand, also grew up on a farm but they raised soybeans and fruit. For that reason, it was usually not necessary for them to work on Sundays. We get to the actual question now: our listener and her husband have a farm market. They are open Monday through Saturday and then again on Sunday afternoon. They attend church on Sunday morning and then have the market open for three hours in the afternoon.
Klaus: These are some very busy people.
Announcer: Indeed, they are. But she wonders if it's a sin for them to be open at all on Sundays.
Klaus: What a wonderful letter; what wonderful people.
Announcer: You mean people who are concerned about keeping God's commandments?
Klaus: Yes, that just doesn't happen anymore. Mark, I'm incredibly proud of this husband and wife team. To them the Lord and His will are not something for long ago and far away. What a great team.
Announcer: Well, then, can we perhaps give this husband and wife team an answer to their question? They want to know Is it a sin for them to work on Sunday?
Klaus: Well, I think we can give an answer. Actually, I think we can probably give three answers.
Announcer: OK-that's two answers too many.
Klaus: Probably. First, the general answer. In one sense, Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the Law for us. The Lord no longer dictates what sacrifices we are to make, or whether we should tithe, or a lot of things. He does say we should remember the Sabbath Day. That law remains in effect, but God leaves it to our discretion on how we're supposed to remember it.
Announcer: Does that mean that we don't need to gather with other believers for worship on Sunday, if we don't feel like it?
Klaus: And that takes it probably too far. If you don't want to receive Communion, if you don't want to worship with your fellow believers, if you don't want to sing the Lord's praises and make your offerings to support the Lord's work, then you really have to reevaluate what kind of faith you have. Christianity was never intended to be a religion that's solo or to be operated in a vacuum.
Announcer: OK. Well now you said there were three answers.
Klaus: There are. I just gave you the first. The second is a little more complicated. If the husband believes it is all right for him to work on Sunday, it is all right for him to work on Sunday. If the wife feels it is wrong for her to work on Sunday, she ought to refrain.
Announcer: That really sounds strange to my ears.
Klaus:Yeah, doesn't it really, but it's true. And it brings us to the third answer. This is what we call an adiaphoran - something that's neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture. If you look in the Bible, you're just not going to find something that specifically says, "Thou shalt not have a vegetable stand open on a Sunday." It's a kind of thing the Lord leaves up to each individual conscience.
Announcer: How would you sum up this question for us today?
Klaus: With great difficulty, I'm afraid. But that's for me. St. Paul, he does it a little better. Take a look at the 14th chapter of Romans. It says this: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."
Announcer: Thank you, Pastor Klaus, and with that we come to the end of our broadcast for another week. Thank you the listener for making this program part of your day. This has been a presentation of Lutheran Hour Ministries | | |
| Laws Gone Wild Grandma Goes to Jail October 19, 2009 Lisa Snyder is the kind of neighbor everybody likes to have. Every school day, the Michigan mom welcomed neighborhood children into her home—kids whose mothers have to leave for work an hour before the school bus picks up the kids. Snyder didn’t charge anything—she just wanted to be a good neighbor. But then someone reported Snyder to the authorities—and the state of Michigan told her to stop babysitting, or else. The Michigan Department of Human Services said if Snyder wanted to take care of unrelated kids in her home, she had to get a daycare license. It’s an example of laws gone wild—too many regulations, and too little common sense. And that’s not even the worst example. Last March an Indiana grandmother named Sally Harpold was arrested for buying two boxes of cold medicine in less than a week. That’s illegal, if the combined boxes contain more than three grams of pseudoephedrine. They did—which put Harpold in violation of state laws regulating methamphetamine, which can be made from pseudoephedrine. Harpold—who was handcuffed and booked—wasn’t running a meth lab. She was buying medicine for her three sick grandchildren. But the local prosecutor was unapologetic. Harpold, she said, ought to have known the law. That might be easier if there weren’t so many local, state, and federal laws to keep track of. While Harpold is catching up on her legal reading, maybe the prosecutor can take care of her sick grandchildren. Happily, in Michigan, common sense prevailed. Governor Jennifer Granholm ordered the Department of Human Services to work with lawmakers to change the daycare law to protect people who are simply trying to be good neighbors. Sally Harpold was not so fortunate. She had to go into an alternative punishment program, and pay attorney fees and court costs. With cases like these, it’s no wonder Americans are growing increasingly distrustful of government—and of the growing numbers of laws and regulations that are making daily life, well, difficult! Part of the problem is that we have lost the biblical view of the role of government, which is to preserve order, restrain evil, and promote justice. Government has no legitimate interest in slapping the helping hands of citizens like Lisa Snyder. Rather, government should promote neighborly charity! When it comes to helping a neighbor in trouble, government is not the answer. Good neighbors are. The Reformers understood this, and called it “sphere sovereignty.” Each institution—family, church, and the private associations—knew their job. In Catholic social teaching, it was called the principle of “subsidiarity,” recognizing that the interests of individuals are best served by the institution closest to them. In both traditions, government should perform only those functions which can’t be performed by these “intermediate structures.” But the other part of the “laws-gone-wild problem” is we ourselves. As the moral order of society breaks down, government—and its laws—step in to fill the void and to prevent chaos. Indiana banned buying too much cold medicine because of the plague of methamphetamine. When we can no longer master our own cravings and inclinations to evil—in other words, when we can no longer govern ourselves—we invite government intervention. And grandmas like Sally Harpold get dragged off in handcuffs. Time to wake up and apply biblical teachings to the role of government and the individual. | | |
| Well, it's finally happened. The moment we've all been waiting for...the release of Bob Dylan's Christmas album. Seriously--this is not a joke. If you're unbelieving, check out this review: http://blogs.suntimes.com/derogatis/2009/10/bob_dylan_christmas_in_the_hea.htmlThough I've not bought any of Dylan's recent albums, this will probably be an exception. Sheer curiosity to hear what he must sound like singing, "Winter Wonderland" is too much to pass up on.
I'm sure it's no Nat King Cole quality album, but it can't be that bad with a choir and string section drowning him out, I mean, backing him up.
The proceeds are all going to charity, so it's a noble endeavor. Merry Christmas, Bob. | | |
| Topic: Does the Bible Borrow from Other Sources? Mark: Does the Bible borrow from other ancient sources? I'm Mark Eischer, and today Pastor Ken Klaus responds to a listener's question concerning the originality of the Bible. Ken: Hi, Mark. It sounds like you've picked something of interest. Mark: Here's the situation. Our listener is a college student. She's taking classes on comparative religions. She's not surprised to learn that there are similarities and differences between the various religions. However, one of her professors says the Bible is not divinely inspired and it's not even all that original. As proof of this, he points to some very old cultures that also have a story of a universal flood for example. Or, he says, take the code of Hammurabi which was written many years before Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments. Ken: So he's basically saying that the Bible has been stealing from these other sources. Mark: That is exactly what he's saying. What do you think? Ken: Well, I have a whole bunch of thoughts. First, we ought to give a little bit of background. With regard to the story of the flood, I have to let our listeners know that almost every culture of the world-and here I'm talking even about some of those cultures that are pretty much cut off from everybody else-almost every culture has in their history some sort of flood story. Now the stories differ in the telling, they don't always agree on the details, how long the flood lasted, what happened afterwards. But, there is a common link is that there is a story of a big flood. Mark: And those sorts of things have been noticed by anthropologists over the years. How would you explain it? Ken: Well, the fact that all these cultures do have a flood story, some of which may be traceable to a time before Moses wrote the book of Genesis-that's not surprising. An event of that magnitude would be passed down through the generations. That there are differences in the telling of those stories is also understandable. Different cultures would have different interpretations. Mark: OK, but, where does that leave the biblical account? Ken: There are such stories; some MAY be older, they certainly have differences, but that doesn't mean Moses is guilty of plagiarism. All Moses did was write down what God told him to write. Other stories may be accurate from a human perspective -- the Genesis story is accurate from God's point of view. Mark: And we should be clear we're talking about accounts of something that actually happened, as well. Ken: Absolutely. History, not myths with morals. Mark: OK, now what about Hammurabi? Did Moses steal the idea for the Ten Commandments from him? Ken: Once again, we need some background. Let me begin this way. Moses lived somewhere around 1,500 years before Christ. Hammurabi, a Babylonian king, lived around 1,800 years before Christ. Mark: So, Hammurabi came first. Ken: Right. Mark: And what did he do that was so important? Ken: Hammurabi is famous because he wrote a code of laws. This code, inscribed in stone, was found in the year 1901 in Iran. Mark: And that is the code they're saying Moses stole? Ken: Well, no one would say it is word-for-word plagiarism. Maybe they'd say Moses was inspired or motivated to use Hammurabi as a base for the laws which he gave to God's people in the wilderness. Mark: Ok, but how would you respond to that sort of idea? Ken: Well, first, we should say nobody would be surprised that Moses gave some laws and Hammurabi did the same. Hammurabi isn't the first law- giver; he's just the best known. For example there is the Code of Ur-Nammu that was written a few hundred years before Hammurabi (2050 B.C.). I say we shouldn't be surprised because, as Scripture says, everyone has the moral law of the Lord written in their hearts. That's what Romans 2:14 says, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." Mark: What else could you say? Ken: Indeed, while both Moses and Hammurabi have some similarities in their laws, there are far more differences. Even when it comes to those similarities, it's not surprising that these two cultures would have similar rulings. The fact that most nations today have laws against drunken driving or child pornography doesn't mean they are stealing from each other. Mark: All right, that makes sense. How would you sum this up for us today? Ken: Moses' laws are inspired by God. Period. Nobody else could say that. Hammurabi's found their source in the natural knowledge of right and wrong in human hearts-that also is ultimately from God, as well. Mark: Thank you Pastor Klaus. This has been a presentation of Lutheran Hour Ministries. | | |
| LUTHERAN HOUR MAILBOX (Questions & Answers) for August 23, 2009 Topic: Is God a Guy? Mark: Is God a guy? Pastor Ken Klaus answers questions from listeners. I'm Mark Eischer. Ken: Hi, Mark. Mark: This question comes to us from one of our listeners on the East Coast. She said, "Not so long ago I visited a local community church. ... And during the course of the pastor's message, he sometimes referred to God as "He" but other times, he talked about God as being a "She." Now, I don't know all the ancient words of Scripture, but I've never really heard of the Triune God being a girl. Are there any passages in the Bible which speak to the gender of God?" Ken: Well, that's one, certainly, we haven't had before. Mark: It's a good question. It deserves a good answer. Ken: Absolutely, and we're going to do our very best to supply our listener with an answer. Since we're talking about the attributes of God, it is right and proper that we remember what the apostle John wrote in the fourth chapter of his Gospel. There, in v. 24, he reminds us: "God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." That verse is pertinent to our question today. Mark: You mean this part where it says: "God is a spirit." Ken: Right. And what is a "spirit"? Mark: Well, a spirit is a being with a will, but who doesn't have a body. Ken: By that definition, an angel would be a spirit. So you would say an angel doesn't have a body? Mark: Right. Although they sometimes can assume a human form, as we see often in the Bible. Ken: So, angels are spiritual beings. They have a will. But are they male or female? Mark: And, not having a spiritual body, that wouldn't apply to them either. Ken: How about, what color hair does an angel have? What color eyes? How tall are angels? How much does an angel weigh? Do angels have big feet? Mark: Well, I can't answer any of those questions. I know that artists depict the angels looking a certain way... but, really, they're just guessing and so would I. Ken: Which also could be said about the Triune God. We have an idea of how God looks, but we don't know. Since He's also a spiritual being, that picture is in our mind, not in reality. Mark: What else can we say? Ken: We can say that Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, was definitely a man, not a woman. I know there are those who would make Him into a convertible, but the Bible says He is a Man, God's Son. Mark: But doesn't God, when He speaks about Himself, also generally use male nouns and pronouns? As far as I know, He refers to Himself as "He." It's never God the Mother or God the Daughter. It's God the Father, God the Son. Ken: And that is absolutely right. When Jesus speaks about His relationship with the Church He always refers to Himself as the Groom and not as the Bride. Mark: Anything else we could add to the mix? Ken: Well, we really ought to say that while the Triune God always refers to Himself in and with male terms... there are times when He sometimes speaks of Himself with exhibiting some feminine qualities. I know that sounds strange. Maybe I had better explain. Mark: Feminine qualities? Yeah... Ken: Take a look, for example, at Matthew 23:37. There, Jesus is crying over the unrepentant city of Jerusalem and He says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city which kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" Mark: And He doesn't say there He was going to gather them as a rooster gathers his chicks. Ken: No, He doesn't. Once again, He is masculine... but so many of the qualities He exhibits are understood and especially appreciated by the ladies. Mark: Such things as "kindness, gentleness, caring, compassion, love." Ken: Yes. Now, I realize most men do have these qualities, at least some of them, but I would say, on the whole, women possess them in greater abundance. They certainly appreciate the value of these attributes better than do men. Mark: How would you wrap this up for us? Ken: The Bible describes Jesus using masculine terms, even though the Triune God is a spirit and therefore without physical masculine traits. Since we can't improve upon what the Lord has said about Himself, I am somewhat disinclined to change what God has said... especially in the name of political correctness. Mark: Thank you Pastor Klaus. This has been a presentation of Lutheran Hour Ministries. | | |
|