The interpretation has changed

A family has recently returned from Malaysia.  There were a few reasons for this.  The most startling one related to their visas.

As this family has children attending an international school there, they were eligible for guardian's visas to live in that country.  Both parents were granted one of these visas each, in the past.  However, on their most recent application to have their visas renewed, they were told that Malaysian authorities would only renew one of their visas, but not both.

The law pertaining to these visas has not changed.  The law allows that guardians of children be granted visas.  Only the interpretation of the law has changed.  Ie. instead of granting such visas to both parents, the authorities will only approve the visa for one parent.

Does this seem silly to you?  Is this normal in your circumstance?  What do you think about such laws?

I remember similar experiences with traffic laws in the Philippines.  One issue was with "swerving".  Technically, it means changing lanes across multiple lanes without indicating and recklessly.  There are signs to tell drivers not to swerve ... especially near the exits from the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX).  Drivers are to try to be in the correct lanes to exit these expressway rather than to cause hazard or traffic jams through their ill-preparation.

However, traffic law enforcers would sometimes apprehend drivers in other locations, and accuse them of swerving.  Even when they have indicated, even when they change lanes slowly and carefully, and even when they only go across one lane.  The word "swerving" is sometimes subject to interpretation.  Some drivers would prefer to bribe the law enforcers rather than to argue or to plead their case in court, but this does not really help the situation.

Have you been caught out similarly?  Where?  How?  What was the circumstance?

What is the law and what should the interpretation be?

Are there any spiritual implications that you can see?

Ten percent

We read in the Old Testament about the practice of giving a tenth back to God.  This practice is often called "tithing".  We see examples and commands about tithing in Leviticus 27:30-32 and in other parts of Scripture.

What do you understand about the practice of "tithing"?  Is it something in the Old Testament that does not carry into the Church's practice today?  Or should the Church still continue to practice tithing?  If not a tenth, then how much should one put into one's offering?

Some people believe that churches should not teach about tithing as a current day practice.  A summary was put together by Russ Kelly which said that:

• The New Testament teaches that we should give generously, and not be bound by 10% rules;
• Old Testament practice of tithing was in relation to food within Israel only;
• Other offerings were given to God, eg. first fruits, not just tithes;
• No minimum amount was set in giving;
• Levites received tithes but were not allowed to own land;
• There were four tithes - religious/Levitical tithe, feast tithe, poor tithe, and tithe to the ruler;
• The poor did not tithe;
• Tithes were a form of political taxes;
• New Testament did not teach tithing but generosity;
• Church growth happened as church shared everything;
• New Testament teaches cheerful giving, not unwilling calculated giving.

Kelly had a few more points in his list.  Do you believe his exposition, though?

A criticism of tithing was found in Steve West's write-up about the practice of Hillsong.  Apparently, Hillsong is a church that teaches and practices tithing.  The church's leaders and the church consequently rakes in a lot of money, and even then, asks that tax-free concessions that are intended for poorer, struggling churches be applied to them.

But is that church not prosperous because of God's blessing to them?  Is the criticism warranted?  Or is it an abuse that has been exposed?  Is it wrong for church ministers to be financially well-to-do?

What do you think?  What do you believe?  How much are we giving to the Lord through the churches?  Is it 10%?  More?  Less?  How do we be generous back to God, who has blessed us with everything we have and so much more?

Awesome, good

"I once preached a sermon in which I described a recent holiday as 'awesome'.  An earnest student came to me at the end. 'David, only God is awesome,' she said."

These words of David Bracewell in an early edition of "Daily Bread" set me thinking.  What is awesome?  How do we use this word?  Is it an attribute reserved to be used only for God the way "holy" is only reserved for God?  What do you think?  How do you use this word?

The passage reminds me of Jesus' response to the rich young ruler "why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone".  Jesus was not saying that He was not good.  Nor was He saying that "good" is an attribute of God that people cannot claim.  But He did make the point that God is good.  He also used that to point out to his audience that he (and we) are not good enough for eternal life, except that it be given to us by the grace of our good God.

Do you consider yourself to be good?  Do you think you are good enough to deserve eternal life?  Why or why not?  How good do you think is good enough?

What do you think about these attributes?  How do they relate to you?

The world that Jesus was born into

Around the era when Jesus was born, ...

• Julius Caesar was assassinated by Brutus.  Cassius succeeded Caesar as the next emperor of Rome (44 BC).
• Mark Antony and Octavian overthrows Cassius.  (42BC).
• Octavian wins over Mark Antony, changes his name to Augustus, and becomes the next emperor.  (31BC).

Around this time, a man called Herod the Great (74BC - 4BC) lived.  Herod:

•  sided with Cassius when he was in power, then Mark Antony, then changed sides to Octavian at the right times to be on the right side politically throughout his career years.
• had a brother-in-law put in a good word for him such that Augustus installed him as the Roman client-king over Judea.
• was bestowed the title "king of the Jews".  Consequently felt threatened when the Magi sought a different "king of the Jews".
• was a "Jew" in the sense that John Hyrcanus had previously forced Idumeans to convert to Judaism; although, in terms of race, Herod was really an Idumean or an Edomite.
• As "king of the Jews", Herod was to represent the Jews.  However, he also saw himself as a friend of the non-Jews, and allowed these people to have their temples in Jerusalem.  This is probably the right position politically, but it upset the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin since it was not enough Jewish representation for them.
• Herod was heavily into construction, building ports and cities - for strength, for protection, and for economic advantage.
• Married more than once; going for extra wives while previous wives were not yet dead or divorced.  (Adultery)
• Charged his wife with adultery and sentenced her to death when he suspected that she had desire to dethrone him.
• Wife's mother was executed without trial when she tried to retaliate.

Romans, at that time were:

• brutal enforcers of their law.
• tolerant of other people's religion.
• demanded high taxes.

It was to this world that Jesus was born.  It was to this world that He said that He is "the way, the truth and the life" and promised  to take us to a better place that He has prepared for us if we believe in Him.

I thought that there are many characteristics in the world in the time of Jesus that has not really changed ... and is still prevalent today.  Jesus' promise is relevant to us now, as it was to the people of Jesus' time.

Do you think so?  Does it upset your world to believe in Jesus?  How?  Why?  Would you do it?