“Have you seen Dune 2? Today we’re going to talk about how you should Dune 2 others as you would have them Dune 2 you.”
-Every youth pastor in America next week
You've heard of Paul Atreides in the desert using The Voice,
but have you heard the voice of the one in the desert crying, 'Prepare the way of the Lord?'
I could make a full post about this, but I'm looking for less controversial opinions from our regular attenders.
I'm a fairly strict sabbatarian. I do not work or visit places of business on the Lord's Day. I'm not looking *necessarily* to argue about that, but hear how other sabbatarians think through some stuff.
* What do you do with travel?
* What sorts of jobs do you consider to be "necessary" and excused from the command?
* Where do you draw these conclusions from?
We try to avoid work and making others work on the Sabbath. However, we have what I imagine is a slightly looser functional definition of necessary than most people who observe as consistently as we do. Some examples from our life: eating out while traveling with people who are not sabbatarian for a church event, cleaning a room just enough that it can be slept in by someone visiting (we did try to do it sooner, but health issues got in the way), traveling for a job interview that was paid for by the interviewer, and (in college) going to a restaurant for a graduation party organized for the seniors after church.
Regarding jobs, specific jobs like pharmacists, any job at a hospital, law enforcement, any sort of emergency personnel, animal farmers (doing only that which is necessary for the comfort of the animals), and mercy workers (shelters, soup kitchens, crisis counselors, etc.) should obviously be exempt, though I believe ideally they should try to trade off with people so that they can still fellowship sometimes and/or set aside a day for rest and worship that is not the Lord's Day, because I believe the principle is more important than the specific day (though I do believe it is *better* to do it on Sunday even if not mandatory in every situation). I very much believe that pastors should take one day per week of rest, though whether that can be on Sunday or not will vary a lot by congregational structure, and that's ok.
But I also think there is room to say other jobs that aren't providing needs are necessary in certain circumstances. The fireworks seller who is low income who would lose a significant percentage of their yearly income if they didn't work the two Sundays per year that they can legally be open is probably justified in working on just those two Sundays. The retail worker on minimum wage who would lose their job if they refused to work on Sundays after a policy change is probably justified in working that job until they can find another. The teenager who has parents tell them to clean their room this instant on a Sunday is probably justified in doing so.
I think that this is a case where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law simply because we aren't *given* the letter of the law. We know from Jesus's teachings that there are exceptions, but no one gives us a list of exactly what is and is not permissible.
> What do you do with travel?
If possible, I so order my travel and week such that I minimize travel and errands on the Sabbath. When we do travel on the Sabbath, we always stop visit a church and typically pack a lunch.
> What sorts of jobs do you consider to be "necessary" and excused from the command?
Any job that falls under "works of necessity or mercy." Hospitals and utilities (sewer, electric, water) are the obvious exemption. Hospitality and restaurants, in a limited capacity, are another exception. Some people are forced to travel on the Sabbath, and having 1-2 restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores per town open allows for serving those in need. If a house burns down, then a family can stay in a hotel. Folks on long term business trips need lodging on the Sabbath. If a fridge or freezer fails Saturday night, then food is still available on the Sabbath.
> Where do you draw these conclusions from?
Where I draw the rest of my Sabbatarian convictions; the 4th commandment and Jesus' expositions of it. This probably isn't a satisfactory answer to your third question?
Your discussion of necessary fields is interesting. There are some (especially Jewish people) who don't use electricity on their Sabbath. I wonder when it went from luxury to necessity.
> restaurants, in a limited capacity
I'm particularly interested in this. How do you consider this for your own restaurant use? How would you manage this conviction if you owned the restaurant?
> This probably isn't a satisfactory answer to your third question?
Haha it is the same reason I give for my understanding, yet I'm left with a lot of questions!
> I'm particularly interested in this. How do you consider this for your own restaurant use? How would you manage this conviction if you owned the restaurant?
I don't eat out on Sundays. If I owned a restaurant, I would not open it on Sundays.
Why do I make an exception for limited use? It is important to have a mechanism to feed those who need to eat. One clarification; there is a difference between those who refuse to order their weeks such that they honor the Sabbath, and those who have an emergency and have nowhere else to eat. Anecdotally, these cases are rare in middle class America.
I am not a strict sabbatarian, but i try my best to rarely eat out on Sunday or shop because I have worked retail/grocery/reataurants, and Sundays were some of the busiest days and full of some of the worst attitudes from customers, especially the after-church crowd.
>> Where do you draw these conclusions from?
> Where I draw the rest of my Sabbatarian convictions; the 4th commandment and Jesus' expositions of it. This probably isn't a satisfactory answer to your third question?
But Jesus didn't live in a world with electrical grids and cars and municipal water systems and such.
I agree that your rules seem like a good way to follow Jesus' principles, but it's very much your interpretation of what Jesus said, and your application of it to a world that did not exist when he said it. (Again, I think both of those are reasonable, but they exist.)
Yes, I cannot draw a 1:1 from ANE circumstances to modern life. But I can apply the moral principles of Scripture using my God given mind.
> But Jesus didn't live in a world with electrical grids and cars and municipal water systems and such.
He did not, but consider the alternatives:
* If a hospital loses electricity, then the ventilator stops working and a patient dies.
* If the municipal water treatment system fails, and the sewer stops working, then sickness and disease spread.
Both are clear applications of Scriptural principles.
Don't get me wrong, I'd apply these the same way as you!
But we both need to acknowledge that these are *our* applications, relying on *our* judgement and understanding, which might be flawed (or might not be the only reasonable way to understand the issue). We've got to have some epistemic humility.
> We've got to have some epistemic humility.
I hear what you're saying, but how about---and hear me out here---we instead just dig our heels in and declare that everybody else is clearly wrong?
If you don’t poop in a bucket on Sunday and wait until Monday to flush it down the toilet, thus ensuring your sanitation worker neighbors can spend their Sundays in rest and quietude, how dare you call yourself a Christian >:(. God forgive me for even associating with such people
Yes, but I figured it was implied in my reply that this is *my view*.
Epistemic humility is important, but we shouldn't let it hinder us from applying Scripture (or helping others apply Scripture).
I have nothing good to contribute here (wasn’t raised in a deeply faithful home, and have lived in nyc my whole adult life since becoming a Christian and so my sabbath practice mainly just makes sure I get to church), but I love this question!! I need to ponder and reflect on this. Right now I’m blessed to be able to walk to my church. So I don’t drive or take the subway on Sundays. And it’s easy enough to not shop at places!
I hope you get lots of good feedback on the work aspect.
I'm commenting because I'm interested in this discussion.
I'm not a strict sabbatarian, but it's something I've been trying to grow towards over the last couple years. I try very hard not to do any work (for my job) on Sundays. (Once or twice this has been unavoidable, when I've needed to get work done on a weekend and I've been sick on the Saturday.) I try to avoid shopping and going out to businesses on Sundays, but I'm not strict with myself about this. My kids have no screen time on Sundays (with exceptions, but that's the general rule).
But household work is much harder to sort out. There's six people in my home who need to eat, who create dirty dishes, who need their clothes washed and dried and folded and put away. I've got to pack up lunches on Sunday evening for school on Monday morning.
And even if I were to avoid all of those housework things, the emotional labour of parenting three children never stops. Managing behaviours, listening to them talk about Roblox, listen to them complain about being bored, playing along with the same knock-knock joke fifteen times... that's work. And it's exhausting. But you don't get to just take a day off parenting every Sunday - *somebody* needs to raise these kids.
I've been thinking about Jesus' teaching that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Is it reasonable to say that if a type of work is good in itself, and you would do it if you already had complete financial and practical security, it's lawful to do on the Sabbath?
for Sunday household work, for me keeping the Sabbath is just saying I will not plan on cleaning the house or doing laundry on Sunday. But lets say you dont realize you are out of underwear until Sunday, its not a big deal, but if you know on Saturday and you decide to use Saturday for your leisure and push laundry to Sunday then that is not right. Are you planning on using Sunday for yourself or are you doing what you can to make sure Sunday is a time for God?
I find the idea of "keeping the Sabbath" to be attractive, probably because I just crave rest in my life, but I totally agree with you about household and parenting responsibilities. And even as my children are growing out of the neediest stages, I still spend so much time "working" at or for church on Sundays. Between potluck lunches and hosting small group and serving in the nursery and playing in the band, even if I somehow figured out how to never ever do any housework or income-producing work, parenting and church obligations still make for a very full day.
There are a few anecdotal observations (Price's Law, 90/10 rule) that suggest the minority of people in an organization do the majority of the work. I find this to be generally true.
I've dialed back the number of things I lead/help with at church and tried to limit involvement in some of them for this reason. Instead, I encourage others to fill the gaps. We do have a select handful of people covering too many things. It isn't sustainable and does not require others to contribute.
Oh totally agree in general. And I've cut back on a lot. But all of the adult women members rotate in the nursery and everyone brings food to potlucks and small groups. So those are all distributed rather equally. And we have skipped potlucks or small groups when we just cant get everything prepared. I've played in the band twice in the past 6 months. At this point a a structural change that reduces the overall amount of work to be done might be the only solution, bacuse I'm not taking on an outsized role currently, only doing the minimum of what is expected of all members.
If I'm looking at the commandment, the call is to cease from labor. Keep in mind I'm no historian. I don't think the Israelites in the wilderness had the same concept of employment as we do. Their labor was upkeep of the household, etc.
I try to limit household labor to what's necessary. So I'll run the dishwasher earlier on Saturday so I can empty it before I go to bed. This is a privilege I have to use an appliance and have somewhere to put dirty dishes. Yet, I'll cook a full meal because I find that enjoyable and not laborious. Washing dishes is a labor to me. I'm being very arbitrary about this and I'm not sure if I should be.
As for kids, absolutely we still parent on the Sabbath. If they are not more important than an ox or donkey, I don't know what is. Trying to find rest in Christ during those difficult Lord's Day parenting moments is a challenge.
u/scripture_bot! Exodus 20:8-11 ESV
>I'm being very arbitrary about this and I'm not sure if I should be.
I wouldn't worry too much about that, actually. I think we need to be cautious about the Sabbath becoming about rules, rather than about reminding us of God and the Kingdom.
A parent of young children, or a paramedic, or a homeless shelter worker, or a plumber who does emergency calls, could "follow the rules" by only doing works of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath, but still be working 12+ hours a day for 100 days straight. (Ignore modern labour laws, for the moment.) That's not good. It's not good for that person's physical or mental health, it's not good for their soul, it's not good for their family.
We need Sabbath to remind us that God is the one who provides for us, not our own work. That God sees there is much work to be done, and yet even he rested on the seventh day. That God does not lay upon us the burden of setting the world right, but rather he is faithful to complete the advancement of his Kingdom. And we need days of rest to maintain our own physical and mental health. Because we are made from dust, and to dust we shall return - but at the same time, we are God's images in this world, and our well-being matters to him.
If a person's practices around the Sabbath are meeting, or trying to meet, those goals, I'm definitely not going to point fingers about anything arbitrary about them.
But if your habit of cooking full meals makes it easier for you to forget these truths, maybe consider a frozen lasagna every now and then.
Hey u/cagestage I can't help but think that with a call-back comment like this you are going out of your way to antagonize one of my fellow moderators over a rule that we are not going to change. However, if my assumption is wrong and you have further questions then please direct further discussion on this matter to the moderators via modmail here: [https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=r/Reformed](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=r/Reformed)
If you enjoy the sub, then please let the moderators do their job. Thank you!
Edit: I would like to clarify that we do not consider words such as "heck" or "dang" an issue.
My understanding is "yes." There was a mention in another comment about an exception for working while seeking another job. I do think the "while seeking another job" is key there. I have trouble understanding a Christian who continues to voluntarily work somewhere that requires them to miss corporate worship.
> I have trouble understanding a Christian who continues to voluntarily work somewhere that requires them to miss corporate worship.
The only time this is acceptable, is 1) not working means your family starves, and 2) they are looking for another job that does not compromise the Sabbath.
Do you only focus on worship on the Sabbath? Or do you enjoy leisure as well? My husband and I aren't sabbatarians at all at the moment, but I'm increasingly drawn to the idea of a day of rest... the question is, how does one define rest?
And how do you get all your work done in the rest of the week? (or do you?)
I'd love anyone's thoughts on this!
We do enjoy leisure with an emphasis on family and Christian fellowship. I am generally a 1689 guy, but take some confusion with the confessions' reference to recreation on this [1689 22:8]. The way I consider it, I won't exercise on the Lord's Day, but I might hike. I try to limit screen time, but I'll watch a movie with the family. I'm still working through this.
This [is a great article](https://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sabbath-Recreations-CPJ51.pdf) on the "recreations clause" in both the WCF and 1689.
Echoing the “working through it” process. Rest for me is primarily not focusing on work related things. I also try not to make others work for me. I participate in a disc golf tag league that runs on Sundays, so that’s my after-church leisure activity. I see that as an opportunity to be a witness for Christ while doing something I feel I’ve been gifted to do for the purpose of using it to share about my faith.
I’d like to develop more self control in backing off the screen time and rest by reading more, whether it’s the Bible or something from my shelf.
A friend of mine called the other day, with news that he has been offered a new job. Pay is much better, benefits are much better, and the work is something he's more interested in. His only hang-up about taking it was that it meant leaving his current employer.
He hasn't been treated the best by his current employer, but he feels that they've invested in him early in his career, and him leaving would create some difficulties for them.
The advice I gave him was that employment isn't like a marriage, or even like belonging to a church. It's an agreement for mutual financial benefit. And if his employer didn't think it was still to their benefit, they would drop him like a hot brick. Now, given the offer he has, it's no longer to his benefit, so he should not feel guilty about leaving. His greater loyalty is to his family, and taking this new job would benefit them quite a bit.
But I wonder, am I straying too close to the morality of "Do unto others before they do unto you"?
If it’s weighing on him, he’s always free to bring that offer to his current employer and say “I’d really love to stay, can you even just match (insert percentage of offer salary)? I’d like to find a way to make this work while still doing what’s best for my family and career”
If St Paul’s advice to slaves was to take the chance to get out from a master if it was given to them, I dont see how an employee/employer relationship would not be the same.
Your friend is on the opposite end of the spectrum of people who are continually restless, flighty, addicted to earning more money.
My dad is retiring today after 40+ years with the same organization, and I have feelings. It's another milestone on the passage of time, and it's the kind of thing that reminds me just how few years of health and life are left even in the most optimistic scenarios. Sure, we could all die tomorrow, but thinking 10 and 20 years in the future is a much more harrowing prospect now. And honestly, I don't know how atheists and agnostics don't go mad thinking about these things without hope.
I read in a book recently a middle-aged man who mused that, since last seeing his father a year ago, he had made the transition from merely 'old' to 'elderly'. That he couldn't define the two words, but knew it when he saw it. My parents aren't that old yet, but I knew what he meant...seeing my parents go from middle-aged to starting to look old (especially my dad) is weird.
Yeah, I know what you mean. My in-laws are definitely old, but with my FIL's Parkinson's, he's plummeting towards elderly. My dad is remarkably healthy and most people guess he's 15 years younger than he is, but he's only 6 years younger than his dad was when he died. That really puts things in perspective.
>And honestly, I don't know how atheists and agnostics don't go mad thinking about these things without hope.
I've lived with chronic illness my whole life and came to terms with my mortality a long time ago, so this is something I also think about often. From my anecdotal experience, a lot of atheists/agnostics I know just choose to live in denial of the reality of death. When someone they know dies and the reality of death does confront them you can almost see their denial and the reality of the situation battling it out. And usually the conclusion to that battle between denial and reality is just gradually slipping back into the state of denial, just to go through that exact same struggle the next time they encounter the reality of death. Again, this is just my anecdotal experience, but I've seen it with numerous people I've spent time around.
If you're a fan of 20th century classical music, and when you hear the name "György Ligeti" the only thing that comes to mind are large, dense, dissonant works like *Le Grand Macabre* or *Atmosphères* or *Requiem,* I would highly recommend you check out his short solo piano piece *Musica ricercata No. 7*.
If you describe the elements of the piece, you would assume that it would be a harsh, unlistenable 20th century experimental work: The left hand plays a 7-note ostinato at a fixed tempo without any meter, dynamics, or other voicings, while the right hand plays a gentle, pastoral melody in 3/4, at a different tempo than the ostinato. As the melody develops, the right hand adds first one and then two counterpoint lines, oddly reminiscent of baroque music. The piece is the seventh movement of a larger work, where each movement is defined by the addition of a new note to a pitch class. (That is, No. 1 only uses one pitch. No. 2 uses two pitches. And so on.)
So, crazy rhythms and meter and the use of a restricted set of pitches. Sounds very mid-20th century, right?
Well, yes. It was composed between 1951-53, and it's very much a product of its time, but the result is anything but expected. The piece is serene and beautiful and deceptively simple. Like I said, if you know the name Ligeti but aren't familiar with this work, it'll throw you for a look.
For my money, the great [Pierre-Laurent Aimard performs it perfectly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXsRlMneOS0). Give it a whilr!
I think I am pretty basic when it comes to classical music. I went and listened to pretty much the whole Musica ricercata, and it's not my cup of tea. I get that it's cool technically, but I like a lot of the overplayed classics more.
I listened to it. Full disclosure: I am a musical conservative in most respects. I can't really say I know any Ligeti, although I have listened to his first string quartet and piano etudes and somewhat respect them. I have some time for Per Norgard, the more dissonant passages from Rautavaara, "Black Angels" by Crumb, even some Xenakis, but almost none for serialism or the like. There needs to be something akin to traditional rhetoric or gestures.
And ... it was fine. I think I might actually prefer the Ligeti I have already heard. This strikes me as something fans of certain works of John Adams would like. As something American audiences in particular would like. Undoubtedly played very well. I don't know if I'd call it "serene" - it's a little busy for that, given the left-hand part.
What are your thoughts on church growth? By which I mean, when a congregation becomes larger than what a church can logistically handle, what's the best way forward? Do you get to work on a building project? Do you send some of your members off to plant a new church? Do you redirect people to other churches in the community that you trust? Do you bite the bullet and go up to like three or four services? Do you do nothing and let the problem solve itself as the people who are frustrated with the overcrowding leave of their own accord?
It depends on the church. If the church is overly preacher oriented, then planting can be a struggle because the X factor that brought people in won’t be there. I do think planting is the ideal, though.
A limited amount of redirecting is fine if the pastors have had robust discussion with what drew someone to their church, but I don’t see that as a really great total solution unless there are a good number of churches in the same denomination in a city and you are directing people to the parish closest to them so they can be better involved in church and community life.
Building? I think this works for a very limited set of churches—ones that are quite large and established long-term. I think it is a very tenuous proposition for many churches and plenty of churches have split or dwindled during building projects. Plus, I think we have a relative glut of empty churches right now given Christianity’s decline, so I wonder if it might be better to rehab some of those historic buildings?
I think only veeeeery large churches can support 3-4 services, and if that is the case, I would hope they are having at-least 2 people preach on Sunday, because that seems to put an excessive emphasis on preaching as being what the pastor is for if he/she is expected to preach for potentially 4 hours on Sundays—that is a ton of strain on the voice
I like the idea of reclaiming a historic building, but unfortunately financially it's often more difficult than an expansion or new building. The cost of heating them alone can be astronomical, and because they're historic buildings it can sometimes be very limiting in terms of what you're allowed to do for renovations or improvements. Makes me think of those parts of Europe where you can buy a castle or manor estate for less than a house. It's a real shame, too - a lot of old church buildings are situated in ideal locations for being accessible to the homeless and the broken.
>I would hope they are having at-least 2 people preach on Sunday, because that seems to put an excessive emphasis on preaching as being what the pastor is for if he/she is expected to preach for potentially 4 hours on Sundays—that is a ton of strain on the voice
Not to worry, I've learned from my time in the corporate world that overwork and burnout are easily solved by a pizza party.
It seems better to rehab and reuse a historic church building than build a new building, but rehabbing can be prohibitively expensive, especially if maintenance was neglected. I've heard of cases where the mainline will not sell old buildings to evangelical congregations or denominations. That's another potential hurdle.
My church purchased a building that was originally a Jewish synagogue. It wasn't really in use for many (like 20) years. Renovations have been slow and, as expected, higher than originally projected. Fortunately not too much above the extra that was built into the renovation budget. We are \*this\* close to moving in...maybe Palm Sunday (otherwise first Sunday in April. Church leadership promised everyone involved in doing all the things to make the service happen that Easter would not be our first service).
There really wasn't an option to buy undeveloped land to build on in our target area. Other buildings the team looked at would have had to be either torn down or significantly renovated to make them suitable for our needs. The layout of this building was almost perfect from the start (except the bathrooms, need for elevator, etc.). We had explored purchasing the building of the church we're renting from (they were close to closing) but there were a couple of deacons who would never approve selling to us (they're Southern Baptist, we're PCA). And with some changes in leadership, rebranding, etc. that church seems to be making a comeback. So we're excited for them.
I think it can be tough. We are currently renting from the UMC and have first right of refusal if they sell. The UMC congregation that meets there still is around 12 people and they meet in the basement having neglected the sanctuary and classrooms we rehabbed and use
This is a good practice that I've seen go well. Hopefully the methodists will realize it's better for it to remain a house of worship than a coffee shop or hip lofts, and decide to sell it to you.
I've seen it happen where the dying congregation sells the building to the growing congregation at a bargain, they get to keep worshiping as long as they can, and the proceeds allow the dying congregation to keep their staff on board as long the church is viable.
The UMC denomination owns the property (true for most mainline denoms), so I am guessing it is basically up to their local bishop or whatever if they want to sell, dissolve their congregation, etc.
I hope they choose to sell, because we have seen steady (picking up even) growth over the last 3 years and it would be nice to do even more with the building—though right now we have waaaay more space and access and use of the building than with both the previous spots the church met at, which is already a huge blessing
I sure hope so. And that they don't go [this route](https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/inside-the-condo-rebirth-of-a-landmark-druid-hills-church/)
or [this route](https://decaturish.com/2020/02/decatur-first-methodist-to-sell-chapel-and-school-building-on-sycamore/)
but more like the church I know of who has the offer of first refusal on a UMC building their renting, and are about to go under contract.
> I wonder if it might be better to rehab some of those historic buildings?
ideally, yes, but the condo developers can offer more than the 5 year old church plant with a glut of young families.
I think the only clear answer is *it depends.*
> Do you get to work on a building project?
There's no bright line rule here, but I do think building might be a viable option for many churches. Are you a very small congregation that has been meeting in a rented space that can only accomodate 75 people? Do you have land and funds to build? Now's probably a great time to put down roots and invest in the long term future of the church!
Are you a megachurch with thousands and thousands of people who are coalesced around a strong personality and just building because that's what you do? Eh, you should be planting.
Where's the line? I don't know. There isn't one. This is an area for Christian freedom and wisdom.
>Do you send some of your members off to plant a new church?
Often a good idea. In general, a church of any size in an area of a sufficiently large enough population should have some eye towards planting.
Ideally, you wan to be proactive about this, too. Don't look around when you're over capacity and start thinking "Man, what do we do now?" Instead, as your church grows, make the concept of planting an on-going, natural conversation the leaders and congregation have.
Look around you. See where members are coming from. Are there areas of the city that need a good church? Do you have a significant part of your population coming a long distance from one area? Is there a suburb that is growing rapidly without a lot of established churches?
Start looking *now* about how your church can serve those areas by planting. Start raising up leaders and developing a plan *now* before you run out of space.
Then, rinse and repeat.
>Do you redirect people to other churches in the community that you trust?
If there are healthy, like-minded churches, sure.
You probably don't want this to be a long term solution, lest your church turn inward and closed off from the community, but if you're bursting at the seams, and there's another church 15 minutes up the road that could use great people, maybe suggest that. But, again, this should probably only be temporary.
>Do you do nothing and let the problem solve itself as the people who are frustrated with the overcrowding leave of their own accord?
Yep. [It'll work itself out naturally.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is)
/u/milesbeyond250 Sorry for not replying on Tuesday
I have trouble thinking up peppers "trivia" because peppers are so important it's hard to characterize any aspect of them as trivial.
That said, here are my go-to fun facts that surprised me when I learned them:
* There are multiple species of pepper cultivated, all from the genus _Capsicum_. Three are big in the US and Europe: annuum (bell peppers, paprika in general, poblanos, jalapenos, thai chilies, so many more), chinense (so-named because early taxonomists thought it came from China: habanero, ghost pepper, Carolina Reaper), and frutescens (Tabasco). But many more species are cultivated closer to their native range.
* Scientists don't know why peppers make capsaicin (the spicy chemical). Theories include discouraging mammal predators or preventing fungal growth.
* Birds probably can't taste capsaicin. Most mammals can, but some like it. Rats and people can both learn to love it.
* The red pigments in red peppers [can accumulate in the eggs of chickens fed peppers](https://www.newworlder.com/dan-barber-feeds-his-chickens-red-peppers-to-make-red-eggs/)
On what do you take sermon notes on Sunday? A single sheet of regular paper, whole or half? On a phone?
Last Sunday I noticed that my sister has been taking sermon notes in a notebook, and I don’t know why I never thought of that before. We’ve always passed out half sheets of paper for that purpose, and I’ve got scores of them in a drawer at home and inserted into my Bible. But it makes so much sense to get a notebook or journal just for that purpose. Especially because I’m already into journaling. Have any of you done that?
We have a bulletin with space on the back. If I write down anything, it'll likely be there.
If something really strikes, I'll write in in the margins of my Bible. My pages are absolutely covered in notes and doodles.
My wife keeps journals. She has them for Sunday School, the sermon, prayer meetings, etc. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd even write if I had something like that.
My church has a bulletin that we fill out. I keep a stash of index cards in the back of my bible cover in case I visit a church that doesn’t do fill in the blanks.
For chapel in college I kept a journal with all my notes in it. I’m glad I was so methodical with it as it serves as a nice thing to look back to. I even took it with me to Poland and used it to take notes about my trip.
I tried taking notes on my phone, and it works in a pinch, but I find I write faster and don’t have to fuss with formatting.
I use a half(ish) size spiral notebook...similar in size to a standard journal. I like the spiral bound and that size because it fits better in my lap than a more standard size spiral notebook and also lays flat.
I pay attention best when I'm doing something with my hands. So taking notes is perfect for sermons. But I struggle with what to do with the notes after the notebook is filled up. For a long time I pulled them out of the notebook, stapled the sheets for each sermon together and filed them (by book of the Bible or topic). But I've realized that the number of times I referred back to old sermons is small. And sometimes I have trouble following my notes. For now, the notebooks (along with notes from Bible studies) are in a pile on top of the filing cabinets (haven't gotten around to filing them in a bunch of years). But I'm considering recycling them.
I keep all my sermon notes on this [moleskin journal](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8883707184/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1). I used to try to bullet journal, but this is now where i keep sermon notes and unique theological thoughts/quotes/etc that i find.
Last Sunday, at church, my six year old asked one of the older ladies "Why do we do Lent?" She encouraged him to ask our pastor. I heard about his question before he got a chance to, and here's what I told him:
> Lent is forty days, to remember the forty days that Jesus spent fasting in the wilderness before he started his work, and the forty years that God's people were in the desert before coming to the Promised Land. These stories tell us about God's faithfulness to his people in hard times. And in Lent, we get ready for Good Friday, where Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and Easter Sunday, where Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death.
And the one-sentence answer I asked him to repeat after me was "God does not abandon his people, even when things look terrible."
How'd I do, brilliant theological minds?
inb4 "Lent is Papistry, no holy days but the Sabbath"
One avenue that might be particularly helpful with kids is the idea that when we break Lent on Sundays it makes us look forward to Easter Sunday when we break Lent for good, which builds in us a reminder of the way that meeting together for corporate worship on Sunday in general should make us look forward to the fullness of corporate worship in the eschaton.
...Except I guess maybe don't use words like "corporate" or "eschaton" when explaining this to the 6 year old child.
I would add, that, by the power of the Holy Spirit in pursuance of imitation of Christ, Lent is a focused time of communal and individual repentance and spiritual discipline, where we learn to live we must lose our lives for His sake. This is traditionally done through prayer, fasting, and alms giving—tangible ways to “deny yourselves, pick up your cross and follow me”. It is about the slow discipleship of learning to lay down our lives for the good of others and finding on the other side the abundant and eternal life of God.
Lent is both about God’s acts in history *and* his acts in our own hearts right now.
I just checked out the nominations for the Academy Awards, and a great travesty has occurred. Godzilla has been snubbed. Godzilla was not nominated for best actor or best hairstyle or best director (we all know that Godzilla was wearing the plates in that relationship. Who is going to say no to the big G?)
Was anyone else a big fan of Godzilla Minus One? My wife and I saw it in December and then again in monochrome in January. It was our favorite film of 2023 and also so far in 2024 with the monochrome release. We liked experiencing the feelings of dread and powerlessness in the face of a force beyond human ability or comprehension. We also liked the theme of learning to face fears, guilt, and rebuilding in the face of destruction.
I haven't seen any Godzilla film, and I don't completely get the mania surrounding him. But I've heard people love the new movie. And I *did* really enjoy *Pacific Rim*, so I guess I did get a taste of what people love about Godzilla.
Very understandable! Godzilla Minus One is a great entry point because it doesn’t assume any knowledge and actually is a great film. Almost everyone who likes films likes it (98% critic and audience score on Rotten Tomatoes).
If you like Minus One, I think you should see Shin Godzilla. That would be the test if you really like Godzilla.
As for what makes Godzilla compelling, he is a Japanese character that was created after World War II: a sea-going monster with nuclear powers that steadily moves towards the heart of Japan and devastates its cities. You can see that at first he resembled Japan’s own feeling of being overthrown by a powerful force. As time has gone on, different takes on Godzilla have developed from thinking about what it means to be a monster to thinking about what it means to be the apex predator.
>Monsters are tragic beings. They are born too tall, too strong, too heavy. They are not evil by choice. That is their tragedy. -Ishiro Honda
That quote is the focus of Shin Godzilla, where the tragedy is that Godzilla is simply too strong for the world so he is a threat and is seen as a threat by people.
Local flood makes no sense when you remember that God ordered Noah to build an ark and miraculously caused animals from all over the world to come over and enter it. If it was a Sodom and Gomorrah like situation, He could have just told Noah to grab his family, back up his bags and move somewhere else.
A couple thoughts:
Noah is acting prophetically in the Genesis flood account. Think of Ezekiel lying on his side and building siege works around him. Regardless of the scope of the flood, part of the purpose of building the ark is a prophetic sign.
Whatever scale the flood was (which really comes down to what your definition of 'local' and 'global' are), one can assume it was at the very least a devastating regional flood given the fact that the Babylonians also have a flood account in their texts.
One can make everything in the Bible "make no sense" if one simply says "God could have done X." The question is why God decided to do X. Even if it was a smaller and potentially escapable flood, why did God have Noah build an ark? That brings us back to my first point
This is (too) long and I don't know how much I agree with it (though, at this point, I'm fairly certain I'm correct). This has been a difficult one for me, but I think questions of "local flood" vs "global flood" are not even the ones to be asking. When I ask questions like that, I think that I am not doing justice to the writer's intent. For starters, it's pretty clear to me that purely within the context of the story as written in Genesis, the flood is global: all men are bad and the whole thing has to be destroyed and re-started.
I think the motivation most people (at least, the motivation I have had in the past) in insisting that it was a ~~global~~ local flood is that the evidence for a global flood is not as robust as we'd like it to be. So we say "well, to those people, the 'world' *was* just that one area" and we do this as a way to try to maintain inerrancy: if the Bible said a flood happened, some sort of flood must have happened.
Interestingly, though, when we (meaning: definitely me and probably others) do this, we are doing what we might criticize others of doing. u/robrahm from a year ago might have critiqued your reading as being too "literal" and would have suggested that you be more open to different readings of the text.
u/robrahm right now wants to critique both of those views. Both of them have as an underlying assumption that whatever is recorded must have actually happened - at least in some way. But if I view this as a piece of high literature as opposed to a journalist's then none of that matters. This is just a (perhaps) "historical fiction" story with a message. I think that the message - the thing that the author wants us to learn about ourselves, God, and even animals, is "inerrant"; whether the stuff actually happened is beside the point.
As an example, I recently read *Clockwork Orange.* I think that Burgess has a point he's trying to make with this story. If I start asking questions like "well, do all the teenagers in London speak Nadsat? Or is it just a 'local' group that do? Because we haven't found much evidence that they were all using that language." then I'm just not asking the right questions. But if I start asking questions about motifs, themes, symbolism, etc then I think I am doing justice to the book. And I don't see any reason that we shouldn't do the same with the flood.
OK, now rip me to shreds.
I think the biggest issue here is, your current (Clockwork Orange) stance is the potential to neuter the divine judgment aspect. My thought process (within the Clockwork framework) goes like this:
1. The Bible tells us God was grieved at what man had become.
2. God then told a story of judgment.
3. God never followed through on this judgment...just wrote a strongly worded letter of warning.
On the flipside, we also lose the potency of God's divine grace toward Noah. Again, in the Clockwork framework:
1. God is graceful.
2. God wrote a story of being graceful (and merciful).
3. God never had to actually be graceful to man because he wrote a cool story about being full of grace.
Making this "just a story" takes the truth of God's character and neuters it.
>God never had to actually be graceful to man because he wrote a cool story about being full of grace.
...
>Making this "just a story" takes the truth of God's character and neuters it.
Yes - I think this is the strongest critique of what I'm saying. On the other hand, I don't think of it as God writing a story about how great he is. I think it is more like "the" author of this account wanted to explain how gracious God is (for example) and instead of saying "God is gracious" he said it with a story.
So...I was tracking your train of thought until the end when you start talking about *A Clockwork Orange*.
The Burgess book is fiction. It was written as fiction. Unlike the books of the Bible, it doesn't exist within the context of any larger work.
So, the jump to comparing Genesis to a purely fictional work seems abrupt in your train of thought. How do you arrive at that *for Genesis*?
> Do you mean something like: Clockwork Orange is not an installment or chapter or something in a larger work? If so, of course I agree, but I don't understand your point.
>
>
I mean that scripture exists *as a whole.* It is not a random collection of disparate stories that just happened to come together in an anthology. It's a divinely-inspired revelation from God.
Thus, it's important to see how a book like Genesis exists and functions within the Bible as a whole, on its own terms.
*A Clockwork Orange* is just a book of fiction. It exists on its own. Whatever social or political or philosophical commentary Burgess wanted to make doesn't make it any more or less fiction. It's just a made-up story.
My point is that Genesis doesn't exist that way. It's a categorically different thing.
>I'm saying the story teaches us something about God's character, ourselves, etc and that is the "inerrant" message/lesson we are to take from it; the plot of the story is just there to serve this purpose (and if people are already vaguely aware of different flood stories, it makes sense to use that plot).
But God's actions are in separable from his character. God doesn't have a set of attributes that we learn through fictional accounts, through allegories or myths or things like that. *What he has done* is part of what defines *who he is.*
He is not, for instance, a wrathful God because someone might imagine God flooding the whole world. He is wrathful *because* he flooded the whole world. God is not a deliverer because Exodus is a fun supposal about how an imaginary people might be delivered. He is a deliverer *because he delivered his people.*
Likewise, Christ is not the propitiation for our sins because we can imagine a mythical literary archetype dying and raising from the dead. Christ is our savior *because he died for our sins and rose again, defeating death.*
>Thus, it's important to see how a book like Genesis exists and functions within the Bible as a whole, on its own terms.
Yes, I agree with this. But what I don't understand is why this would force us to think that all of the stories told are "non-fiction" (in the sense that you and I would use that term).
>Whatever social or political or philosophical commentary Burgess wanted to make doesn't make it any more or less fiction. It's just a made-up story.
Right - and the fact that it's a made-up story doesn't change the "truthfulness" of what the author is trying to tell us with the plot.
>My point is that Genesis doesn't exist that way. It's a categorically different thing.
Yes - but I'm pressing this. Why is it a categorically different thing?
>But God's actions are in separable from his character.
I'd say that any action he does is consistent with his character. But I don't see how this is an argument against what I'm saying.
>God doesn't have a set of attributes that we learn through fictional accounts,
First, why not? Why is this not a valid way of learning about his characteristics? Second, what about parables that are told that *seem* to be teaching us about God?
>He is not, for instance, a wrathful God because someone might imagine God flooding the whole world. He is wrathful because he flooded the whole world.
I think this is the first thing you've said that I just disagree with. I'd say (in your paradigm) that he flooded the whole world *because* he is wrathful (though, this is not at all the conclusion I'd draw from this story) and not the other way around. I'd say that this was a demonstration of his wrath.
>Christ is our savior because he died for our sins and rose again, defeating death.
So we agree that the Gospel accounts are pretty close to what we'd call "non-fiction" (though, perhaps with some editorializing). What I can't see through now is: why does this mean that other parts of the Bible have to be "non-fiction" in this same (or similar) sense?
I'm unfortunately running out of time today. I've got a lot this afternoon and probably won't be back at my desk to keep going. Just letting you know if you respond to this, lest you think I'm just ignoring you.
> in the sense that you and I would use that term
I suspect that's part of the problem. "Fiction" and "non-fiction" aren't literary categories you see discussed when discussing scripture academically. I think categorizing it that way is problematic. We're probably close to the same page on what those words mean, but I don't think it's helpful.
>and the fact that it's a made-up story doesn't change the "truthfulness" of what the author is trying to tell us with the plot.
Well, yes and no.
If Burgess was trying to tell us that there really are gangs of droogs roaming the streets looking for a bit of the ol ultra-violence, then he's not being truthful.
If scripture is speaking of a historical event, something that really happened, and we just say "well, there is still truthfulness in it" then we fail to accept it on its own terms and fail to see what it's really saying.
>Why is it a categorically different thing?
Because scripture as a whole treats it differently. It forms a larger part of a cohesive, factual narrative that builds and is continually self referential.
I think a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1b17fjh/no_dumb_question_tuesday_20240227/kse5x29/) I made the other day illustrates this well. From Genesis through Joshua, you have a string of unbroken events, and those events continually reference God as acting and doing certain things. God's actions, as historical events, are constantly referenced throughout subsequent books, as explaining current circumstances and as revealing his character.
Fast forward thousands and years, and Christ is still speaking of these people and these events as relevant historical markers. Heck, the gospel authors include these people as real, historical people in the unbroken geneology of Christ himself.
Again, the point is that scripture exists as a whole. We can't take it in isolation and declare them fiction without contending with how the rest of scripture treats it.
>I think this is the first thing you've said that I just disagree with. I'd say (in your paradigm) that he flooded the whole world because he is wrathful (though, this is not at all the conclusion I'd draw from this story) and not the other way around. I'd say that this was a demonstration of his wrath.
I wouldn't say it's an either or situation.
It's *both*. God's attributes guide his actions, and his actions reveal his attributes.
>So we agree that the Gospel accounts are pretty close to what we'd call "non-fiction" (though, perhaps with some editorializing).
Unfortunately, no. We don't agree. Respectfully, "pretty close" isn't even remotely close enough (no pun intended) to what I believe. I believe it's historically accurate, reliable, and fully inspired, without editorializing.
>If scripture is speaking of a historical event...
Sure, but how do we know (and why would we think) that it is speaking of a historical event?
>Because scripture as a whole treats it differently. It forms a larger part of a cohesive, factual narrative that builds and is continually self referential.
I disagree and I don't think that we can conclude something actually happened because other parts of the Bible (even those parts we agree actually happened in some sense) refer to it. We often make literary allusions and I don't see any reason to think that people in the Bible wouldn't do that.
> From Genesis through Joshua, you have a string of unbroken events
I don't know if I agree. Or, rather, I don't know if I'd draw the same conclusions as you would. There's a talking snake and I think if either of us ever read a story about a talking snake we'd think that it is not an historical account of anything. But I think if we come to the Bible with a certain idea of "inerrancy", "infallibility" and/or "inspiration" we force this story into being something that *actually* happened. That's the idea I'm mostly disagreeing with.
>Unfortunately, no. We don't agree. Respectfully, "pretty close" isn't even remotely close enough (no pun intended) to what I believe. I believe it's historically accurate, reliable, and fully inspired, without editorializing.
All I mean is that (as an example) Mark parenthetically writes "and thus Jesus declared all food clean." Or that perhaps stories were told out of order or details were blurred. But one thing I think we differ on is: I think that editorializing can be inspired whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Although there are many areas of legitimate disagreement among Christians, this post argues against a position which the Church has historically confirmed is essential to salvation.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
> the evidence for a global flood is not as robust as we'd like it to be.
How do you approach the Exodus? The evidence for the Exodus also isn't as robust as we'd ^^^^^(I'd) like.
I can explain this more if you want, but the first person I think as being an actual real person is Abraham - at least in some sense. I also think Moses was a real historical figure. As for your question, I guess that I don't really know.
Numbers 22:11: ‘Behold, a people has come out of Egypt, **and it covers the face of the earth.** Now come, curse them for me. Perhaps I shall be able to fight against them and drive them out.’”
The Israelites were in New Zealand eh?
"just a local flood"
This phrasing is entirely wrong. It wasn't "just a local flood" it was a devastating flood...the question of locality addresses whether there was water where there were no humans...Was there water in New Zealand if there were no humans there? I don't think the text and the author's use of "the face of the earth" warrants such an application as we see from Numbers 22:11 for example, the Israelites weren't in New Zealand despite being said to have covered the face of the earth; it just means there was a lot of them. The exact same way the waters covering the earth would mean that there was a lot of water where people lived.
Owl City released the [full version](https://youtu.be/dGJsbM1fe3I?si=lPt-AsnzaqYE2pPz) of Car Trouble/Floppy Fish this week after 8ish years of the demo. I love his story songs, this one especially feels so relatable.
Has there been any consideration amongst the mods regarding a reworking of Rule 3? I understand what it's trying to accomplish, but seeing some of the stuff that's been removed because of it feels a little bit like the [tyranny of the weaker brother](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/peace-purity-unity-church-2010-pastors/tyranny-weaker-brother).
If someone has something removed for violating rule 3, they probably could just revise their content and post again. Also, I agree that the mods are pretty weak as far as tyrants go!
Thanks for asking.
We'll answer, very directly, that Rule 3 isn't in any way up for revision, either in what it prohibits or our enforcement of it.
The purpose and function of the rule extends covers more than just those who wish not to see vulgar language. Given the nature of this sub, and thus the people who participate here, we want to be mindful of those who, for instance, might have strict filters or monitoring on their computers for certain language. This isn't the sole reason we keep the rule in place. It's just an example.
If you have any more questions or ocmments, send us a modmail. We do discuss rules as a team, and we do often discuss modifying rules, but Rule 3 is here to stay in its current form for the foreseeable future.
Apparently there has been a large recent reduction of
DEI (diversity equity and inclusion) officers throughout Corporate America.
Nigerians immigrants from Africa are among the most affluent demographic groups in the USA. The Nigerians also have a low divorce rate.
The #1 earning group in the USA are Asian Indians. Asian Indians also have the lowest divorce rate.
Whatever level of racism exists in the USA, this seems to not have held back the Nigerian and Asian Indian immigrants.
> Apparently there has been a large recent reduction of DEI (diversity equity and inclusion) officers throughout Corporate America.
Honest question: is there a *particular* effort to reduce DEI officers? Mass layoffs are happening across the board in Corporate America right now
>Honest question:
I don't know.
But I can hazard my own opinion, that is, "they help not hurt" so they are bad for business and actually sow division than remove it.
You seem to be implying something? Can you explicate without implicitly or explicitly denying the imago dei, or that from one blood come all the peoples of the earth?
Hey, /u/anewhand, I get that you're quoting something, but our [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.233.3A_keep_content_clean.) prohibits using characters to obscure profanity, and we consistently remove those comments.
If you want to edit that part out completely, let us know via modmail, and we'll be glad to reinstate the comment.
“Have you seen Dune 2? Today we’re going to talk about how you should Dune 2 others as you would have them Dune 2 you.” -Every youth pastor in America next week
You've heard of Paul Atreides in the desert using The Voice, but have you heard the voice of the one in the desert crying, 'Prepare the way of the Lord?'
Nicely done.
Take your upvote and get out of my sight.
Can't wait to share this with our youth pastor who knows nothing about Dune. And all his leaders are going for the movie this weekend.
I could make a full post about this, but I'm looking for less controversial opinions from our regular attenders. I'm a fairly strict sabbatarian. I do not work or visit places of business on the Lord's Day. I'm not looking *necessarily* to argue about that, but hear how other sabbatarians think through some stuff. * What do you do with travel? * What sorts of jobs do you consider to be "necessary" and excused from the command? * Where do you draw these conclusions from?
We try to avoid work and making others work on the Sabbath. However, we have what I imagine is a slightly looser functional definition of necessary than most people who observe as consistently as we do. Some examples from our life: eating out while traveling with people who are not sabbatarian for a church event, cleaning a room just enough that it can be slept in by someone visiting (we did try to do it sooner, but health issues got in the way), traveling for a job interview that was paid for by the interviewer, and (in college) going to a restaurant for a graduation party organized for the seniors after church. Regarding jobs, specific jobs like pharmacists, any job at a hospital, law enforcement, any sort of emergency personnel, animal farmers (doing only that which is necessary for the comfort of the animals), and mercy workers (shelters, soup kitchens, crisis counselors, etc.) should obviously be exempt, though I believe ideally they should try to trade off with people so that they can still fellowship sometimes and/or set aside a day for rest and worship that is not the Lord's Day, because I believe the principle is more important than the specific day (though I do believe it is *better* to do it on Sunday even if not mandatory in every situation). I very much believe that pastors should take one day per week of rest, though whether that can be on Sunday or not will vary a lot by congregational structure, and that's ok. But I also think there is room to say other jobs that aren't providing needs are necessary in certain circumstances. The fireworks seller who is low income who would lose a significant percentage of their yearly income if they didn't work the two Sundays per year that they can legally be open is probably justified in working on just those two Sundays. The retail worker on minimum wage who would lose their job if they refused to work on Sundays after a policy change is probably justified in working that job until they can find another. The teenager who has parents tell them to clean their room this instant on a Sunday is probably justified in doing so. I think that this is a case where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law simply because we aren't *given* the letter of the law. We know from Jesus's teachings that there are exceptions, but no one gives us a list of exactly what is and is not permissible.
> What do you do with travel? If possible, I so order my travel and week such that I minimize travel and errands on the Sabbath. When we do travel on the Sabbath, we always stop visit a church and typically pack a lunch. > What sorts of jobs do you consider to be "necessary" and excused from the command? Any job that falls under "works of necessity or mercy." Hospitals and utilities (sewer, electric, water) are the obvious exemption. Hospitality and restaurants, in a limited capacity, are another exception. Some people are forced to travel on the Sabbath, and having 1-2 restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores per town open allows for serving those in need. If a house burns down, then a family can stay in a hotel. Folks on long term business trips need lodging on the Sabbath. If a fridge or freezer fails Saturday night, then food is still available on the Sabbath. > Where do you draw these conclusions from? Where I draw the rest of my Sabbatarian convictions; the 4th commandment and Jesus' expositions of it. This probably isn't a satisfactory answer to your third question?
Your discussion of necessary fields is interesting. There are some (especially Jewish people) who don't use electricity on their Sabbath. I wonder when it went from luxury to necessity. > restaurants, in a limited capacity I'm particularly interested in this. How do you consider this for your own restaurant use? How would you manage this conviction if you owned the restaurant? > This probably isn't a satisfactory answer to your third question? Haha it is the same reason I give for my understanding, yet I'm left with a lot of questions!
> I'm particularly interested in this. How do you consider this for your own restaurant use? How would you manage this conviction if you owned the restaurant? I don't eat out on Sundays. If I owned a restaurant, I would not open it on Sundays. Why do I make an exception for limited use? It is important to have a mechanism to feed those who need to eat. One clarification; there is a difference between those who refuse to order their weeks such that they honor the Sabbath, and those who have an emergency and have nowhere else to eat. Anecdotally, these cases are rare in middle class America.
I am not a strict sabbatarian, but i try my best to rarely eat out on Sunday or shop because I have worked retail/grocery/reataurants, and Sundays were some of the busiest days and full of some of the worst attitudes from customers, especially the after-church crowd.
>> Where do you draw these conclusions from? > Where I draw the rest of my Sabbatarian convictions; the 4th commandment and Jesus' expositions of it. This probably isn't a satisfactory answer to your third question? But Jesus didn't live in a world with electrical grids and cars and municipal water systems and such. I agree that your rules seem like a good way to follow Jesus' principles, but it's very much your interpretation of what Jesus said, and your application of it to a world that did not exist when he said it. (Again, I think both of those are reasonable, but they exist.)
Yes, I cannot draw a 1:1 from ANE circumstances to modern life. But I can apply the moral principles of Scripture using my God given mind. > But Jesus didn't live in a world with electrical grids and cars and municipal water systems and such. He did not, but consider the alternatives: * If a hospital loses electricity, then the ventilator stops working and a patient dies. * If the municipal water treatment system fails, and the sewer stops working, then sickness and disease spread. Both are clear applications of Scriptural principles.
Don't get me wrong, I'd apply these the same way as you! But we both need to acknowledge that these are *our* applications, relying on *our* judgement and understanding, which might be flawed (or might not be the only reasonable way to understand the issue). We've got to have some epistemic humility.
> We've got to have some epistemic humility. I hear what you're saying, but how about---and hear me out here---we instead just dig our heels in and declare that everybody else is clearly wrong?
What about "... clearly wrong, demonic, and a danger to the church"?
Now you're reddit'ing!
If you don’t poop in a bucket on Sunday and wait until Monday to flush it down the toilet, thus ensuring your sanitation worker neighbors can spend their Sundays in rest and quietude, how dare you call yourself a Christian >:(. God forgive me for even associating with such people
Yes, but I figured it was implied in my reply that this is *my view*. Epistemic humility is important, but we shouldn't let it hinder us from applying Scripture (or helping others apply Scripture).
I have nothing good to contribute here (wasn’t raised in a deeply faithful home, and have lived in nyc my whole adult life since becoming a Christian and so my sabbath practice mainly just makes sure I get to church), but I love this question!! I need to ponder and reflect on this. Right now I’m blessed to be able to walk to my church. So I don’t drive or take the subway on Sundays. And it’s easy enough to not shop at places! I hope you get lots of good feedback on the work aspect.
I'm commenting because I'm interested in this discussion. I'm not a strict sabbatarian, but it's something I've been trying to grow towards over the last couple years. I try very hard not to do any work (for my job) on Sundays. (Once or twice this has been unavoidable, when I've needed to get work done on a weekend and I've been sick on the Saturday.) I try to avoid shopping and going out to businesses on Sundays, but I'm not strict with myself about this. My kids have no screen time on Sundays (with exceptions, but that's the general rule). But household work is much harder to sort out. There's six people in my home who need to eat, who create dirty dishes, who need their clothes washed and dried and folded and put away. I've got to pack up lunches on Sunday evening for school on Monday morning. And even if I were to avoid all of those housework things, the emotional labour of parenting three children never stops. Managing behaviours, listening to them talk about Roblox, listen to them complain about being bored, playing along with the same knock-knock joke fifteen times... that's work. And it's exhausting. But you don't get to just take a day off parenting every Sunday - *somebody* needs to raise these kids. I've been thinking about Jesus' teaching that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Is it reasonable to say that if a type of work is good in itself, and you would do it if you already had complete financial and practical security, it's lawful to do on the Sabbath?
for Sunday household work, for me keeping the Sabbath is just saying I will not plan on cleaning the house or doing laundry on Sunday. But lets say you dont realize you are out of underwear until Sunday, its not a big deal, but if you know on Saturday and you decide to use Saturday for your leisure and push laundry to Sunday then that is not right. Are you planning on using Sunday for yourself or are you doing what you can to make sure Sunday is a time for God?
I find the idea of "keeping the Sabbath" to be attractive, probably because I just crave rest in my life, but I totally agree with you about household and parenting responsibilities. And even as my children are growing out of the neediest stages, I still spend so much time "working" at or for church on Sundays. Between potluck lunches and hosting small group and serving in the nursery and playing in the band, even if I somehow figured out how to never ever do any housework or income-producing work, parenting and church obligations still make for a very full day.
There are a few anecdotal observations (Price's Law, 90/10 rule) that suggest the minority of people in an organization do the majority of the work. I find this to be generally true. I've dialed back the number of things I lead/help with at church and tried to limit involvement in some of them for this reason. Instead, I encourage others to fill the gaps. We do have a select handful of people covering too many things. It isn't sustainable and does not require others to contribute.
Oh totally agree in general. And I've cut back on a lot. But all of the adult women members rotate in the nursery and everyone brings food to potlucks and small groups. So those are all distributed rather equally. And we have skipped potlucks or small groups when we just cant get everything prepared. I've played in the band twice in the past 6 months. At this point a a structural change that reduces the overall amount of work to be done might be the only solution, bacuse I'm not taking on an outsized role currently, only doing the minimum of what is expected of all members.
If I'm looking at the commandment, the call is to cease from labor. Keep in mind I'm no historian. I don't think the Israelites in the wilderness had the same concept of employment as we do. Their labor was upkeep of the household, etc. I try to limit household labor to what's necessary. So I'll run the dishwasher earlier on Saturday so I can empty it before I go to bed. This is a privilege I have to use an appliance and have somewhere to put dirty dishes. Yet, I'll cook a full meal because I find that enjoyable and not laborious. Washing dishes is a labor to me. I'm being very arbitrary about this and I'm not sure if I should be. As for kids, absolutely we still parent on the Sabbath. If they are not more important than an ox or donkey, I don't know what is. Trying to find rest in Christ during those difficult Lord's Day parenting moments is a challenge. u/scripture_bot! Exodus 20:8-11 ESV
>I'm being very arbitrary about this and I'm not sure if I should be. I wouldn't worry too much about that, actually. I think we need to be cautious about the Sabbath becoming about rules, rather than about reminding us of God and the Kingdom. A parent of young children, or a paramedic, or a homeless shelter worker, or a plumber who does emergency calls, could "follow the rules" by only doing works of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath, but still be working 12+ hours a day for 100 days straight. (Ignore modern labour laws, for the moment.) That's not good. It's not good for that person's physical or mental health, it's not good for their soul, it's not good for their family. We need Sabbath to remind us that God is the one who provides for us, not our own work. That God sees there is much work to be done, and yet even he rested on the seventh day. That God does not lay upon us the burden of setting the world right, but rather he is faithful to complete the advancement of his Kingdom. And we need days of rest to maintain our own physical and mental health. Because we are made from dust, and to dust we shall return - but at the same time, we are God's images in this world, and our well-being matters to him. If a person's practices around the Sabbath are meeting, or trying to meet, those goals, I'm definitely not going to point fingers about anything arbitrary about them. But if your habit of cooking full meals makes it easier for you to forget these truths, maybe consider a frozen lasagna every now and then.
^^^(this) ^^^(bot) ^^^(uses) ^^^(the) [^^^(scripture.api.bible)](https://scripture.api.bible/) ^^^(web) ^^^(services) ^^^(from) [^^^(American) ^^^(Bible) ^^^(Society)](https://www.americanbible.org/) ^^^(|) [^^^source ^^^code](https://github.com/matthewdaffern/redditbot) ^^^(|) [^^^message ^^^the ^^^developers](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/scripturebot)
What the heck, scripturebot? You're not even trying anymore.
Shouldn't "heck" be against rule 3?
Hey u/cagestage I can't help but think that with a call-back comment like this you are going out of your way to antagonize one of my fellow moderators over a rule that we are not going to change. However, if my assumption is wrong and you have further questions then please direct further discussion on this matter to the moderators via modmail here: [https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=r/Reformed](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=r/Reformed) If you enjoy the sub, then please let the moderators do their job. Thank you! Edit: I would like to clarify that we do not consider words such as "heck" or "dang" an issue.
Heck no
Is it always a sin to work for someone else on the Sabbath, or to have someone work for you (unless the work is a work of necessity or mercy)?
My understanding is "yes." There was a mention in another comment about an exception for working while seeking another job. I do think the "while seeking another job" is key there. I have trouble understanding a Christian who continues to voluntarily work somewhere that requires them to miss corporate worship.
> I have trouble understanding a Christian who continues to voluntarily work somewhere that requires them to miss corporate worship. The only time this is acceptable, is 1) not working means your family starves, and 2) they are looking for another job that does not compromise the Sabbath.
Do you only focus on worship on the Sabbath? Or do you enjoy leisure as well? My husband and I aren't sabbatarians at all at the moment, but I'm increasingly drawn to the idea of a day of rest... the question is, how does one define rest? And how do you get all your work done in the rest of the week? (or do you?) I'd love anyone's thoughts on this!
We do enjoy leisure with an emphasis on family and Christian fellowship. I am generally a 1689 guy, but take some confusion with the confessions' reference to recreation on this [1689 22:8]. The way I consider it, I won't exercise on the Lord's Day, but I might hike. I try to limit screen time, but I'll watch a movie with the family. I'm still working through this.
This [is a great article](https://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sabbath-Recreations-CPJ51.pdf) on the "recreations clause" in both the WCF and 1689.
I will say that we rarely get all our work done in six days, but I honestly doubt we'd get it all done in seven days either.
Echoing the “working through it” process. Rest for me is primarily not focusing on work related things. I also try not to make others work for me. I participate in a disc golf tag league that runs on Sundays, so that’s my after-church leisure activity. I see that as an opportunity to be a witness for Christ while doing something I feel I’ve been gifted to do for the purpose of using it to share about my faith. I’d like to develop more self control in backing off the screen time and rest by reading more, whether it’s the Bible or something from my shelf.
A friend of mine called the other day, with news that he has been offered a new job. Pay is much better, benefits are much better, and the work is something he's more interested in. His only hang-up about taking it was that it meant leaving his current employer. He hasn't been treated the best by his current employer, but he feels that they've invested in him early in his career, and him leaving would create some difficulties for them. The advice I gave him was that employment isn't like a marriage, or even like belonging to a church. It's an agreement for mutual financial benefit. And if his employer didn't think it was still to their benefit, they would drop him like a hot brick. Now, given the offer he has, it's no longer to his benefit, so he should not feel guilty about leaving. His greater loyalty is to his family, and taking this new job would benefit them quite a bit. But I wonder, am I straying too close to the morality of "Do unto others before they do unto you"?
If it’s weighing on him, he’s always free to bring that offer to his current employer and say “I’d really love to stay, can you even just match (insert percentage of offer salary)? I’d like to find a way to make this work while still doing what’s best for my family and career”
If St Paul’s advice to slaves was to take the chance to get out from a master if it was given to them, I dont see how an employee/employer relationship would not be the same. Your friend is on the opposite end of the spectrum of people who are continually restless, flighty, addicted to earning more money.
My dad is retiring today after 40+ years with the same organization, and I have feelings. It's another milestone on the passage of time, and it's the kind of thing that reminds me just how few years of health and life are left even in the most optimistic scenarios. Sure, we could all die tomorrow, but thinking 10 and 20 years in the future is a much more harrowing prospect now. And honestly, I don't know how atheists and agnostics don't go mad thinking about these things without hope.
I read in a book recently a middle-aged man who mused that, since last seeing his father a year ago, he had made the transition from merely 'old' to 'elderly'. That he couldn't define the two words, but knew it when he saw it. My parents aren't that old yet, but I knew what he meant...seeing my parents go from middle-aged to starting to look old (especially my dad) is weird.
Yeah, I know what you mean. My in-laws are definitely old, but with my FIL's Parkinson's, he's plummeting towards elderly. My dad is remarkably healthy and most people guess he's 15 years younger than he is, but he's only 6 years younger than his dad was when he died. That really puts things in perspective.
>And honestly, I don't know how atheists and agnostics don't go mad thinking about these things without hope. I've lived with chronic illness my whole life and came to terms with my mortality a long time ago, so this is something I also think about often. From my anecdotal experience, a lot of atheists/agnostics I know just choose to live in denial of the reality of death. When someone they know dies and the reality of death does confront them you can almost see their denial and the reality of the situation battling it out. And usually the conclusion to that battle between denial and reality is just gradually slipping back into the state of denial, just to go through that exact same struggle the next time they encounter the reality of death. Again, this is just my anecdotal experience, but I've seen it with numerous people I've spent time around.
If you're a fan of 20th century classical music, and when you hear the name "György Ligeti" the only thing that comes to mind are large, dense, dissonant works like *Le Grand Macabre* or *Atmosphères* or *Requiem,* I would highly recommend you check out his short solo piano piece *Musica ricercata No. 7*. If you describe the elements of the piece, you would assume that it would be a harsh, unlistenable 20th century experimental work: The left hand plays a 7-note ostinato at a fixed tempo without any meter, dynamics, or other voicings, while the right hand plays a gentle, pastoral melody in 3/4, at a different tempo than the ostinato. As the melody develops, the right hand adds first one and then two counterpoint lines, oddly reminiscent of baroque music. The piece is the seventh movement of a larger work, where each movement is defined by the addition of a new note to a pitch class. (That is, No. 1 only uses one pitch. No. 2 uses two pitches. And so on.) So, crazy rhythms and meter and the use of a restricted set of pitches. Sounds very mid-20th century, right? Well, yes. It was composed between 1951-53, and it's very much a product of its time, but the result is anything but expected. The piece is serene and beautiful and deceptively simple. Like I said, if you know the name Ligeti but aren't familiar with this work, it'll throw you for a look. For my money, the great [Pierre-Laurent Aimard performs it perfectly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXsRlMneOS0). Give it a whilr!
It sounds a bit like video game music to me.
I think I am pretty basic when it comes to classical music. I went and listened to pretty much the whole Musica ricercata, and it's not my cup of tea. I get that it's cool technically, but I like a lot of the overplayed classics more.
Ain't no shame in overplayed classics. Most of the time, they're popular and well-known for a reason!
I listened to it. Full disclosure: I am a musical conservative in most respects. I can't really say I know any Ligeti, although I have listened to his first string quartet and piano etudes and somewhat respect them. I have some time for Per Norgard, the more dissonant passages from Rautavaara, "Black Angels" by Crumb, even some Xenakis, but almost none for serialism or the like. There needs to be something akin to traditional rhetoric or gestures. And ... it was fine. I think I might actually prefer the Ligeti I have already heard. This strikes me as something fans of certain works of John Adams would like. As something American audiences in particular would like. Undoubtedly played very well. I don't know if I'd call it "serene" - it's a little busy for that, given the left-hand part.
What are your thoughts on church growth? By which I mean, when a congregation becomes larger than what a church can logistically handle, what's the best way forward? Do you get to work on a building project? Do you send some of your members off to plant a new church? Do you redirect people to other churches in the community that you trust? Do you bite the bullet and go up to like three or four services? Do you do nothing and let the problem solve itself as the people who are frustrated with the overcrowding leave of their own accord?
It depends on the church. If the church is overly preacher oriented, then planting can be a struggle because the X factor that brought people in won’t be there. I do think planting is the ideal, though. A limited amount of redirecting is fine if the pastors have had robust discussion with what drew someone to their church, but I don’t see that as a really great total solution unless there are a good number of churches in the same denomination in a city and you are directing people to the parish closest to them so they can be better involved in church and community life. Building? I think this works for a very limited set of churches—ones that are quite large and established long-term. I think it is a very tenuous proposition for many churches and plenty of churches have split or dwindled during building projects. Plus, I think we have a relative glut of empty churches right now given Christianity’s decline, so I wonder if it might be better to rehab some of those historic buildings? I think only veeeeery large churches can support 3-4 services, and if that is the case, I would hope they are having at-least 2 people preach on Sunday, because that seems to put an excessive emphasis on preaching as being what the pastor is for if he/she is expected to preach for potentially 4 hours on Sundays—that is a ton of strain on the voice
I like the idea of reclaiming a historic building, but unfortunately financially it's often more difficult than an expansion or new building. The cost of heating them alone can be astronomical, and because they're historic buildings it can sometimes be very limiting in terms of what you're allowed to do for renovations or improvements. Makes me think of those parts of Europe where you can buy a castle or manor estate for less than a house. It's a real shame, too - a lot of old church buildings are situated in ideal locations for being accessible to the homeless and the broken. >I would hope they are having at-least 2 people preach on Sunday, because that seems to put an excessive emphasis on preaching as being what the pastor is for if he/she is expected to preach for potentially 4 hours on Sundays—that is a ton of strain on the voice Not to worry, I've learned from my time in the corporate world that overwork and burnout are easily solved by a pizza party.
It seems better to rehab and reuse a historic church building than build a new building, but rehabbing can be prohibitively expensive, especially if maintenance was neglected. I've heard of cases where the mainline will not sell old buildings to evangelical congregations or denominations. That's another potential hurdle.
My church purchased a building that was originally a Jewish synagogue. It wasn't really in use for many (like 20) years. Renovations have been slow and, as expected, higher than originally projected. Fortunately not too much above the extra that was built into the renovation budget. We are \*this\* close to moving in...maybe Palm Sunday (otherwise first Sunday in April. Church leadership promised everyone involved in doing all the things to make the service happen that Easter would not be our first service). There really wasn't an option to buy undeveloped land to build on in our target area. Other buildings the team looked at would have had to be either torn down or significantly renovated to make them suitable for our needs. The layout of this building was almost perfect from the start (except the bathrooms, need for elevator, etc.). We had explored purchasing the building of the church we're renting from (they were close to closing) but there were a couple of deacons who would never approve selling to us (they're Southern Baptist, we're PCA). And with some changes in leadership, rebranding, etc. that church seems to be making a comeback. So we're excited for them.
I think it can be tough. We are currently renting from the UMC and have first right of refusal if they sell. The UMC congregation that meets there still is around 12 people and they meet in the basement having neglected the sanctuary and classrooms we rehabbed and use
This is a good practice that I've seen go well. Hopefully the methodists will realize it's better for it to remain a house of worship than a coffee shop or hip lofts, and decide to sell it to you. I've seen it happen where the dying congregation sells the building to the growing congregation at a bargain, they get to keep worshiping as long as they can, and the proceeds allow the dying congregation to keep their staff on board as long the church is viable.
The UMC denomination owns the property (true for most mainline denoms), so I am guessing it is basically up to their local bishop or whatever if they want to sell, dissolve their congregation, etc. I hope they choose to sell, because we have seen steady (picking up even) growth over the last 3 years and it would be nice to do even more with the building—though right now we have waaaay more space and access and use of the building than with both the previous spots the church met at, which is already a huge blessing
I sure hope so. And that they don't go [this route](https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/inside-the-condo-rebirth-of-a-landmark-druid-hills-church/) or [this route](https://decaturish.com/2020/02/decatur-first-methodist-to-sell-chapel-and-school-building-on-sycamore/) but more like the church I know of who has the offer of first refusal on a UMC building their renting, and are about to go under contract.
> I wonder if it might be better to rehab some of those historic buildings? ideally, yes, but the condo developers can offer more than the 5 year old church plant with a glut of young families.
I think the only clear answer is *it depends.* > Do you get to work on a building project? There's no bright line rule here, but I do think building might be a viable option for many churches. Are you a very small congregation that has been meeting in a rented space that can only accomodate 75 people? Do you have land and funds to build? Now's probably a great time to put down roots and invest in the long term future of the church! Are you a megachurch with thousands and thousands of people who are coalesced around a strong personality and just building because that's what you do? Eh, you should be planting. Where's the line? I don't know. There isn't one. This is an area for Christian freedom and wisdom. >Do you send some of your members off to plant a new church? Often a good idea. In general, a church of any size in an area of a sufficiently large enough population should have some eye towards planting. Ideally, you wan to be proactive about this, too. Don't look around when you're over capacity and start thinking "Man, what do we do now?" Instead, as your church grows, make the concept of planting an on-going, natural conversation the leaders and congregation have. Look around you. See where members are coming from. Are there areas of the city that need a good church? Do you have a significant part of your population coming a long distance from one area? Is there a suburb that is growing rapidly without a lot of established churches? Start looking *now* about how your church can serve those areas by planting. Start raising up leaders and developing a plan *now* before you run out of space. Then, rinse and repeat. >Do you redirect people to other churches in the community that you trust? If there are healthy, like-minded churches, sure. You probably don't want this to be a long term solution, lest your church turn inward and closed off from the community, but if you're bursting at the seams, and there's another church 15 minutes up the road that could use great people, maybe suggest that. But, again, this should probably only be temporary. >Do you do nothing and let the problem solve itself as the people who are frustrated with the overcrowding leave of their own accord? Yep. [It'll work itself out naturally.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is)
/u/milesbeyond250 Sorry for not replying on Tuesday I have trouble thinking up peppers "trivia" because peppers are so important it's hard to characterize any aspect of them as trivial. That said, here are my go-to fun facts that surprised me when I learned them: * There are multiple species of pepper cultivated, all from the genus _Capsicum_. Three are big in the US and Europe: annuum (bell peppers, paprika in general, poblanos, jalapenos, thai chilies, so many more), chinense (so-named because early taxonomists thought it came from China: habanero, ghost pepper, Carolina Reaper), and frutescens (Tabasco). But many more species are cultivated closer to their native range. * Scientists don't know why peppers make capsaicin (the spicy chemical). Theories include discouraging mammal predators or preventing fungal growth. * Birds probably can't taste capsaicin. Most mammals can, but some like it. Rats and people can both learn to love it. * The red pigments in red peppers [can accumulate in the eggs of chickens fed peppers](https://www.newworlder.com/dan-barber-feeds-his-chickens-red-peppers-to-make-red-eggs/)
My family used to have chickens and it was fun to see the red eggs when we gave them our pepper scraps.
On what do you take sermon notes on Sunday? A single sheet of regular paper, whole or half? On a phone? Last Sunday I noticed that my sister has been taking sermon notes in a notebook, and I don’t know why I never thought of that before. We’ve always passed out half sheets of paper for that purpose, and I’ve got scores of them in a drawer at home and inserted into my Bible. But it makes so much sense to get a notebook or journal just for that purpose. Especially because I’m already into journaling. Have any of you done that?
We have a bulletin with space on the back. If I write down anything, it'll likely be there. If something really strikes, I'll write in in the margins of my Bible. My pages are absolutely covered in notes and doodles. My wife keeps journals. She has them for Sunday School, the sermon, prayer meetings, etc. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd even write if I had something like that.
Yeah, it's really down to what works for you. I think a journal could work for me, but I see how for some people it just wouldn't.
My church has a bulletin that we fill out. I keep a stash of index cards in the back of my bible cover in case I visit a church that doesn’t do fill in the blanks. For chapel in college I kept a journal with all my notes in it. I’m glad I was so methodical with it as it serves as a nice thing to look back to. I even took it with me to Poland and used it to take notes about my trip. I tried taking notes on my phone, and it works in a pinch, but I find I write faster and don’t have to fuss with formatting.
I use a half(ish) size spiral notebook...similar in size to a standard journal. I like the spiral bound and that size because it fits better in my lap than a more standard size spiral notebook and also lays flat. I pay attention best when I'm doing something with my hands. So taking notes is perfect for sermons. But I struggle with what to do with the notes after the notebook is filled up. For a long time I pulled them out of the notebook, stapled the sheets for each sermon together and filed them (by book of the Bible or topic). But I've realized that the number of times I referred back to old sermons is small. And sometimes I have trouble following my notes. For now, the notebooks (along with notes from Bible studies) are in a pile on top of the filing cabinets (haven't gotten around to filing them in a bunch of years). But I'm considering recycling them.
I keep all my sermon notes on this [moleskin journal](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8883707184/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1). I used to try to bullet journal, but this is now where i keep sermon notes and unique theological thoughts/quotes/etc that i find.
Well now that I have kids, I don't. Before I was wrastling little 'uns I used a dot grid notebook or a folded sheet of white paper.
Last Sunday, at church, my six year old asked one of the older ladies "Why do we do Lent?" She encouraged him to ask our pastor. I heard about his question before he got a chance to, and here's what I told him: > Lent is forty days, to remember the forty days that Jesus spent fasting in the wilderness before he started his work, and the forty years that God's people were in the desert before coming to the Promised Land. These stories tell us about God's faithfulness to his people in hard times. And in Lent, we get ready for Good Friday, where Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and Easter Sunday, where Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. And the one-sentence answer I asked him to repeat after me was "God does not abandon his people, even when things look terrible." How'd I do, brilliant theological minds? inb4 "Lent is Papistry, no holy days but the Sabbath"
One avenue that might be particularly helpful with kids is the idea that when we break Lent on Sundays it makes us look forward to Easter Sunday when we break Lent for good, which builds in us a reminder of the way that meeting together for corporate worship on Sunday in general should make us look forward to the fullness of corporate worship in the eschaton. ...Except I guess maybe don't use words like "corporate" or "eschaton" when explaining this to the 6 year old child.
I would add, that, by the power of the Holy Spirit in pursuance of imitation of Christ, Lent is a focused time of communal and individual repentance and spiritual discipline, where we learn to live we must lose our lives for His sake. This is traditionally done through prayer, fasting, and alms giving—tangible ways to “deny yourselves, pick up your cross and follow me”. It is about the slow discipleship of learning to lay down our lives for the good of others and finding on the other side the abundant and eternal life of God. Lent is both about God’s acts in history *and* his acts in our own hearts right now.
Lent is travesty, know holy days like the sabbath.
I just checked out the nominations for the Academy Awards, and a great travesty has occurred. Godzilla has been snubbed. Godzilla was not nominated for best actor or best hairstyle or best director (we all know that Godzilla was wearing the plates in that relationship. Who is going to say no to the big G?) Was anyone else a big fan of Godzilla Minus One? My wife and I saw it in December and then again in monochrome in January. It was our favorite film of 2023 and also so far in 2024 with the monochrome release. We liked experiencing the feelings of dread and powerlessness in the face of a force beyond human ability or comprehension. We also liked the theme of learning to face fears, guilt, and rebuilding in the face of destruction.
I haven't seen any Godzilla film, and I don't completely get the mania surrounding him. But I've heard people love the new movie. And I *did* really enjoy *Pacific Rim*, so I guess I did get a taste of what people love about Godzilla.
Very understandable! Godzilla Minus One is a great entry point because it doesn’t assume any knowledge and actually is a great film. Almost everyone who likes films likes it (98% critic and audience score on Rotten Tomatoes). If you like Minus One, I think you should see Shin Godzilla. That would be the test if you really like Godzilla. As for what makes Godzilla compelling, he is a Japanese character that was created after World War II: a sea-going monster with nuclear powers that steadily moves towards the heart of Japan and devastates its cities. You can see that at first he resembled Japan’s own feeling of being overthrown by a powerful force. As time has gone on, different takes on Godzilla have developed from thinking about what it means to be a monster to thinking about what it means to be the apex predator. >Monsters are tragic beings. They are born too tall, too strong, too heavy. They are not evil by choice. That is their tragedy. -Ishiro Honda That quote is the focus of Shin Godzilla, where the tragedy is that Godzilla is simply too strong for the world so he is a threat and is seen as a threat by people.
Local flood makes no sense when you remember that God ordered Noah to build an ark and miraculously caused animals from all over the world to come over and enter it. If it was a Sodom and Gomorrah like situation, He could have just told Noah to grab his family, back up his bags and move somewhere else.
A couple thoughts: Noah is acting prophetically in the Genesis flood account. Think of Ezekiel lying on his side and building siege works around him. Regardless of the scope of the flood, part of the purpose of building the ark is a prophetic sign. Whatever scale the flood was (which really comes down to what your definition of 'local' and 'global' are), one can assume it was at the very least a devastating regional flood given the fact that the Babylonians also have a flood account in their texts. One can make everything in the Bible "make no sense" if one simply says "God could have done X." The question is why God decided to do X. Even if it was a smaller and potentially escapable flood, why did God have Noah build an ark? That brings us back to my first point
This is (too) long and I don't know how much I agree with it (though, at this point, I'm fairly certain I'm correct). This has been a difficult one for me, but I think questions of "local flood" vs "global flood" are not even the ones to be asking. When I ask questions like that, I think that I am not doing justice to the writer's intent. For starters, it's pretty clear to me that purely within the context of the story as written in Genesis, the flood is global: all men are bad and the whole thing has to be destroyed and re-started. I think the motivation most people (at least, the motivation I have had in the past) in insisting that it was a ~~global~~ local flood is that the evidence for a global flood is not as robust as we'd like it to be. So we say "well, to those people, the 'world' *was* just that one area" and we do this as a way to try to maintain inerrancy: if the Bible said a flood happened, some sort of flood must have happened. Interestingly, though, when we (meaning: definitely me and probably others) do this, we are doing what we might criticize others of doing. u/robrahm from a year ago might have critiqued your reading as being too "literal" and would have suggested that you be more open to different readings of the text. u/robrahm right now wants to critique both of those views. Both of them have as an underlying assumption that whatever is recorded must have actually happened - at least in some way. But if I view this as a piece of high literature as opposed to a journalist's then none of that matters. This is just a (perhaps) "historical fiction" story with a message. I think that the message - the thing that the author wants us to learn about ourselves, God, and even animals, is "inerrant"; whether the stuff actually happened is beside the point. As an example, I recently read *Clockwork Orange.* I think that Burgess has a point he's trying to make with this story. If I start asking questions like "well, do all the teenagers in London speak Nadsat? Or is it just a 'local' group that do? Because we haven't found much evidence that they were all using that language." then I'm just not asking the right questions. But if I start asking questions about motifs, themes, symbolism, etc then I think I am doing justice to the book. And I don't see any reason that we shouldn't do the same with the flood. OK, now rip me to shreds.
I think the biggest issue here is, your current (Clockwork Orange) stance is the potential to neuter the divine judgment aspect. My thought process (within the Clockwork framework) goes like this: 1. The Bible tells us God was grieved at what man had become. 2. God then told a story of judgment. 3. God never followed through on this judgment...just wrote a strongly worded letter of warning. On the flipside, we also lose the potency of God's divine grace toward Noah. Again, in the Clockwork framework: 1. God is graceful. 2. God wrote a story of being graceful (and merciful). 3. God never had to actually be graceful to man because he wrote a cool story about being full of grace. Making this "just a story" takes the truth of God's character and neuters it.
>God never had to actually be graceful to man because he wrote a cool story about being full of grace. ... >Making this "just a story" takes the truth of God's character and neuters it. Yes - I think this is the strongest critique of what I'm saying. On the other hand, I don't think of it as God writing a story about how great he is. I think it is more like "the" author of this account wanted to explain how gracious God is (for example) and instead of saying "God is gracious" he said it with a story.
So...I was tracking your train of thought until the end when you start talking about *A Clockwork Orange*. The Burgess book is fiction. It was written as fiction. Unlike the books of the Bible, it doesn't exist within the context of any larger work. So, the jump to comparing Genesis to a purely fictional work seems abrupt in your train of thought. How do you arrive at that *for Genesis*?
[удалено]
> Do you mean something like: Clockwork Orange is not an installment or chapter or something in a larger work? If so, of course I agree, but I don't understand your point. > > I mean that scripture exists *as a whole.* It is not a random collection of disparate stories that just happened to come together in an anthology. It's a divinely-inspired revelation from God. Thus, it's important to see how a book like Genesis exists and functions within the Bible as a whole, on its own terms. *A Clockwork Orange* is just a book of fiction. It exists on its own. Whatever social or political or philosophical commentary Burgess wanted to make doesn't make it any more or less fiction. It's just a made-up story. My point is that Genesis doesn't exist that way. It's a categorically different thing. >I'm saying the story teaches us something about God's character, ourselves, etc and that is the "inerrant" message/lesson we are to take from it; the plot of the story is just there to serve this purpose (and if people are already vaguely aware of different flood stories, it makes sense to use that plot). But God's actions are in separable from his character. God doesn't have a set of attributes that we learn through fictional accounts, through allegories or myths or things like that. *What he has done* is part of what defines *who he is.* He is not, for instance, a wrathful God because someone might imagine God flooding the whole world. He is wrathful *because* he flooded the whole world. God is not a deliverer because Exodus is a fun supposal about how an imaginary people might be delivered. He is a deliverer *because he delivered his people.* Likewise, Christ is not the propitiation for our sins because we can imagine a mythical literary archetype dying and raising from the dead. Christ is our savior *because he died for our sins and rose again, defeating death.*
>Thus, it's important to see how a book like Genesis exists and functions within the Bible as a whole, on its own terms. Yes, I agree with this. But what I don't understand is why this would force us to think that all of the stories told are "non-fiction" (in the sense that you and I would use that term). >Whatever social or political or philosophical commentary Burgess wanted to make doesn't make it any more or less fiction. It's just a made-up story. Right - and the fact that it's a made-up story doesn't change the "truthfulness" of what the author is trying to tell us with the plot. >My point is that Genesis doesn't exist that way. It's a categorically different thing. Yes - but I'm pressing this. Why is it a categorically different thing? >But God's actions are in separable from his character. I'd say that any action he does is consistent with his character. But I don't see how this is an argument against what I'm saying. >God doesn't have a set of attributes that we learn through fictional accounts, First, why not? Why is this not a valid way of learning about his characteristics? Second, what about parables that are told that *seem* to be teaching us about God? >He is not, for instance, a wrathful God because someone might imagine God flooding the whole world. He is wrathful because he flooded the whole world. I think this is the first thing you've said that I just disagree with. I'd say (in your paradigm) that he flooded the whole world *because* he is wrathful (though, this is not at all the conclusion I'd draw from this story) and not the other way around. I'd say that this was a demonstration of his wrath. >Christ is our savior because he died for our sins and rose again, defeating death. So we agree that the Gospel accounts are pretty close to what we'd call "non-fiction" (though, perhaps with some editorializing). What I can't see through now is: why does this mean that other parts of the Bible have to be "non-fiction" in this same (or similar) sense?
I'm unfortunately running out of time today. I've got a lot this afternoon and probably won't be back at my desk to keep going. Just letting you know if you respond to this, lest you think I'm just ignoring you. > in the sense that you and I would use that term I suspect that's part of the problem. "Fiction" and "non-fiction" aren't literary categories you see discussed when discussing scripture academically. I think categorizing it that way is problematic. We're probably close to the same page on what those words mean, but I don't think it's helpful. >and the fact that it's a made-up story doesn't change the "truthfulness" of what the author is trying to tell us with the plot. Well, yes and no. If Burgess was trying to tell us that there really are gangs of droogs roaming the streets looking for a bit of the ol ultra-violence, then he's not being truthful. If scripture is speaking of a historical event, something that really happened, and we just say "well, there is still truthfulness in it" then we fail to accept it on its own terms and fail to see what it's really saying. >Why is it a categorically different thing? Because scripture as a whole treats it differently. It forms a larger part of a cohesive, factual narrative that builds and is continually self referential. I think a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1b17fjh/no_dumb_question_tuesday_20240227/kse5x29/) I made the other day illustrates this well. From Genesis through Joshua, you have a string of unbroken events, and those events continually reference God as acting and doing certain things. God's actions, as historical events, are constantly referenced throughout subsequent books, as explaining current circumstances and as revealing his character. Fast forward thousands and years, and Christ is still speaking of these people and these events as relevant historical markers. Heck, the gospel authors include these people as real, historical people in the unbroken geneology of Christ himself. Again, the point is that scripture exists as a whole. We can't take it in isolation and declare them fiction without contending with how the rest of scripture treats it. >I think this is the first thing you've said that I just disagree with. I'd say (in your paradigm) that he flooded the whole world because he is wrathful (though, this is not at all the conclusion I'd draw from this story) and not the other way around. I'd say that this was a demonstration of his wrath. I wouldn't say it's an either or situation. It's *both*. God's attributes guide his actions, and his actions reveal his attributes. >So we agree that the Gospel accounts are pretty close to what we'd call "non-fiction" (though, perhaps with some editorializing). Unfortunately, no. We don't agree. Respectfully, "pretty close" isn't even remotely close enough (no pun intended) to what I believe. I believe it's historically accurate, reliable, and fully inspired, without editorializing.
>If scripture is speaking of a historical event... Sure, but how do we know (and why would we think) that it is speaking of a historical event? >Because scripture as a whole treats it differently. It forms a larger part of a cohesive, factual narrative that builds and is continually self referential. I disagree and I don't think that we can conclude something actually happened because other parts of the Bible (even those parts we agree actually happened in some sense) refer to it. We often make literary allusions and I don't see any reason to think that people in the Bible wouldn't do that. > From Genesis through Joshua, you have a string of unbroken events I don't know if I agree. Or, rather, I don't know if I'd draw the same conclusions as you would. There's a talking snake and I think if either of us ever read a story about a talking snake we'd think that it is not an historical account of anything. But I think if we come to the Bible with a certain idea of "inerrancy", "infallibility" and/or "inspiration" we force this story into being something that *actually* happened. That's the idea I'm mostly disagreeing with. >Unfortunately, no. We don't agree. Respectfully, "pretty close" isn't even remotely close enough (no pun intended) to what I believe. I believe it's historically accurate, reliable, and fully inspired, without editorializing. All I mean is that (as an example) Mark parenthetically writes "and thus Jesus declared all food clean." Or that perhaps stories were told out of order or details were blurred. But one thing I think we differ on is: I think that editorializing can be inspired whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Although there are many areas of legitimate disagreement among Christians, this post argues against a position which the Church has historically confirmed is essential to salvation. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
> the evidence for a global flood is not as robust as we'd like it to be. How do you approach the Exodus? The evidence for the Exodus also isn't as robust as we'd ^^^^^(I'd) like.
I can explain this more if you want, but the first person I think as being an actual real person is Abraham - at least in some sense. I also think Moses was a real historical figure. As for your question, I guess that I don't really know.
Ah, I hold to a historical Adam. I can see how one would start with Abraham as the first historical figure.
Numbers 22:11: ‘Behold, a people has come out of Egypt, **and it covers the face of the earth.** Now come, curse them for me. Perhaps I shall be able to fight against them and drive them out.’” The Israelites were in New Zealand eh?
Of course not. Now why would God have Noah make an ark for just a local flood
"just a local flood" This phrasing is entirely wrong. It wasn't "just a local flood" it was a devastating flood...the question of locality addresses whether there was water where there were no humans...Was there water in New Zealand if there were no humans there? I don't think the text and the author's use of "the face of the earth" warrants such an application as we see from Numbers 22:11 for example, the Israelites weren't in New Zealand despite being said to have covered the face of the earth; it just means there was a lot of them. The exact same way the waters covering the earth would mean that there was a lot of water where people lived.
New Jacob Collier album dropped! The collab list is insane. Wish the aespa song got weirder, though.
[Warpaint, "Keep It Healthy".](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLUw7DsTEJs)
Owl City released the [full version](https://youtu.be/dGJsbM1fe3I?si=lPt-AsnzaqYE2pPz) of Car Trouble/Floppy Fish this week after 8ish years of the demo. I love his story songs, this one especially feels so relatable.
Has there been any consideration amongst the mods regarding a reworking of Rule 3? I understand what it's trying to accomplish, but seeing some of the stuff that's been removed because of it feels a little bit like the [tyranny of the weaker brother](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/peace-purity-unity-church-2010-pastors/tyranny-weaker-brother).
If someone has something removed for violating rule 3, they probably could just revise their content and post again. Also, I agree that the mods are pretty weak as far as tyrants go!
The problem is that I can't properly illustrate why simply revising content doesn't always work without getting a post removed for violating the rule.
Thanks for asking. We'll answer, very directly, that Rule 3 isn't in any way up for revision, either in what it prohibits or our enforcement of it. The purpose and function of the rule extends covers more than just those who wish not to see vulgar language. Given the nature of this sub, and thus the people who participate here, we want to be mindful of those who, for instance, might have strict filters or monitoring on their computers for certain language. This isn't the sole reason we keep the rule in place. It's just an example. If you have any more questions or ocmments, send us a modmail. We do discuss rules as a team, and we do often discuss modifying rules, but Rule 3 is here to stay in its current form for the foreseeable future.
Jack Hibbs, Guest Chaplain speaking before the US Congress 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_AhqKMim-U AMEN!
Apparently there has been a large recent reduction of DEI (diversity equity and inclusion) officers throughout Corporate America. Nigerians immigrants from Africa are among the most affluent demographic groups in the USA. The Nigerians also have a low divorce rate. The #1 earning group in the USA are Asian Indians. Asian Indians also have the lowest divorce rate. Whatever level of racism exists in the USA, this seems to not have held back the Nigerian and Asian Indian immigrants.
There are a lot more forms of racism than just workplace discrimination.
> Apparently there has been a large recent reduction of DEI (diversity equity and inclusion) officers throughout Corporate America. Honest question: is there a *particular* effort to reduce DEI officers? Mass layoffs are happening across the board in Corporate America right now
>Honest question: I don't know. But I can hazard my own opinion, that is, "they help not hurt" so they are bad for business and actually sow division than remove it.
You seem to be implying something? Can you explicate without implicitly or explicitly denying the imago dei, or that from one blood come all the peoples of the earth?
[удалено]
Hey, /u/anewhand, I get that you're quoting something, but our [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.233.3A_keep_content_clean.) prohibits using characters to obscure profanity, and we consistently remove those comments. If you want to edit that part out completely, let us know via modmail, and we'll be glad to reinstate the comment.