Unresolved Stress

Thirty Ways to Kill Stress before it Kills You, Ray Gebauer
“Unresolved stress is essentially the root cause of all disease.”

The biggest unresolved stress that people have is guilt. Three way guilt. First toward God, second toward other people and third toward themselves, their own conscience. The biggest promise of the NT is that in Christ there is no more guilt, it will not kill you in the end; and the best thing about that promise is that the benefits of it take effect immediately upon implementation. You may not experience them but they are there. You may have a ten million dollars in the bank in your account but until you make a withdraw you will not experience the rush. Start cashing in on the riches of your position in Christ! (If you don’t know Him open an account! How? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!)
Unresolved stress? Why do we feel guilty? Why do we always dream up new ways to impose unreachable goals on ourselves? We each seem to a have self destruct button located - well let’s just say we are always sitting on it. Isss it possible that we could reduce the unresolved part by removing unrealistic expectations? Maybe you have your priorities on wrong? Maybe you misinterpret other people’s motives and expectations? . . . . .
And for your own sake, when you do do something that is wrong acknowledge it and ask for forgiveness! !

Sanctification

Sanctification
Sanctification is not about getting better and better or obeying the rules more or being gooder and gooder it is about trusting the Lord. Sanctification is ‘to set apart to’, not all that different from convert, to take away from one setting and put into another. Circumcision, a sanctification (legislated for everyone under the OT), for Israel was a physical constraint that set the men apart from the men around them and proved them to belong to Israel. Ask the women at the pagan temples who was who. Jewish athletes with Olympic aspirations tried to reverse the procedure because of course they competed in the ___. Long hair marked a Nazarite, a sanctification (optional, not mandatory for everyone), as did abstinence from anything from the grape vine with or without alcoholic content. Holiness is the end of Justification, both with regard to the nature that we are born with and sins that we commit both before and after we are born again, it is not the domain of Sanctification. What is the mark that shows that a Christian is different? Is it holiness? No, how many can honestly claim to be sinning less and less as they grow older? Try it and I’ll show you a burned out Christian. It is trusting God! Like the miner in Wales after the revival. He swore about something down in the pit and realizing right away what he had done knelt right there in front of all the others and ask the Lord to forgive him; that is what impressed them. How much are people impressed with someone who is ‘better’ than they are? It is not better that impressed them, they could see that he was not ‘better’ it was the relationship that they saw. (“love each other, by this everyone will know that you are mine” Jesus said)
God loved Adam, He did not tell him ‘do not eat the fruit’ as a covenant of works. The covenant that He made with Israel at Mt Sinai was a covenant of works; “obey and live, disobey and die” Moses said. Adam did not gain sovereignty when he ate the fruit – though he may have thought that he did, he rebelled against God. Adam gained sovereignty from God when God told him not to eat it. Without a rule there was no way for Adam to choose to obey God and as long as he did obey he was free to choose his own destiny, Sovereignty! God is interested in Holiness, so much so that He ‘gave His only begotten Son’ to die for that cause; but that was not His purpose in creating the human race. He did not make us to Keep The Rules! He made us to love Him for His own sake, to do so as a choice of our own just because we love Him (see the story of Job). God out of ‘His own good pleasure’ does Not predestine any one to eternal incarceration and punishment; “God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked”! God did not plan for anyone to die. He gave the choice to us, each of us.
Once we take advantage of our death on the cross in Christ, by faith, how does He propose that we should live? By faith. Did he set up a government to legislate control of the members of His body once we are in? No, it is immmmmpossible! And that would not fulfill the purpose that God had when He made mankind. He made us to love Him for His own sake and worship Him and honour Him of our own volition! Oh how I wished that I had a way to control the members of the church when I was pastor, even just to legislate attendance; Prytry gov’t would be a wonderful way to do that BUT “As I get older I see more and more the importance of not trying to control everything, mainly because it is a fruitless and impossible task. I have come to see that trying to take control of everyone and everything is a manifestation of faithlessness and doubt” CG. Why did Jesus die if I have to swear an oath of allegiance to a dictatorial government? How did Presbyterian and United churches, who have Prytry gov’t, end up in such a mess ? ? The Prytry had absolute control. (true, that is not the only reason)
“It (someone else’s program/the West Confess) does all the thinking for you. Just follow directions and you too can have… I find such programs to be an exercise in frustration and a means of creating guilt and anger at myself and my family who usually doesn't want to get with the program… I have always found that no one has a system that fits my life/lifestyle perfectly… I have usually ended up frustrating myself and my family by my attempts to fit myself into someone else's idea of how life should be lived. If you don't do this, you can end up with yet another way of needlessly flogging yourself for failing at keeping the "law" …” CG
Welcome to the family of God !

The Gulf

Audrey Hepburn An Elegant Spirit
pg 186 It was this “emotional hunger” as she described it, “the hunger that food cannot alleviate,” and the panic and devastation of the child who had no one to relate to, that she felt the most keenly. She wrote,”the neglect and humiliation of a child by adults is a killer of trust, of hope and of possibility.”

pg 147 The appendix – this useless little appendage we still know so little about was killing her (Audrey). Is the appendix where our perfect body stores all of the tiny things that cannot be digested, or is it a place for the soul to collect all the hurts that it cannot digest?

pg11 in many ways my (Sean) mother’s marriages Mel Ferrer and the second to Andrea Dotti were a continuation of the same dynamic. (Her mother had spent the war spewing poison about her father, about his disappearance, about his lack of support of any type. Audrey had to see for herself – she visited him twenty years after he left them -, and when she did, indeed there was nothing there.) Both men – Mel and Andrea - had been emotionally scarred by equally powerful and brilliant mothers who, as a result of their backgrounds, their education, and the societal rules of their times, didn’t connect with their children at a profound emotional level. The “emotional hunger” that “food cannot alleviate” was something she knew how to recognize. Having experienced it herself, she had an instinctual desire to share it with her husbands and help heal that missing link. How disappointing it must have been for her not to be able to complete these men. We all find such different ways to adapt . . .
I (Sean, the author, Audery’s son with Mel) believe that the first relationship with a parent, the love and trust it builds – or fails to build – is what colors and supports our emotional world throught the rest of our lives. It is the trust we share – or don’t share – with our parents that makes it possible to choose whom we will love later in life. If that first relationship is incomplete, we suffer from that hunger our whole lives and end up blaming others for not fulfilling it when, after all, they can’t. We aren’t taught how to deal with our feelings, how to recognise the issues that have the potential to assasssinate our real chances at relationships; instead we all make do with what tools we have. We all learn clever ways to divert the issues ...
Audery said “we are born with the ability to love yet we have to develop it like you would any other muscle”

This embodies the basic reason why I can not accept Presbyterial government of the Church and reform theology. In addition to putting power and authority into the hands of a few people it brings assassination (by the oath and by the inhuman rules) of the one relationship that matters in all of the universe, that with our heavenly Father, and overrides and neglects the person part of living, that is our relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is way to over eager to define what is right and what is wrong and put rules where they do not belong. (Sure if I do not exibit holy living you have the right to question my salvation but holiness does NOT define my relationship to God OR to my fellow christians ! !) (the west confess defines the church by the rules but Act 2:47 says it is defined by our relationship with Christ !)
The first reformation did not outlast the original generation who concocted it nor did the second, what chance is there that the third will fair any better? No I do not think that God was the author. There is a fatal error in the Theology. I do think that God was with them and used them (in spite of themselves and their theology) at a critical juncture in history. They had I believe a personal relationship with God but their concept of the church burried exactly that relationship for others comming into their church and for the next generation comming up. Just like Israel burried God behind the veil and did not show Him off to the the nations around them. Ther people of ther third reformation no doubt have a personal relationship with God and are very sincere but they are leaving behind an impersonal legacy for those who would follow them and for the next generation. For this reason I do not accept that the Mt Sinai covenant and the NT are one and the same covenant “under differant administration” They ARE NOT ! ! Mt Sinai was put in place to drive the people to Christ, the NT IS Christ ! Whole differant game. Black and White appart. As far as East is from West. The church does not exist to drive, lead, coherse, coax, demand, any one to Christ or to a deeper, better, higher, more holy life ! Yes, while we are together we can motivate others but it exists for those WHO ARE ALREADY IN Christ ! ! NOW let’s get on with the living part of it instead of constantly taking our blood pressure and heartbeat and focusing on everything that we do wrong – Christ died for those things for goodness sake ASK for Forgiveness and GET ON WITH IT ! We are not sinners any more – we sin, we ask for forgivness THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN Judicially granted. If Prytry is so right then you should be out there every chance possible – at every gathering of christians possible TEACHING them instead of wrapping your robe around you and retreating into the stoney fastness of your oath and refusing to have anything to do with your own family (in Christ) ! It is the Lord’s table and He never said to exclude anyone who we acknowledge to be a christian. The church does not have the power of excommunication ! There is a vast differance between “official excommunication” of a christian and Rom 16:17 “Mark that man and avoid them – For they that are such DO NOT Serve our Lord Jesus Christ”. Or 1Cor 5:11 – 13 “if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolator (who is not according to reform theo ! ? ) or etc. it DOES NOT say kick him out if he will not imbibe alcohol in his communion wine or plays a panio to accompany his sinnging – it DOES say “put away from among yourselves that WICKED person” ! This does not take some official decree to achieve. 2Thess 3:14-15 DOES NOT say “excommunicate him officially”. A big part of the weakness of the church in the western countries is exactly that we as stronger christian do not do something about it. We do not exhort, we do not encourage, we do not get out in frount and show a good example, we do not motivate, we do not sharply repremand our fellow christian. We take our own personl relationship with the Lord forgranted and that of our fellow christian. The Church and the Christian life is about LIVING ! Reform theo is about death; not that differant from the Roman Institution crucifying the Lord over and over, and taking away the personal relationship among christians. Reform theo is about alienation, “the law kills”. but “The Spirit gives life” “walk in the Spirit and you will not...” break the law you will not hate your brother you will not .... That is very differant from “Thou Shalt NOT . . .”. Or a ‘constitution’ dictated by some well meaning christian who deems that he rules the church by Divine Right !!! Your conscience says West Confess is right mine says it is not right. Show me your credentials, you are the one who is making the claim of authority not me. In the mean time don’t lets alienate each other.
Reform theo does not feed spiritual emotional hunger. It fixes an unpassable gulf between the lay person and the Father.
“Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, Love one another, Pray for each other, En courage each other, Esteem each other christian as better than yourself, Do good works, and so on – these are the commandments of the NT !

How To

How To

Dale Carnige wrote an introduction for How to Win Friends and Influence People that told why he wrote it. “Fifteen percent of one’s financial success is due to one’s technical knowledge and about eighty five percent is due to personality and the ability to win friends and influence people!” so he wrote this “practical, working handbook on human relations”. I think that it is a dangerous book because it works! Dale states that over all you must be sincere and he repeats that over and over however his ‘how to’ works so well that even with the sincerity missing it works! J.D. Rockefeller said “the ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar ... and I will pay more for it than for any other”.
Some people have come up with books on how to dominate people. Not that they are really needed. Roman Ceasars and Czars and lots of other imfamous leaders have been using the principles for ever so long. They build on stupidity and ignorance, even if they have to create that ignorance. One of the chief principles is to play on the negative emotions; build fear of the system, and build hatred for some scape goat person or group but these would not work without one emotion that we normaly think of as positive. Honesty. Well, a combination of honesty, trust and loyalty. Most people really do try to keep the rules. Why do you stop at an intersection for a red light? Why do you pay income tax? Why do so many women stay in very abusive relationships? Why did the people of Hawaii tolerate a ruler who would kill some one just because the kings shadow fell on them? Not just fear, not just because their hatred has been diverted, not just because the fear of change and of the unknown is greater than the present situation, not just because so many of us are too slugish, defeated to do something even though we are dying for a change. Most of us do not have the all encompassing drive to tell every one else what they can and can not do, and at the same time we really do want to respect the ‘rules’, we do want to be seen as good. Stupidity, ignorance and lazyness do play their part here too, we often do not stop to figure out what really is wrong with the ‘rules’ we are subjected to and why. All we like sheep . . . Karl Marx wrote one hand book on dominance. The humanist manifesto is another. Disarm the people, keep them poor and ignorant of the truth . . . As Dale says most tyrants want to be seen as nice guys; benevolent, generous, what they do they do for everyone’s good.
Then there are the religious books and systems.
Lots of people suggest that the Bible suggests the bad guy good guy routine that we hear about; the God of the Old Testament was a harsh demanding god but the God of the New is the good guy. Actually the God of the New is just as demanding, in fact in some ways more so, than He was in the Old. The differance is that in the New He will take - has taken out His vengence on His own Son rather than on us as individuals IF we will accept the work of Christ on our behalf. The Body of Christ has not been subjected to the usual domineering methods of earth’s rulers; swear an oath of aligence, keep the rules, fear the system, hate the ‘bad’ guys not me, be ignorant. Our Ruler’s yoke is easy and His burden is light. With the change of the priesthood, from that of Aaron to that of Christ, there came a change of rules. Oh sure I would like to have a way to make church members fall in line but our rules are - Love one another, Encourage each other, Pray for each other, Don’t miss the weekly motivational ralies, Esteem all others as greater than ourselves, “Learn of Me, Know Me”. “The love of Christ constrains us..”... ; where as even love was legislated in the Old, it is earned in the New.. “... He died as us”! Think of it that way, ‘He died AS me’ is a lot worse than ‘He died FOR me’is, as bad as that would be, then you begin to understand how the God of the New could be more harsh and demanding than that of the Old.
Did the Head of the Church deligate authority to certain people to rule His Body? No! The body works as an integrated network of individual units each of which has its own direct connection to the head. If the watchman on the wall has responsibility for the people in the city it is not because he has authourity over them! Likewise if the elders of a church will be held accountable for the loss of members of the body it is not because they had authority over the church! Too many times already “leaders” have taken on authority over the members and then demanded an oath of aligence to their system. God never ment for Israel to have any government but an autocratic, in the sence of rule by one alone, theocracy; when they demanded a king God told Samuel “they have not rejected you, they have rejected Me”. Episcopal government of a religous body shows all the hallmarks of rule by dominance and the differance between that and Presbyterial government is that all the power is not supposed to be held in the hands of one single person in a Presbytery.

To Know or not To Know

Mormons have a ‘father of us all god’, Muslims have ‘Alah’, North American Indians had ‘gitchy manito’ (spelling?), Candace has a ‘frontal lobotomy god’, what’s his name has ‘god is greater than us all but we are all god - god’ (wholism), others have an ‘electro chemical zap god’, liberal ‘christians’ have a ‘myth god’ (Gen 1-13,14,15... are myth), there are those who have a ‘supreme being god’, jw ‘know of god’, catholics orthadox anglican have ‘god’, CS had ‘aslan’; so the question is do all roads lead to heaven?
They “profess that they know God” Tts 1:16 “but” as Rom 1:21 says “When they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God... and their foolish heart was darkened...” it does not mean ‘to know’ in an absolute sence but rather to be aware of God. Every body is aware of God. Few know or are known by God. So who is the god that they know?
1Jhn 5:20 the God that John taught of is the true God
Heb 8:6-13 we find the true God in the NT Gospel
1Jhn 2:3-6 we have to be footstep followers of Jesus
Jhn the antithesis of agnostic, ‘know’ appears 27 times in1-3Jhn and 70 in thegospel
Jhn 17:3 “this is life eternal, that they might KNOW You the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” To KNOW God is to BE covered by the blood of Jesus and therefore have access inside the veil to be With God.
Heb 10:26-31 Judgment waits for those who “have done despite to the Spirit of grace” 2Thess 1:8 “the Lord shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire taking vengence on those who Do Not KNOW God ...” Matt 7:22-23 “Lord have we not ... done many wonderful things in your name?” But the Lord says “depart from Me, you who work iniquity, I never knew you ! !” meaning that it was NOT God whom they thought they knew.
IT IS True that two people can use all the same words and expressions and be talking about two entirely differant things and one or the other or both be blithly unaware of what is happening ! ! Jesus told us to be wise and discerning.

C.S.

C.S.Lewis was very Anglican, his literary confidant at the club, JRR Tolkin, was Catholic and he chose George MacDonald as his mentor and no one knows what George was. There is a verse in the Bible that says “God is not willing that any should perish” so George decided that that meant that every one will eventually go to heaven. He did not believe in purgatory, he believed that when each person met God after death that person would accept the work of Christ for him, George’s own brand of irresistible grace. CS followed him in the Cronicles. At the end of the story we have a fellow who was worshipping an idol/demon entering Aslan’s land (heaven) because he was “sincere” in his worship ! What did CS know about God?

Footstep Followers

2 Cor 1:24
Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith you stand. Not withstanding the interpretation that some have of Heb 13:17 “obey those who have the rule over you” Episcopal government of a church is not part of Christ’s plan for the church. Nor is Presbyterial either. “Helpers” is used in one other ref, Ro 16:3 “P and A my helpers, colabourers, in Christ”. “Obey” as used in Heb 13:17 means to convince, to pacify or conciliate and is also translated as agree, assure, believe, have confidence, make friend, persuade, trust, and yield; none of which imply a formal government with a hierarchy of deligated authority. In three referances ‘obey’ is used in referance to the truth and the other referance is the one about putting a bit in a horses mouth so that it may do what we would like it to do. The phrase “they watch for your soul as those who must give account” could give some people (who are already predisposed in that direction) to think, authority and rule and law, you do what I say; however the prophet had no “authority” over the people but God told him he was a watchman on the wall who if he did not blow the trumpet in the face of impending disaster would personaly carry blame for the loss of people of the city if he did not warn them. If there is an entity of the church that is above the majority of the members then the members have only to do what the ‘rulers’ say and can (and must) otherwise sit back and do nothing. If the Episcopaliate or Presbyteriate try to claim that the members are not to blindly unquestioningly obey them then why are they there? If the individual member has a responsibility to keep the ruling elite in line then the government is a myth and evaporates and the congregation is after all the final authority in the church. If there is no heirarcical church government ruling by Divine Right there is far more responcibility on each individual church member and on those who are not formal members but do attend. Paul said “we do NOT have dominion over your faith”, and he also said “follow us as we follow Christ”. Each one of us is responsible for putting our own feet one step at a time in the footsteps of Jesus.